Serious Question for Leftists

J

Jim Thompson

Guest
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix
<me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.


1985 NY Fed vs. TX State. The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business. So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-partners
Click to expand...
That's just a TRO. What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
Constitution.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Thu, 26 May 2011 09:50:57 -0700 (PDT), linnix
<me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

On May 26, 9:46 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix



m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

1985 NY Fed vs. TX State.  The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business.  So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par...

That's just a TRO.  What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
Constitution.

Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden
by C.
Click to expand...
AFAIK ALL state actions can be appealed to Federal Courts ??

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.
Click to expand...
1985 NY Fed vs. TX State. The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business. So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-partners
 
On May 26, 9:46 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix



m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

1985 NY Fed vs. TX State.  The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business.  So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par...

That's just a TRO.  What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
Constitution.
Click to expand...
Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden
by C.
 
On May 26, 9:56 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 09:50:57 -0700 (PDT), linnix



m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On May 26, 9:46 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix

m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

1985 NY Fed vs. TX State.  The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business.  So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par....

That's just a TRO.  What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
Constitution.

Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden
by C.

AFAIK ALL state actions can be appealed to Federal Courts ??
Click to expand...
No, first to state SC, then US SC. The US SC said lower Fed and
Appeal Courts had no business meddling in state judiciary systems. It
was unfair for the trial to be in TX or NY. It should have been done
in CA, where getty was based. But the Texaco legal team should have
done that much earlier.
 
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Click to expand...
Bush v Gore
 
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:34:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Yes, well, nice try but the left has answered that question a thousand
times on myriad 'talking head' programs and it's 'any decision they
don't like' because that's their nonsensical sophist 'definition' of
'activism' which, in turn, is part and parcel of their favorite
tactics of simply redefining everything and declaring false
equivalencies.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:
There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there,
by left-leaning judges, who decided cases
based on "warm-and-fuzzy" rather than the law.

(JT's brain-dead inclusion of alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Click to expand...
on the To: line in a text-only post removed.)

Antonin Scalia claims to be just following the law
but if you go over his decisions one by one,
you'll see ideology deeply embedded in the pattern.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges
twisting the interpretation of the law.

The full personhood of corporations:
Click to expand...
The Long March of corporate-friendly SCOTUS decisions
dates back to 1886. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
culminating in unlimited spending on political campaigns
without any transparency required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
..
..
I used to be a Leftist. Now I'm a Radical Far Leftist.
Capitalism has reverted to a feudalistic state;
if you're not the lord of the manor, you're just another serf;
the Middle is disappearing and the serf class expands daily.
Think you are immune? Guess again.
The top 0.01% want ALL of the wealth.
It stopped being about what you could *buy* a long time ago.
Now it's just a dick-measuring contest and a power grab
and they won't stop until it's a complete oligarchy.
..
..
[1] It was actually a clerk who slipped in the personhood provision;
the justices, however, ate it up with a spoon when they saw it.
 
On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT), "miso@sushi.com"
<miso@sushi.com> wrote:

On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

                                        ...Jim Thompson
[snip]

The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.
http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm
Click to expand...
IMNSHO: No treatment of a liberal should be considered "torture" ;-)

And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning
judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.
Click to expand...
"In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said
the majority justices adopted an excessively permissive reading of
federal immigration law in authorizing the Arizona statute.

Federal immigration law bars states from imposing civil or criminal
sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants. But it allows the
states to adopt licensing regulations related to the employment of
illegal immigrants."

Arizona's law IS a "licensing law".

====

How about dumbshit judge "Sumi"? I'll not tell you what that judge
did, figuring you're too ignorant to know on your own :)


====

I could go on for hours.

Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you
know the difference between a text and binary file?
Click to expand...
What? Binary group lurkers can't read text ?:)

If you would get your nose out of your own butt hole you might smell
the roses ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Click to expand...
The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.
http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm

And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning
judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.

Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you
know the difference between a text and binary file?
 
On May 26, 3:17 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"











m...@sushi.com> wrote:
On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
[snip]

The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.
http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm

IMNSHO: No treatment of a liberal should be considered "torture" ;-)



And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning
judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.

"In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said
the majority justices adopted an excessively permissive reading of
federal immigration law in authorizing the Arizona statute.

Federal immigration law bars states from imposing civil or criminal
sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants. But it allows the
states to adopt licensing regulations related to the employment of
illegal immigrants."

Arizona's law IS a "licensing law".

===
How about dumbshit judge "Sumi"?  I'll not tell you what that judge
did, figuring you're too ignorant to know on your own :)

===
I could go on for hours.



Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you
know the difference between a text and binary file?

What?  Binary group lurkers can't read text ?:)

If you would get your nose out of your own butt hole you might smell
the roses ;-)

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Click to expand...
Immigration is a federal issue, plain and simple. To interpret the law
otherwise means the judge is an activist.

Now excuse me while I mail Bernie Sanders some free speech, er I mean
money.
 
On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.
Click to expand...
I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
 
On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.
Click to expand...
So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and
WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one
of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty
under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either
of them did!

Charlie
 
Tim Wescott wrote:

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.

Were the two guys Negro?
Click to expand...

Thanks,
Rich
 
Charlie E. wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.

So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and
WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one
of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty
under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either
of them did!

Or get them on conspiracy, like they do with guys who hire hitmen.
Click to expand...

Cheers!
Rich
 
On 05/27/2011 12:22 PM, Charlie E. wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott<tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.

So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and
WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one
of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty
under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either
of them did!
Click to expand...
So, that's the approach the DA should have taken. Not the obvious --
and obviously government sanctioned -- lie that _both_ of them,
_separately_ shot _one_ fatal shot.

I'm all for putting the bad guys in jail, and in this case it was
obvious that both fellows colluded to kill their victim. But letting
the DA get away with his lie means that he can lie about _me_ or _you_
when we're completely innocent. Then unless we have barrels full of
money we're going to go to jail or worse, and when they're done with us
we won't have any money at all.

When we give up our liberty for security, we will find ourselves with
neither.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
 
On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.
Click to expand...
And why, exactly, does wanting to live in a country where I can enjoy
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make me a "leftist"?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
 
On Fri, 27 May 2011 14:07:27 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

And why, exactly, does wanting to live in a country where I can enjoy
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make me a "leftist"?
Click to expand...
That's a ridiculous strawman sophism because no one made any such
claim.
 
On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Besides that being only your claim as to what allegedly happened in
supposed cases for which you provide no source or evidence, what law
are you alleging the judge 'reinterpreted' to suit his fancy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top