RTO Trainer

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<eqt5d0pf1khgjvokbmfe7t9hs888vhm4gp@4ax.com>. ..
> bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:
>
> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<pn51d05gtaikosmbh0u0lrbjl9ck0cvn7d@4ax.com>. ..
> >:|> bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>. ..
> >:|> >:|> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|Dana wrote:
> >:|> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|> <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >:|> >:|> >:|> news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
> >:|> >:|> >:|> > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
> >:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|refilled as we speak.
> >:|> >:|> >:|> >
> >:|> >:|> >:|> > Do you have a site for that?
> >:|> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|> As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
> >:|> >:|> >:|> Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
> >:|> >:|> >:|> you can do.
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
> >:|> >:|> >:|guardian with "status" file it de novo.
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
> >:|> >:|> >:|court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
> >:|> >:|> >:|act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
> >:|> >:|> However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
> >:|> >:|> "technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
> >:|> >:|> one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
> >:|> >:|> those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
> >:|> >:|> with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
> >:|> >:|> they ruled he didn't.
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
> >:|> >:|> since Newdow "didn't have standing."
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
> >:|> >:|> they not elected to take the easy way out.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
> >:|> >:|avoid a constitutional finding?
> >:|>
> >:|> I already explained that.
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|I don't see the explanation.
> >:|
> >:|> >:|If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
> >:|> >:|if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.
> >:|>
> >:|> Such cases as what.
> >:|> Challenging something that is unconstitutional?
> >:|> Why are you afraid of that.
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|Why would you look for a hidden meaning? Such cases where an
> >:|individual did not have proper standing (the reason the case was not
> >:|considered on the merits).
> >:|
> >:|> BTW, the court frequently looks for ways to avoid deciding
> >:|> constitutionality
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|They do. They also try to make certain that only cases come to them
> >:|that have followed proper procedures. One should check for this
> >:|before deciding that the reason was the issue itself.
>
>
> Part of this was actually sent in reply to Strickland but hey it works here
> too:
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >:|He doesn't need a law school alma matter. He accurately predicted that
> >:|Standing would be an issue. He was able to make an accurate prediction
> >:|without a degree, and the 9th with all of its collective degrees could not
> >:|make the same prediction, and address it.
>
> One should read something before they make a total ass of themselves.
>
> Let me enlighten you
> DID YOU KNOW:
> for example that your so called "being right" isn't such a feather in your
> cap after all.
>
> Standing wasn't an issue, standing was a cop put. It had nothing to do with
> standing, it had to do with choosing the easy way out.
>
> You don't believe me, maybe you will believe Chief Justice Rehnquist:


Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net

bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:
>:|
>:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?

Apparently far too complex for you to understands if that was your lame
reply to all of that information

Have a nice life

LeMod Pol

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
>
> bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:
> >:|
> >:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?
>
> Apparently far too complex for you to understands if that was your lame
> reply to all of that information

What information?? Very little of your prior post was
information:--
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<eqt5d0pf1khgjvokbmfe7t9hs888vhm4gp@4ax.com>. ..

> > One should read something before they make a total ass of themselves.
> >
> > Let me enlighten you
> > DID YOU KNOW:
> > for example that your so called "being right" isn't such a feather in your
> > cap after all.
> >
> > Standing wasn't an issue, standing was a cop put. It had nothing to do with
> > standing, it had to do with choosing the easy way out.
> >
> > You don't believe me, maybe you will believe Chief Justice Rehnquist:
>
> Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing
> terribly new. What's the point?

While you quoted 100 lines totally irrelevant to your
pompous rant, White (posting from Afghanistan) simply
asked "What's the point?"

He was right! Both that rant and your followup ad hom
rant were/are pointless.

BTW- Bill White was one of the proponents of
us.talk.constitution, and is nobody's fool.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

>:|What information?? Very little of your prior post was
>:|information:--

So you say

>:|While you quoted 100 lines totally irrelevant to your
>:|pompous rant, White (posting from Afghanistan)

Hmmmmmm why was this (posting from Afghanistan) Should I be impressed?

I'm posting from Virginia. Big deal and don't be impressed, I'm not
impressed with Virginia either.

>:|simply
>:|asked "What's the point?"

The point was the standing ruling was cop out, an escape valve.

The fact is, he did have standing, regardless what the five said.

The original post was a reply to another, and it accomplished that which it
was meant to accomplish

Since your buddy mentioned standing I re-posted it in reply to him as well.
It fit, perhaps not as perfectly as in the first case but fit nicely there
as well

I don't need you or his agreement to make it valid.

>:|He was right! Both that rant and your followup ad hom
>:|rant were/are pointless.

Much of what I have seen you post fits that as well.
You seem very rude and fast to attack others to lay insults etc.

I usually don't bother reading that which you post.

You don't like what I post, don't read it. I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it

The only reason I replied to this was because it was in direct reply to one
of my replies

>:|
>:|BTW- Bill White was one of the proponents of
>:|us.talk.constitution, and is nobody's fool.

So.
It's a newsgroups I don't get nor would I be interested to subscribe to if
I did.

Nor am I a fool, so what have we accomplished here this day, huh?
Anything?

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net

bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:

>:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?

I will apologize for the use of the reply to Jeffy Strickland without
editing it. I had forgotten that I was a bit hard on jeffy as many here
are. (There is a history between jeffy Strickland and a number of people in
a couple of these newsgroups, you have to be part of it to understand)
I should have edited those portions out and i didn't and I do apologize for
that

Yes standing is a valid legal principle, it can also serve as a escape
valve as it did in this case.
That was my point. perhaps the other reply I sent this morning makes it
better.

LeMod Pol

Excess newsgroups trimmed

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
>
> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

I usually don't bother reading that which you post.

LOL - your loss

>You don't like what I post, don't read it. I'm not
going to lose any
>sleep
>over it

>The only reason I replied to this was because it was
in direct reply
>to one
>of my replies

Ssuuuurre! The thread has 44 posts in
us.talk.constitution, of which 9 are yours. 6 are mine
including the starter.

> >BTW- Bill White was one of the proponents of
> >us.talk.constitution, and is nobody's fool.
>
> So.
> It's a newsgroups I don't get nor would I be interested to subscribe > to if
> I did.

> Nor am I a fool, so what have we accomplished here this day, huh?
> Anything?

Nobody accused you of being a fool, even though you
sometimes play the role. Your disrespect of Bill
White, who is on active duty in Afghanistan, did you no
credit.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

RTO Trainer

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<1jo8d01vc38erlvf531i9cmoonft1n82si@4ax.com>. ..
> bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:
>
> >:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?
>
> I will apologize for the use of the reply to Jeffy Strickland without
> editing it. I had forgotten that I was a bit hard on jeffy as many here
> are. (There is a history between jeffy Strickland and a number of people in
> a couple of these newsgroups, you have to be part of it to understand)
> I should have edited those portions out and i didn't and I do apologize for
> that
>
> Yes standing is a valid legal principle, it can also serve as a escape
> valve as it did in this case.
> That was my point. perhaps the other reply I sent this morning makes it
> better.

Being a valid legal principle then, is it wrong somehow to use it, if
you beleive that standing was a problem to avoid the merits of a case?
So long as you aren't inventing a lack of standing I don't see the
problem.