Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Dred Scott
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 71,463
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2235
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Dred Scott
Don't you just love it when non-lawyers try to explain the nuances of law to lawyers?
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2021 03:28 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-07-2021 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Oman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,741
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 175
I Root For: Memphis !!
Location: Cordova
Post: #22
RE: Dred Scott
(09-07-2021 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't you just love it when non-lawyers try to explain the nuances of law to lawyers?

just stick around... he'll keep digging.
09-07-2021 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
scorpius Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Post: #23
RE: Dred Scott
The point of this post is how the devil is in the details of the Republican party taking up the pro-life position 40 years ago. Devil is now here wanting it's payment. You might brush this off thinking it will go away, but it didn't in the 70's until we put a patch on it. Take away the patch and someone is going to feel the heat. Who do you think that will be? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
09-08-2021 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
maximus Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,101
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 872
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location:
Post: #24
Dred Scott
I found Scorps hero

https://twitter.com/ben_brown_md/status/...30080?s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
09-08-2021 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
scorpius Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Post: #25
RE: Dred Scott
Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021 06:03 PM by scorpius.)
09-13-2021 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
maximus Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,101
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 872
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Dred Scott
(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.
Put this post next to mental gymnastics in the dictionary

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
09-13-2021 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MileHighBronco Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,415
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 754
I Root For: Broncos
Location: Forgotten Time Zone
Post: #27
RE: Dred Scott
I put it in the mental defective category.
09-13-2021 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jugnaut Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,176
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 387
I Root For: UCF
Location: Florida
Post: #28
RE: Dred Scott
(09-07-2021 07:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s probably worth pointing out that they did not analyze the constitutionality of the law and did not issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

This. Any celebrating or despairing by either side is premature.
09-13-2021 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 12,279
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1623
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #29
RE: Dred Scott
It’s rather ironic a liberal would title a thread “Dred Scott” while pushing the narrative of Margaret Sanger.

Sometimes life is stranger than fiction.
09-13-2021 07:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleaidaholic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,784
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 473
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Dred Scott
(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

So. With your logic we should kill people when they turn 37 also because that was the average life expectancy in the US in 1800. Brilliant.
09-13-2021 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,664
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 363
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Dred Scott
(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  
(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I get that the person who started this thread is here for the trolling and not for the enlightenment. But still, that OP is one of the most genuinely weird/false/ahistorical comments I’ve seen in a long time.

Virtually every word/phrase in the OP contains an assertion or implication that is somewhere between a lie and a fantasy. But life is short and I’m not going to unpack each one of them.

Even so, it’s worth pointing out that both Scott v Sandford and Roe v Wade were acts of judicial aggression by SCOTUS, striking down state and federal laws that offended individual SCOTUS members. The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.

And if SCOTUS should now change or repudiate 48 years of precedent relating to Roe v Wade and it’s judicial progeny… well, Roe v Wade repudiated judicial precedents going back to the Colonial times in one fell swoop. Roe’s proponents didn’t care about “decades of precedent” in 1973, and they don’t care about it now.

It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.

You neglect that finding a proper defendant is a *****. I mean, the case in question cant. Who do you think would the proper defendant?

The only one I can think of is the entire populace of the United States.

Once you have someone exercise the provisions of the law, no problemo.

But, you really havent brain-worked yourself out of the specific provisions of the bill, the structure of the lawsuit you ***** about, let alone the result (i.e. the Supreme no-tabled the issue, i.e. no opinion on the root issues).

But leave it to you for the deep thought mound of rhetorical goo you type in the OP.
09-13-2021 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,389
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 754
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #32
RE: Dred Scott
(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  
(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.
It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.
Statutes do not — by definition, *cannot* — overturn judicial precedent. Only new judicial opinions can do that. Until the courts publish their opinions, no past judicial opinions have been overturned.
09-13-2021 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
scorpius Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Post: #33
RE: Dred Scott
(09-13-2021 08:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You neglect that finding a proper defendant is a *****. I mean, the case in question cant. Who do you think would the proper defendant?

The only one I can think of is the entire populace of the United States.

Once you have someone exercise the provisions of the law, no problemo.

But, you really havent brain-worked yourself out of the specific provisions of the bill, the structure of the lawsuit you ***** about, let alone the result (i.e. the Supreme no-tabled the issue, i.e. no opinion on the root issues).

But leave it to you for the deep thought mound of rhetorical goo you type in the OP.

I'd think a conservative would be more worried about this than a liberal. I mean think of all the vigilante laws liberals can now craft against gun rights, religious freedom or even those who cheat the IRS or the government in any way. The possibilities are endless. Remember it's all about the fear that there's a bounty on your head, and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. I'm sure this really gets you excited. But this is the kind of anarchy society we expect after putting such extremists on the court.

Despite all of that, common sense says that if the government deputizes citizens to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, it's by extension a party to that act, and thus a defendant. If the extremists on the court don't view it that way, then refer to what I wrote above to get excited about the new society we'll live in.

This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's payment is just plain naive.

(09-13-2021 09:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  
(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.
It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.
Statutes do not — by definition, *cannot* — overturn judicial precedent. Only new judicial opinions can do that. Until the courts publish their opinions, no past judicial opinions have been overturned.

Anything the Supreme Court does can set a precedent. Despite no formal ruling, they still decided to let a blatantly unconstitutional law go into effect when they had the opportunity to stop it. If that can't change precedent I don't know what can.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021 02:31 AM by scorpius.)
09-15-2021 02:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ericsrevenge76 Away
Jesus is coming soon
*

Posts: 17,151
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 1784
I Root For: The Kingdom
Location: The Body of Christ
Post: #34
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Despite all of that, common sense says that if the government deputizes citizens to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, it's by extension a party to that act, and thus a defendant. If the extremists on the court don't view it that way, then refer to what I wrote above to get excited about the new society we'll live in.



You wouldn't be aware of "common sense" if someone shoved it up your a55 and set fire to it.

You literally have SUB-ZERO capacity to comprehend and identify common sense in anything you have ever opined on here.

And that is not meant as a personal attack, its an acknowledgement of reality that you have no conception or awareness of at all.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021 05:28 AM by ericsrevenge76.)
09-15-2021 04:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 71,463
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2235
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #35
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?
09-15-2021 06:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TigerBlue4Ever Offline
Proud Boomer
*

Posts: 55,285
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 2912
I Root For: right
Location: is everything
Post: #36
RE: Dred Scott
Some people just love the sound of their own voice. It doesn't matter how insane their words are.
09-15-2021 07:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
scorpius Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Post: #37
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021 01:29 PM by scorpius.)
09-15-2021 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 71,463
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2235
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 01:28 PM)scorpius Wrote:  
(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.
And exactly what was that deal with the devil?
Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's [sic] payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.

The so-called "voodoo" economics ushered in a remarkably long period of prosperity, so much so that pretty much all of western Europe took note and emulated--or went even further.

As far as the Equal Rights Amendment, nothing deserved more to die.

The pro-life movement was really more evangelicals and neocons than libertarian conservatives/republicans. I am very much in the latter group, but really did not see Reagan leaning too far toward the former.
09-15-2021 06:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,389
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 754
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #39
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Anything the Supreme Court does can set a precedent. Despite no formal ruling, they still decided to let a blatantly unconstitutional law go into effect when they had the opportunity to stop it. If that can't change precedent I don't know what can.
The allegation of “blatant unconstitutionality” of this law is precisely the matter at issue before the judicial system. You demand that the Supreme Court decide the issue before hearing the case — indeed, before the trial court hears the case — and suggest that failing to do so would be a reversal of judicial precedent. I’m sorry but that’s just not how judicial precedent works. Not even close.
09-15-2021 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,389
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 754
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #40
RE: Dred Scott
(09-15-2021 01:28 PM)scorpius Wrote:  
(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.
It was approximately the same time (1970’s) that the Democrats (at the National level) embraced the pro-choice movement on abortion. Some consider *that* to have been (and still is today) “a deal with the Devil”. But using that kind of descriptive language has had no impact on Democrats/pro-choice people, and it is equally meaningless when used against Republicans/pro-life people.
09-15-2021 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.