A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Where no two people are likely to agree.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:08 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:00 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Thats basically correct with explanation only recessary at the edges.
No Bobbo. Your statement is simply not correct (the law doesn't have "edges" you can ignore.)
"edges" refers to my explanation.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:00 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: SD also applies to the SC....but they don't have to follow it
They certainly do.
I gave you a link to 10 cases the SC has overruled.

Overruled:https://thelawdictionary.org/overrule/

Definition of OVERRULE: To supersede; annul; reject by subsequent action or decision. A judicial decision is said to be overruled when a later decision, ...
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what overruled means.

One missed clear reference, one rather unbelievable instance of being wrong and refusing to learn..........and an additional two questions completely ignored. Well, ha, ha...........you're getting better.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Well, ha, ha...........you're getting better.
So, despite your irrelevant post, I have now educated you and you now understand that the Supreme Court is required to operate under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Your previous claim was complete nonsense. :lol: :lol:

(I know about this because of taxation test cases)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:22 am

No Matt. Read the links. I gave you a link to 10 cases the SC has overruled. Exercise some common sense................. maybe one of those three methods of overturning a SC ruling would apply that you referred to but have not supplied? what else does overturn mean Matt?
Matthew Ellard wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:55 pm
.... you will tell me the three methods that will overturn application of a Supreme Court ruling to a lower court or overturn a Supreme Court Ruling as in total
.

Downright.......................weird. Multiple Personalities?? Burn Out??? The cat walking on the keyboard???? Obviously, some entity that can't read.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: No Matt. Read the links. I gave you a link to 10 cases the SC has overruled.

I didn't ask you for ten cases the Supreme Court overruled. I informed you that the Supreme Court is bound by its earlier rulings and obiters , when appeals are lodged under the doctrine of stare decisis. You claimed they did not have to follow the doctrine which would make all earlier Supreme Court rulings redundant.

Try harder to make stuff up next time. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:48 am

No Matt. What does overturned mean?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: No Matt. What does overturned mean?
You are a complete idiot. :lol: :lol:

An applicant appeals to the Supreme court, from a lower court's decision based on the existing "obiter dictum" or ratio decidend of the Supreme court, not exactly matching the lower court's decision.

I now know you don't know the difference between an "obiter dictum" and a "ratio decidendi" (ruling).

Write down the difference for us and the rules of appeal concerning distinguishing a case based on the orbiter and ratio decidendi of a higher court under the doctrine of stare decisis.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

"Ellard" iz an (@#$&)

Post by Tom Palven » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:03 am
It was Senator Dianne Feinstein who asked Attorney General Holder to prosecute Assange specifically under the Espionage Act in 2010. She still sits on the senate intelligence committee and instructs the DNI.

It is Trump who doesn't want Assange interrogated........for obvious reasons.

Jerk that Trmp is, there's no dooubt that you are more of a warmongering neoconservative then he is.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:48 am

Tom Palven wrote: Jerk that Trmp is, there's no dooubt that you are more of a warmongering neoconservative then he is.
1) Australia didn't have US Neoconservatives.
2) I am a socialist in a socialist country,
3) You don't know the difference between Syria and Ukraine.
4) You support ISIS and Taliban, as you are an idiot.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:24 am

Well Matt, you've said you have graduated from High School, and I take you at your word. Still.........few such graduates are as willfully ignorant as you display and NONE are as incapable of reading and understanding linked authority right on point that disagrees with the position you take. It strikes me you are not that stupid........but something of like value is going on.

Performance Art?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:51 am

Not knowing what either term means, I thought I would look them up.......you know.........always open to new ideas.........or even the hint of one, an invitation to review an make a better argument if you will. so:

1. obiter dictum: (law) an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding

2. ratio decidend: not found. Google adds an "i" and gives us: Ratio decidendi - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". ... Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis.

Well......it looks like obiter dictum is completely irrelevant and RD is the actual holding or point of law that SD generally requires to be followed until the Supremes sing otherwise?

Well.........as stated: half wrong and half mere repetition. aka: Nothing New. Do you assume any other caricatures? I liked those loons on Monty Python with the handkerchiefs for hats who hit themselves with bricks. How does that feel Matt or do you use rubber bricks???
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Not knowing what either term means, I thought I would look them up......

1. obiter dictum: (law) an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding on the current case's ruling but rather how the superior court would decide another case if those other facts were present, and thus admissible arguments in a lower case under stare decisis) )

2. Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". ... Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis.

Well......it looks like obiter dictum is completely irrelevant.
Well you got that totally wrong as per usual The obiter dictum by the majority is used by lower courts in distinguishing one set of facts from those of the superior court. This is law 101 and why lawyer have to read the case's summation.

Do you now understand why the ratio decendi or obiters hve to match exactly or the superior court can overturn a case on appeal?

Try harder next time.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well Matt, you've said you have graduated from High School ....Law at University of NSW.
Try harder next time. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:41 am

How many bricks did that take? ((Cross posting....but I see it applies to both your posts.))
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How many bricks did that take? ((Cross posting....but I see it applies to both your posts.))
Try to post in coherent English next time. I haven't got a clue what you are saying. :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:49 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:38 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Not knowing what either term means, I thought I would look them up......

1. obiter dictum: (law) an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding on the current case's ruling but rather how the superior court would decide another case if those other facts were present, and thus admissible arguments in a lower case under stare decisis) )
.........wow Matt Wow. Making {!#%@} up and then underlining it for emphasis? Yeah....you got two feet firmly planted in stupid land. So, let me get this straight: a judge can voice an opinion that is not binding in the case right before him but it is binding on a case that hasn't even been brought yet?

Amazing. I"d love to see you in Court Matt. What color nose do you prefer? Staring Decisively says: Blue for Civil but Red for Criminal.......oh....your a tax man right?........Checkered.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:47 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How many bricks did that take? ((Cross posting....but I see it applies to both your posts.))
Try to post in coherent English next time. I haven't got a clue what you are saying. :lol:
Ah ha! So.....its attention span. Thus causing you to constantly refer to a small but easily remembered bag of stock rejoinders. Makes sense.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:54 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Ah ha! So.....its attention span
No Bobbo. It's you inability to use clear English or format your posts. :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:57 am

Bricks of the rubber kind were mentioned in the post two above yours asking what was meant by them. The loons complained of headaches while hitting themselves in the head with bricks.

Its kinda like reading 3-4 posts that talk about emp's being tested by explosions 200-250 miles high and you posting you thought they were set off at low altitude. I mean: how directly do you have to be spoon fed?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: So, let me get this straight: a judge can voice an opinion that is not binding in the case right before him but it is binding on a case that hasn't even been brought yet?
1) All precedents are for future cases that have yet to be heard, you complete idiot.
2) If a Judge's obiter states that the law of the current case does not apply to alternative circumstances such as "X" then a lawyer can use that obiter to distinguish his case if "X" exists, in a lower court.

Try harder next time.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:04 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: So, let me get this straight: a judge can voice an opinion that is not binding in the case right before him but it is binding on a case that hasn't even been brought yet?
1) All precedents are for future cases that have yet to be heard, you complete idiot.
2) If a Judge's obiter states that the law of the current case does not apply to alternative circumstances such as "X" then a lawyer can use that obiter to distinguish his case if "X" exists, in a lower court.

Try harder next time.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I agree as to point one but I was focusing on the "binding nature" which does not exist as you state. As to point two I agree as well but that is not all that you said. what you first said was that such "distinguishing" was BINDING. Its not. Its just an argument that many courts will say "That was only obiter dictum and is not binding" if they don't want to follow it, but say "Excellent Point" if they do. Exactly the same way the SC overrules/overturns prior caselaw they no longer wish to follow.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:26 am

1. obiter dictum: (law) an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding
LINK: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/obiter+dictum
2. ratio decidend: not found. Google adds an "i" and gives us: Ratio decidendi - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". ... Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis.
LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

Direct Question - 12
: and your LINK is ????????

and your answer to direct question No 11 remains unanswered and totally dismisses your argument.............unless like your definition of obiter dictum you made it up too?
Matthew Ellard wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:55 pm
.... you will tell me the three methods that will overturn application of a Supreme Court ruling to a lower court or overturn a Supreme Court Ruling as in total.

I don't know. My evidently ignorant position is that the Supremes simply issue a decision that in various degrees overturns, distinguishes, or adds requirements to prior decisions? I mention 3 variations just to parallel your construct.....I have no idea how responsive they are. Q-11: What are those three ways?
Note to the dull: as a general rule, MEANS ITS NOT BINDING.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I agree as to point one but I was focusing on the "binding nature" which does not exist as you state.
It exists exactly as I state. That's how lawyers distinguish future cases in lower courts.

As you are ignorant about the law you are unaware that some cases go straight to the highest court so as to establish precedents based on ratios and distinguishing obiters, rather than have twenty years of all the lower courts having to be open to appeal. This is most common when new legislation is introduced . I even explained this to you when I talked about "test cases". It went over your head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_case_(law)

Try harder next time. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:30 am

THIRD REQUEST: Please Provide:

Answer to Q-11- the Three ways you say a SC decision can be overruled. ((You said it.........I said it too and still maintain it, but YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed. Its a human failing to get lazy and write what you think you know is true. Thats what links are for.))

Answer to Q12- Your LINK?

You are transparently mischaracterizing and diversionary.......and, and..........repetitive.

.................Just Look. ((bwhahahahahah!!))
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Answer to Q-11- the Three ways you say a SC decision can be overruled.
1) Equity Law, on appeal that outweighs a Commonlaw ruling by the Supreme Court,
2) New Legislation or constitutional amendment ends previous case decisions and forces a test case with new rulings.
3) Legislation causing ab initio, until a new hearing is made, making previous decisions void

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed.
You are an idiot, The Supreme Court has to follow the constitution by offering interpretation rulings.

The Supreme Court has to follow the doctrine of stare decisis because it makes the senior court ruling, you complete idiot.

You really haven't got a clue as to what I am informing you about. You are just too stupid.
:lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:05 am

WEll! Thanks Matt, I know that took an effort.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Answer to Q-11- the Three ways you say a SC decision can be overruled.
1) Equity Law, on appeal that outweighs a Commonlaw ruling by the Supreme Court,
Equity or any other law, issue, or procedure "outweighs" a common law (sic) ruling or any other ruling by the SC: ONLY WHEN THE SC RULES THAT WAY. Its right in the "S"==>Supreme. More supreme than the Constitution BECAUSE its the Supremes that decide what the Constitution says/means. This "way" is just a restatement of the original question: How does a Supreme Court decision get overruled?====Your Answer: The SCT overrules a lower court. Circular and inept.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Answer to Q-11- the Three ways you say a SC decision can be overruled.

2) New Legislation or constitutional amendment ends previous case decisions and forces a test case with new rulings.
I think that fairly is a glass half full/empty issue. Your wording is awkward though in that the new legislation or Amendment does not force a test case, rather it provides an "opportunity and argument" for a new case to be brought.....or resurrect an old case if time has not run out and the law/amend is ruled to be retroactive. Its "definitional" whether or not New Law/Amend actually "overrules" old case law that was based on different laws at that time? I assume the techincal wording for what this process describes is well known to the experts.....I just don't know. It all works out the same though: new cases under new laws decided "differently." Close enough?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Answer to Q-11- the Three ways you say a SC decision can be overruled.

3) Legislation causing ab initio, until a new hearing is made, making previous decisions void
Thats hard to imagine. I would say previous decisions are "superseded" by changes in law....the old decisions are not void. and again your language: its not the legislation or the hearing that voids anything but rather a a final decision by the Court. Words do make a difference. Yours sound made up. Prohibition made selling liquor illegal. The laws allowing you to sell liquor the day before were not void and you did not violate any law by selling. It was a "new game." Nothing overruled, no stare decisis. Q-13: If you didn't make these up yourself: got a LINK?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed.
You are an idiot, The Supreme Court has to follow the constitution by offering interpretation rulings.
Yes, and those interpretations change what the Constitution means. Its the difference between "activist judges" and "original intent judges" or conservative vs liberal, or even Republican vs Democrat Judges. Its more insightful to say that the Constitutions "doesn't mean anything" until the SC says what it means. I suppose people can phrase the issue the way you do, but I think it is more valid to say the Supremes "interpret" the Const rather than they "follow" it. Its like you are making the Constitution "other worldly" and beyond error. a thing in itself rather than a human construct. "Hey ....Don't blame us when we ruled for the first time in 250 years that Money is Speech: we're just following the Constitution." Really?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed.
The Supreme Court has to follow the doctrine of stare decisis because it makes the senior court ruling, you complete idiot.
I'll say it again 4-5th time: using slightly different words hoping it will stick one of these days: The act of OVERTURNING a case is the process of NOT FOLLOWING stare decisis. You gave THREE WAYS (sic) that could be done. You can't OVERTURN AND FOLLOW at the same time........well.....the rest of humanity can't. Only you Matt.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed.
You really haven't got a clue as to what I am informing you about.
Well, I'm disagreeing with you point by point for each point you make, answering EVERY question giving the logic and position. I call that a clue.....YOU are contradicted by what you post yourself as if you can't connect. Overturned means stare decisis is NOT FOLLOWED. No clues required. The issue is demonstrated and resolved.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:12 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: YOU are off on a fantasy of SD having to be followed.
You are an idiot, The Supreme Court has to follow the constitution by offering interpretation rulings.
You are just too stupid.
:lol: :lol:
I'd be surprised and rewarded to conclude that. The record before us: this thread, is quite revealing.

Still working on the unanswered questions? .........No..........I didn't think so. That negation is a powerful tool for maintaining inconsistent thoughts.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Equity or any other law, issue, or procedure "outweighs" a common law (sic) ruling or any other ruling by the SC: ONLY WHEN THE SC RULES THAT WAY.
No Bobbo. I stated on appeal by an applicant. The previous commonlaw or (judge made law in US terminology) rulings remain as precedents.


You don't know what Equity Law is do you? What if a commonn law precedent leads to an absurdity in a set of particular circumstances? What doctrine of law sets aside and remedies the commonlaw precedent in that scenario?

The rest of your post was complete crap and not even coherent.. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The record before us: this thread, is quite revealing.
Yes it is. You still can't format posts and don't understand how the font colours work. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:17 pm

Matt: you obsess over "common law"...which is barely mentioned if ever in America. My understanding is that "basically" there are two approaches to the law: common law and statutory. Judge made as you say and legislatively made. In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common....from England. I assume this was the case in Oz as well, or as a penal colony, the law may have been all "administrative?" (Thats half a joke!). But it didn't take long in America for virtually "all" the law that applies to be Statutory. Now, it can be argued that all statutory law "has its roots" in Common Law........but.....in practice that has no meaning at all.....and certainly no "force." To your direct question: common law precedent in the USA does not exist. I see it mentioned in old time movies about country lawyers talking about it as caricatures of overly flowery loquacious country bumpkins, but thats about it. In my life, I've not seen or heard of one instance of common law being referred to in the reporting of any legal case. I assume things might be upside down in Oz. I have no opinion whatsoever about legal history, procedure or outcomes in Oz........or the UK either for that matter. I read the newspapers in the USA.

I could edit the formatting of posted responses to present the colors your prefer: I prefer to spend my time otherwise.

I asked you Q-11: What are those three ways? that S Ct decision are overturned and you gave three answers but fail to connect those answers/understanding to the very simple notion that when a Court "OVERTURNS" previous law or stare decisis that that prior law or stare decisis is no longer followed or valid yet you continue to insist that Courts/Supreme Ct "must follow, are bound by, stare decisis."

Q-14: How can courts overturn, not follow, old law and not change, or not be bound by, stare decisis? Please recognize the simple truth you post yourself.......or continue to embarrass yourself.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:22 pm

Hmmmm.....rereading, I can see its difficult, trying to corral the expected Matt Dodge, so I will restate for simplicity:

Q-14: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by it?


same question:

Q-14: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by stare decisis?

Ha, ha.....so far, Matt has been offered responses on about 3 of 14 questions asked......and the list just keeps on growing. I suppose it is a bit much to ask Matt to answer a direct question and then to understand his own answer?......but that is step two.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: you obsess over "common law"...which is barely mentioned if ever in America.
The Americans renamed "common law" "judge made law". It is exactly the same thing. I have told you this numerous times and you keep forgetting. It is the entire basis of stare decisis, that you pretend you understand, that you simply can't grasp as you are ignorant and an idiot. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: My understanding is that......
I don't care what you understanding is. You don't know the meaning of any of the words I am using. It is like explaining electricity to a hamster. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common...
Are you really so stupid, you are claiming this load of nonsense? The thirteen states were a UK colony using English colonial legislation. WTF did you think the tax laws that the tea party revolted against were?

The rest of you post is as idiotic and incoherent as above.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by it?
The Supreme court overturns the decision of the case in hand and not the individual precedents that an advocate has introduced into that particular case. The court does this by introducing equity precedents.

That is the whole reason a particular common law ruling can be appealed against in the equity courts.

Do you understand the difference between Equity and common law rulings? If not go away.


Thomas Jefferson discussing the limits of equity courts in common law rulings in 1785.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 09-02-0056

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:38 am

We really are separated by our common lanugage...........some times.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:19 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: you obsess over "common law"...which is barely mentioned if ever in America.
The Americans renamed "common law" "judge made law". It is exactly the same thing. I have told you this numerous times and you keep forgetting. It is the entire basis of stare decisis, that you pretend you understand, that you simply can't grasp as you are ignorant and an idiot. :lol: :lol:
Oh. Well, then we agree in a sense. "Common Law" in the USA is not used and is not authority....except perhaps in a few states if they have not gone statutory, and last I heard Louisiana was still using French Law in some way. ..........and........we don't use the term or concept of "Judge Made Law" either. Courts interpret the law and the constitution and make RULINGS. These rulings are stare decisis and "generally" followed: MEANING they are not followed when a lower court grows a set of balls, or the Supremes change the outcome in the ways I described. NO ONE over here calls that "Judge Made Law."
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:19 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: My understanding is that......
I don't care what you understanding is. You don't know the meaning of any of the words I am using. It is like explaining electricity to a hamster. :lol: :lol:
Thats why I provide links. You don't care/understand them either, or even what you post yourself. Hence Q-14 Goes Unanswered.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:19 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common...
Are you really so stupid, you are claiming this load of nonsense? The thirteen states were a UK colony using English colonial legislation. WTF did you think the tax laws that the tea party revolted against were?
yeah, I've noticed you are a bit thick regarding context. I was OBVIOUSLY referencing the start of the USA.....not the end of the colonial period.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:19 am
The rest of you post is as idiotic and incoherent as above.
As stated, I do see the language barrier.......along with your personality and defenses. I still say "Performance Art"....but the steady drip of failure to post coherently is a steady pull to the more obvious.

I'll be asking this for awhile: goes to the crux of the matter, and I think means the same thing on either side of the Pacific?

Q-14: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by it?

same question:

Q-14: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by stare decisis?

C'mon Matt: answer the question to "really" show how..............."idiotic and incoherent" I am. It amuses me.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:51 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: We really are separated by our common lanugage...........some times.
No we are separated by our education levels. "Common" is the English royal word for commoners and thus the US dropped it.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Hence Q-14 Goes Unanswered.
Firstly I am not answering you questions as you do not answer mine. Secondly, after explaining to you what Stare decisis is, you then ask me what US judge made law is. This indicates you haven't got a clue what I am explaining. "Judge made law" is US stare decisis. You are as dumb as Tom Palven. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common...
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I was OBVIOUSLY referencing the start of the USA.....not the end of the colonial period.
You idiot. The USA used English legislation. At no point was there no legislation in the thirteen states. Show me when you think this was?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by it?
I have now explained this three times. A case can be overthrown on its unique circumstances and leave the set of separate common law rulings that TOGETHER were used to make the case, intact. That's how the law works. An appeal to "Equity" rules can overturn a "Commonlaw" decision and leave all the precedents intact exactly as I explained earlier. You didn't bother to read the link I gave with Thomas Jefferson explaining this, did you? :lol: :lol:

As you have never read a case, you are unaware that a barrister ( court lawyer) has to introduce many sub cases (precedents) to apply to the unique matter at hand. A judge may issue, in his obiter a systematic "test" where twenty or so precedents are introduced and show how they relate to the matter or make the matter fail in its own circumstances

Bobbo. you really are too stupid and ignorant to follow what I am explaining. Go study law.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

The Monument to Courage is Deserved

Post by Tom Palven » Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:51 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: How can courts overturn prior law and still be bound by it?


As you have never read a case, you are unaware that a barrister ( court lawyer) has to introduce many sub cases (precedents) to apply to the unique matter at hand. A judge may issue, in his obiter a systematic "test" where twenty or so precedents are introduced and show how they relate to the matter or make the matter fail in its own circumstances

Bobbo. you really are too stupid and ignorant to follow what I am explaining. Go study law.
“Mr. Ellard,” sir, surely you are familiar with the charge “He can’t see the forest for the trees?”

In your case, if the trees represent authoritarian legalisms and the forest represents justice, you are unable to see justice because authoritarian legalisms are in the way.

Below are seven of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights which have been voided by judicial decree or executive orders without ever having been repealed:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Your reliance on the Espionage Act of 1917 to promote JUSTICE for Snowden and Assange indicate that you do not have a CLUE as the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

It's true that within the framework of the US government today, these seven rights are as dead as the Wicked Witch of the West; they are not merely nearly dead, but clearly most sincerely dead.

However, be that as it may, those rights still represent what human beings need in order for truth and justice to prevail.

Sadly, you completely ignore the importance of human rights; and in fact, your reliance on the Espionage Act of 1917 to promote JUSTICE for Snowden and Assange indicates that you are CLUELESS as to the meaning of the Bill of Rights and human rights in general..

Totally and perfectly clueless.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Monument to Courage is Deserved

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:46 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:34 am
Below are seven of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights which have been voided by judicial decree or executive orders without ever having been repealed:.............
Ummmm.........no. Still valid, on the books, and operating to protect good folks in America. I assume you mean that court cases have made "judgments" accommodating the conflict of one right against another making none of them absolute in application? That is not voiding any of them but rather matching circumstances to competing values. Its unavoidable.

Matt: Arguing partial quotes is just ........silly.

I withdraw...........again. Its the subject I find fascinating and worthy of discussion........if one were to be had.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The Monument to Courage is Deserved

Post by Tom Palven » Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:46 pm
Tom Palven wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:34 am
Below are seven of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights which have been voided by judicial decree or executive orders without ever having been repealed:.............
Ummmm.........no. Still valid, on the books, and operating to protect good folks in America. I assume you mean that court cases have made "judgments" accommodating the conflict of one right against another making none of them absolute in application?
No, Bobbo, I mean that both the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights has been completely subverted.

There are countless examples, but I will name just a couple.

One example is the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives in violation of the First Amendmen which the SC upheld as legal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hou ... rtnerships

Another is the Espionage Act passed by Congress in 1917 which directly contradicts the First Amendment statement that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

And another egregious example, that I have cited before, is the droning of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 for speaking out against US involvement in Yemen, and the droning of his 16-year-old American-born son two weeks later, violating both their 1st Amendment right to free speech and their 5th Amendment right to due process, after which Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter was killed in a US commando raid in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

And it's recently been deemed illegal for some American to speak to some Russians, but hugging and kissing elite Saudi Arabian butchers is fine and dandy:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE

To say that the Bill of Rights still protects American citizens is just wishful thinking and sticking one's head in the sand.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:06 pm

Tom: Its a dark and stormy night. Just as you crossed a famously rickety old about to fall down bridge said bridge collapsed into the 1000 foot deep ravine making you the last person to get over the bridge. The ravine route is now a certain passage to death.

Two questions: 1. Would it be against Your Freedom of Speech as you contemplate its absolute application for your to immediately post a detour sign taking traffic from the interstate to that just collapsed bridge?

2. Should such a sign be illegal?

I wait with abated breath your DIRECT response..............ie: no siderails about obiter dicta.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:45 pm

Re Faith Based.........I agree, it does strike me as an illegal establishment of religion. ........just glad I don't "have to" attend.

Espionage Act. I disagree. The gubment does need to keep some secrets........just not as many as they claim.

Droning. I disagree. It was a war zone (I assume.) Not good holiday locations or free speech zones. TIME, PLACE AND MANNER restrictions can be appropriate.........ha, ha....even a drone strike.

Speaking to Russkies: without even going to your link. No.....I think it is appropriately only lying about it to Congress or the FBI. Close, but different issue.

Imagine what Congress would do if there were no bill of rights?................thats right: worse.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:52 am

Tom Palven wrote:“Mr. Ellard,” sir, surely you are familiar with the charge “He can’t see the forest for the trees?”
There is no such charge. It is a proverb from 1564. Do you know what a proverb is? :lol:
Tom Palven wrote:Below are seven of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights which have been voided by judicial decree or executive orders without ever having been repealed:
They were all approved by Congress you complete idiot and an amendment means the wording changed.

Did you even bother to look up the legal process at all?
:lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30293
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:59 am

Tom Palven wrote: No, Bobbo, I mean that both the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights has been completely subverted.
You do realise that the individual 13 states adopted the 1689 UK Bill of Rights, which is consolidated with the 1215 Magna Carta? You do realise that when the USA obtained independence the individual bill of rights of each state had to be amended to remove references to the crown and produce a unified federal Bill of Rights for the USA?

Can you tell us the significance of most of the amendments happening in 1789? Think very hard about this.
:lol: :lol: