A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Where no two people are likely to agree.
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: because there were no statutes.
The United States Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the new United States, (1781) is legislation.

Are you really saying you don't know what legislation is? .
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 Feb 03, 2019 4:10 am

Sorry Matt: You have an outstanding question of merit:

Now..Q-17: How can the Supremes Overturn prior case law, aka: stare decisis, and be bound by stare decisis? You can admit your mistake or throw more {!#%@} on the wall, but this will be asked until resolution or impasse.

On such answer, I'll be happy to explain again the sources of law, and what legislation is and isn't. Both items have already been expressly answered and are known to most high school graduates. You missed a few days of school ...........but not too old to learn. Maybe too stubborn, but we shall see?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Q-17: How can the Supremes Overturn prior case law, aka: stare decisis, and be bound by stare decisis
Here is the answer I gave you two days ago ...which you forgot again. That was the second time I answered the same question.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24767&start=440#p694328

You also forgot that you had no rebuttal, as you got tired and confused and claimed there USA had no legislation which I totally destroyed here.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24767&start=440#p694334

Bobbo. You really shouldn't post after sundown, when you forget tings. You simply repeat the question like Steve Klinko does as you get confused and disorientated.. /color] :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:you've been totally confusing Trial courts that are called Supreme Courts with Appellate Courts that are called High Courts. In USA Trial courts are most often called Superior Courts and our High Court is called the Supreme Court. , I've don't recall you ever doing it. Oh.......is that a form of stare decisis as well????
Are you claiming the Supreme Court of the USA does not hear appeals? :lol: :lol:

Let's have a bet. The loser leaves the forum forever. .
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 Feb 03, 2019 7:20 pm

Matthew, you are an amusing creature. Enough substance to bamboozle the uniformed but nothing but bluster and dogged mischaracterization and misdirection when WRONG. Seems to me I mentioned this a few years ago and you as much admitted you WERE doing it for sport? but, perhaps I read too much into that for I too was bamboozled for quite some time.

Your answer to Q-17 is PURE DIVERSION.........and transparently so. A neutral reader doesn't have to know a thing about legal/court systems to see it.
I'll rephrase it so those slow on the draw might see it more clearly:

Q 17: How can you have your cake and eat it too?

Matts Answer: Because lower courts file a new case based on different laws and the trial court that we call Supreme Court in Oz makes a different ruling.
bobbo with a LINK: You are confusing trial courts that are bound by and don't change stare decisis with your High Court called the Supreme Court in the USA that does eat cake.
Matts Answer: Pure Diversion: "Are you claiming the Supreme Court of the USA does not hear appeals?"
bobbo in direct response: No, Ive been saying the exact opposite right from the start. Its YOU who are confused calling filing a new case at the trial level "an appeal." Its not.

Hmmmmm ..... my first and so far only default to wiki was to look up the Court System in Oz where I observed the same words have different meanings in our two English based languages. Supreme Court in Oz means Trial Court in the USA........while Supreme Court in the USA means the High Court in Oz. Until you give examples of the HIGH COURT being bound by stare decisis, your position is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Of continuing interest to me is whether you have done this thru innocent ignorance and you refuse to recognize this, OR and just as likely, your entire presence on this forum is one of Performance Art where you choose to stick by the first thing you utter and then see if you can defend it no matter its legitimacy or arguments brought against it.

So Matt: Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis? SHOW ME THAT CASE: and yes, I'll stop engaging you forever. Not the whole forum though.......others here a still open to being educated.........as am I.

So...............AMAZE US MATT: how long will you stay on a sunk ship? ha, ha.....a flash of Baghdad Bob just appeared, but had the good sense to finally shut up........or was he arrested???? Whatever happened to Baghdad Bob? Best Evidence so far: changed his name, stole an identity, and started posting on the Skeptics Forum.
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: 19020
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 Feb 03, 2019 8:37 pm

Just so I don't lose it, as I am interested in the subject (cross cultural studies), a nice article confirming everything I have posted and negating everything Matt has posted FROM OZ sources. A long boring read for those not interested.

OVERRULING IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA IN COMMON LAW CASES
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journa ... 10/17.html

Of note, just in passing: lots of emphasis/concern re "common law" in the google search results and this LAW REVIEW article. Not so much in America.....I assume because almost ALL of the common law has been superseded by statutory law. The same process taking place in Oz, just at a slower rate? A quick once over: virtually no difference in approach/outcome between Oz and USA. makes sense as the law is very pragmatic...absent corruption and kinks.

Also.....Oz does not have a bill of rights. I think most of the world, including its democracies, do not. Pros and Cons to that.....much like the FairyTale of having a Constitutional Monarchy. You have to read the words outside of their plain meaning to understand reality. Too many don't.
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matthew, you are an amusing creature. Enough substance to bamboozle the uniformed
Bobbo. You are the "totally uniformed" person posting in this thread. Your most recent idiocy was claiming the early USA had no legislation and only had commonlaw. (Which doesn't even make sense) :lol: :lol:

I don't care what your layman opinions on the law are. The law is not logical nor reasonable. It is for the educated and the skilled. In first year, UK and Commonwealth law students are given the famous example from history. James I, like you, thought he could understand the law and argued with Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke
Sir Edward Coke wrote:...while ( the) monarch is not subject to any individual, he is subject to the law. Until he had gained sufficient knowledge of the law, he had no right to interpret it; The law demanded mastery of an artificial reason ... which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it"
You still get confused in basics, like the difference between Equity and Common law courts, or what legislation is.....

////////////////
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Answer: Because lower courts file a new case based on different laws and the trial court that we call Supreme Court in Oz makes a different ruling.
I never said that and you don't even understand what I wrote. The previous case ruling precedents remain valid for their exact facts of their circumstances. A later case solicitor may use twenty or thirty so case precedents and weave them to match the facts of THE CASE AT HAND. The US Supreme Court may make its decision on common law. An appeal to the same Supreme Court may then be made under Equity Law precedent case law . (When a commonlaw ruling leads to an absurdity) The Supreme Court may reverse its decision, however all the separate existing precedent case law remain valid because of Stare Decisis in the Supreme Court

You simply don't have the brains to understand this and why this is so. (You can't even format posts) :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:58 am
The US Supreme Court may make its decision on common law. An appeal to the same Supreme Court may then be made under Equity Law precedent case law .
No.

I'll add more as you will no doubt continue your performance after you answer the question:

Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis? Note: I did link you to TEN USA cases where overturning the law of the case CHANGED the stare decisis. Thats what happens when you eat the cake.
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: The US Supreme Court may make its decision on common law. An appeal to the same Supreme Court may then be made under Equity Law precedent case law .
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: No.
Yes

Let's have a bet. The loser leaves the forum. Are you in?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:13 am

Again Matt: you are hung up on Australian legal system. I'd have to google but I think the US Supreme Court has NEVER relied on Common Law except to dismiss it?...............or just make a general reference to it and proceed with statutory law. There could well be some early cases, but by and large USA is a STATUTORY SCHEME. Apparently Oz has lots of common law still going on. Lazy legislature?

Whats this turn to you wanting anyone to leave the forum? Heat in the kitchen? My hobby is baking.......you'll lose there too.

When looking at Oz Law for your education: and you really should stop citing trial court rules in OZ for USA Supreme Court procedures....they aren't the same at all. You correctly counselled whoever it was that Nazi Social Party did not make Hitler a socialist just because that word was in both languages. Same here re "Supreme Court." I'd think once this pointed out to you that you could understand the simple mistake you have made.........even if you do think you can eat your cake and have it too?

Can't have any bet with you because you have already demonstrated an incapability of recognizing simple truths. Besides, my own goal would be to have maximum attendance..............and disagreement...........and recognition of error. I know: inconsistent results.

You can't appeal "the same case" to the Supreme Court of the USA. You are all mixed up.........oh.....when looking up that OZ link, I think I read something like: "Unlike Oz........the USA has a unified court system of law and equity.

So...........please stay with us Matt. Your contributions in the evolution threads was excellent. Its good to have at least one under your belt. You do have one under your belt?????
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote: Again Matt: you are hung up on Australian legal system.
No. You didn't answer my question. Do you deny the Supreme Court of the USA can and does hear appeals?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote: I'd have to google but I think the US Supreme Court has NEVER relied on Common Law except to dismiss it?
You absolute idiot, The Supreme court of the USA can only hear cases that rely on existing precedents (case law) to make its ruling on THE MATTER ON HAND.

The appellant's advocate (lawyer) would use twenty or so cases in similar previous decisions to form his/her submission. The defence would use twenty or so cases on similar circumstances to form their submissions. That's how lawyers argue in the Supreme Court of the USA.

I now know you have never read a submission to the Supreme Court of the USA.

(You won't bet with me because you know I already have my evidence ready and I would like you to take a holiday with Tom Palven.) :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
Do you deny the Supreme Court of the USA can and does hear appeals? [/color]
I've said the exact opposite about three times now. I think there are certain "special" cases that can be taken on "somehow" as direct filings (ie without lower court procedures).......but 99.99% of what the Supreme Court OF THE USA does is hear appeals. Appeals are often based on "which" stare decisis should apply.......aka.......various different courts have interpreted some law differently and the appellant is requesting a ruling saying one interpretation is correct and the other wrong. Some appeals are structured solely to challenge and overturn a well settled stare decisis. An example of that is the always unresolved Abortion line of cases. Roe vs Wade was an activist Supreme Court OF THE USA decision that has stood for 50 years or so. Whats all this talk of overruling Roe if stare decisis "must be followed"? btw: Roe v Wade is a long case but extremely informative to read. Why do you continue to ask this question answered repetitively when you fail to appreciate that you should turn your attention to ((see all the wonderful ways you can call someone stupid?)) how the Supreme Courts of OZ do NOT HEAR APPEALS? What they hear is new cases filed under new facts and based on different laws. Matt: you really do not present the laws of Oz or the USA very well at all. I suspect your bluster to the contrary, you actually don't go into court all that often if at all. You spent your time managing music groups and in a tax practice but were in court often enough to be competent? Another case of "claimed valor." I know.............like a cargo pilot: hard to be so close and not get pulled in.

1. Roe v Wade. The full ruling here: long but well worth it for the history, culture, science, of the issue:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 0/113.html
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
The Supreme court of the USA can only hear cases that rely on existing precedents (case law) to make its ruling on THE MATTER ON HAND. [/color]
I've read court cases saying: "This is a matter of first impression....." I think that means there is no applicable case law to apply?.......in those cases I think they revert to gut feelings? Ha, ha.........I mean the Constitution of the USA, and no doubt to relevant principles found in English Common Law, Natural Justice, Analysis of filed "Friends of the Court" briefs, Law Review Articles and so forth. In the end, its still the (informed) opinion of the Majority of the Court. Makes me want to look into the very first case the Supremes took on. I know a very early case was Marbury v Madison that staked out the authority of the Supremes to be the sole arbiters of what the Constitution itself means.........but was there an earlier case? Things are always rough right at the beginning.........usually having little to do with what happens 250 years later..........you know........like King Charles.

So, in the Age of Google, no reason at all not to look it up:

2. Quick Google: "Search Results
The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791).

3. Well THAT is interesting. The first written decision of the Supreme Court of the USA. IN FULL:
2 U.S. 401 (____)
2 Dall. 401
WEST, Plf. in Err.
versus
BARNES. et al.

Supreme Court of United States.

Barnes, one of the defendants.

THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, That writs of error to remove causes to this court from inferior courts, can regularly issue only from the clerk's office of this court.

Motion refused.
No case law at all. .......................... Amusing. Just like I said. I am in awe of my common sense: so often correct.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
The appellant's advocate (lawyer) would use twenty or so cases in similar previous decisions to form his/her submission. The defence would use twenty or so cases on similar circumstances to form their submissions. That's how lawyers argue in the Supreme Court of the USA.
I agree.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
I now know you have never read a submission to the Supreme Court of the USA.
I was an in pro per plaintiff and appellant in a qui tam case filed under seal that I took all the way to the Supremes. Took about three years from start to finish. I've read a few cases. Like the dictionary: lots of good information in well written case holdings and briefs....some an absolute pleasure to read. See Roe v Wade link above.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
(You won't bet with me because you know I already have my evidence ready and I would like you to take a holiday with Tom Palven.) :lol: :lol:
I won't bet because you have already lost by overwhelming direct on point evidence/links/logic/common sense and you confuse "winning" with being totally irrelevant and asking other questions rather than responding on point. Plus.....I don't want anyone to leave the forum. I seek out people who disagree with me. Those are easy to find. Those who can support their positions past 1-2-3 appeals? Not so much..........even on this forum. Like you.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 am
and I would like you to take a holiday with Tom Palven.) :lol: :lol:
My spidey sense tells me Holiday doesn't mean the same thing cross the ocean. Kinda like Supreme Court?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you deny the Supreme Court of the USA can and does hear appeals?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ] I've said the exact opposite about three times now. I think there are certain "special" cases that .........
Supreme Court of the United States, final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States.
/www.britannica.com/topic/Supreme-Court- ... ted-States

Go away Bobbo.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:05 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2 Dall. 401 WEST, Plf. in Err. versus BARNES. et al.
As you are ignorant and making stuff up as you go, you did not realise that this was the Supreme Court of the USA refusing to hear and appeal as they are satisfied the inferior court made the right decision and the motion to hear the case in the Supreme Court was denied.
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/363c6 ... fbed7c89d4


Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts. ... However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedure ... ted_States
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No case law at all. .......................... Amusing.
That's because the case never made it to trial at the Supreme Court you complete idiot!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by landrew » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:57 am
color=#000080]Go away Bobbo. [/color]
That's how you reward a pest.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:09 am

Matt: have you no logic? those two categories are not mutually exclusive. Your little blurb doesn't say "exclusively."

Just posting for the attention now aren't you..............BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thats all thats left when you can't answer the direct questions put to you. Poor Matt. Strung out when not combating Woo.

I'll do this for the first time as you could have Matt ((fingers crossed)) Google: (case of first impression "Supreme Court")..........if that doesn't work maybe (What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) ==========>OK...first impression did not work, its a different issue. On the second search term the first hit of 80 Million is:
The U.S. Supreme Court exercises a right to preside over specific cases and is considered the court of original jurisdiction based on subject-matter jurisdiction. It is considered an appellate court for cases involving constitutional law under certain circumstances.May 9, 2013
I'll rest here where common sense put my pillow and not look up what "subject-matter jurisdiction is." Given your perfect track record of being wrong about everything legal....................the squib is good enough for 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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:color=#000080]Go away Bobbo. [/color]
landrew" wrote: That's how you reward a pest.
Bobbo won't go. He's trying to learn a six year law course and professional updates through Google, without understand a word he is posting. :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:24 am

I see we cross posted. What did I make up Matt? Indeed, I'm arguing by going to the Google, a process i don't much like as everything is of the first impression. I much prefer having considered opinion and using google simply to confirm. Sometimes to my great joy, that confirmation tells me I'm wrong. I love the learning experience. Make me a better man.........know what I mean Matt?

The point of Barnes that I thought was relevant was that they made a RULING without reference to case law which was the point you were advancing. Rereading: still a ruling, a written decision, no case law or stare decisis mentioned........but it was on a "motion" rather than an underlying case. So...I think your criticism is valid: not that you care what I think....Yeah....I know.

For my personal pleasure, I might go back and find some of the earliest "real" cases. What did they rely on with no home grown case law? Just their "opinion" as applied in the instant case of a received motion? I'll bet .....what I've already posted.


Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote: Matt: have you no logic? those two categories are not mutually exclusive. Your little blurb doesn't say "exclusively."
You are an idiot Bobbo. You have made hilarious mistake after mistake. Sometimes you make up hilarious claims on the spot.

The Supreme Court of the USA does hear appeals.

The Supreme Court of the USA is bound by Stare Decisis as that's how court lawyers have to submit their cases to the court using 20 or so preexisting cases.

The Supreme Court of the USA cannot overturn precedents but only point out how the precedent does not apply to the matter at hand.


Go Away

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:32 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
I have now answered this five times. You can't grasp it. A lawyer making a case to the Supreme Court has to show all the existing precedents (case law) to set the grounding of his case. He then argues how the matter at hand is different.

The Court cannot overthrow the precedents being used ( Stare Decisis) but only the point being argued. You simply didn't know that and you assumed the court reviewed all the precedents at the same time. The court cannot do that as they can only deal with the point being made. That's how appeals work.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote: Matt: have you no logic? those two categories are not mutually exclusive. Your little blurb doesn't say "exclusively."
You are an idiot Bobbo.
By not being a complete idiot, am I improving or are you seeing any light at all, or just the rule of fewer key strokes?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
You have made hilarious mistake after mistake.
I need some clarification here. Do you mean mistake after mistake without intervening correctness? With that I would disagree.....I mean that would mean I've made a mistake when I've agreed with you. Is that what you MeanMatt? If you mean mistake number two follow mistakes number one, as mistake number three follows mistake number two: then this is a universal truth hardly worth the mentioning. What do you meanmatt?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
Sometimes you make up hilarious claims on the spot.
No, I don't think so matt. Are you confusing identified guesses and speculations? Not the same thing at all...........or are they in the Supreme Court of Oz.? Inquiring minds want to know matt. Got any examples?.....................as if. Mabye you mean I have several well worn claims, very carefully considered, backed up with sound argument, logic, and links and you have only just spotted them? Thats not the same thing at all. Is THAT what you Meanmatt?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
The Supreme Court of the USA does hear appeals.

Of course it does. What makes you think otherwise? The fact that I have agreed FIVE TIMES..............unless you just lump that in generically as "bobbo's response, not my responsw, and therefore a mistake" kind of batch processing. Is that what you meanmatt?

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
The Supreme Court of the USA is bound by Stare Decisis as that's how court lawyers have to submit their cases to the court using 20 or so preexisting cases.
I let it pass the first three times, but there is no requirement to submit preexisting case law although I assume it is done in almost every case (I'm hilariously making the mistake on the spot of speculating that many hand written prisoners briefs don't follow the norm?).......but the point: no need to go to 20 or so. Whatever fits. Also of note is your failure in logic. The fact that appeals are filled with references to prior case law comprising stare decisis does not mean at all that the Supremes are bound by any given argument, case law, or stare decisis. Really silly to keep arguing otherwise as in no experience with common sense and history????


But....I'll admit/submit that your plodding dull routine of merely repeating yourself rather than advance new or reworded explanations does have its effect. Let me google ("bound by stare decisis" "Supreme Court") ==="of the USA" not included because google knows the difference)

Wow. Only 8K hits. First hit:

. The Principle Underlying Stare Decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis is a pillar supporting the common law legal system. ... The United States Supreme Court, which has no further appellate oversight, rarely departs from prior precedent and only in the most unusual of circumstances.
The Role of Stare Decisis at the U.S. International Trade Commission ...
https://www.finnegan.com/en/.../the-rol ... l-trade.ht...
Not looking too good for you Matt. But not yet excruciatingly on point. Lets look further..............Awww DARN. Article goes into how the Intl Trade Commission is NOT BOUND by stare decisis...only needs "a rational explanation." Hmmm.....doesn't seem "fair" to me.........shifts from knowing the law for stability to knowing the bias of the board members?

Have to continue looking..........

2nd Hit: A one page read that just accepts as a given that SD is not binding, ie: not a clear explicit statement of the same effect:
Stare decisis doctrine isn't always cut and dry when it comes to protecting civil liberties. While it can be helpful concept vis-a-vis the preservation of rulings that protect civil liberties, excessive commitment to stare decisis would have prevented such rulings from being handed down in the first place. Proponents of civil liberties hope that conservative justices support precedents set by the anti-segregation ruling Brown v. Board of Education (1954) on the basis of stare decisis, for example, but if the justices who handed down Brown had felt similarly about the "separate but equal" pro-segregation precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), stare decisis would have prevented Brown from being handed down at all.

https://www.thoughtco.com/stare-decisis ... ion-721426

Third Hit says it outright: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/opin ... 724394002/
Like all legal doctrines stare decisis is not absolute. When courts are confronted with a prior case (precedent) that declared the law but which has subsequently created confusion or become outmoded they can declare new law. That’s what they did June 21, in South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 am
The Supreme Court of the USA cannot overturn precedents but only point out how the precedent does not apply to the matter at hand. [/color]
Three links above say otherwise. Besides flapping your lips.....what have you got???? Like an answer to the following??????????


Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis? ...........and remember Matt, the Supreme Court you keep refiling is NOT the High Court of Oz. Please answer the question above for the first time?..............even be hillarious if you wish.............Know what I meanmatt?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:18 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What did I make up Matt?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common".

You really can't remember what nonsense you posted three days ago? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: The Supreme Court of the USA does hear appeals.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Of course it does. What makes you think otherwise?
You said "No" when I explained how an appeal at Equity can be made for a Commonlaw decision that lead to an absurdity. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Wow. Only 8K hits. First hit:
"The United States Supreme Court, which has no further appellate oversight, rarely departs from prior precedent and only in the most unusual of circumstances."
Remember what I said the other reasons were? 1) A change in legislation. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The Role of Stare Decisis at the U.S. International Trade Commission ..
The US International Trade commission is not the Supreme Court you complete idiot. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:31 am
Matthew Ellard wrote: The Supreme Court of the USA does hear appeals.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Of course it does. What makes you think otherwise?
You said "No" when I explained how an appeal at Equity can be made for a Commonlaw decision that lead to an absurdity. :lol: :lol:
That "NO" referred to "explaining an appeal at Equity...blah, blah" is IRRELEVANT because it is NOT an appeal at the High Court. You continue to confuse the trial court in OZ which is called the Supreme Court in your upside down language with the Supreme Court of the USA which is our Court of Final Judgment or High Court in your language. So...wrong on the No and totally avoiding the 5 times I agreed. Good one Matt. The pain of looking so foolish is not moderating your behavior..........but thats a different thread. Know what I MeanMatt?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:31 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Wow. Only 8K hits. First hit:
"The United States Supreme Court, which has no further appellate oversight, rarely departs from prior precedent and only in the most unusual of circumstances."
Remember what I said the other reasons were? 1) A change in legislation. :lol: :lol: :lol:
No...previously covered and I don't want to confuse you more than you are. So: even if you were correct: overruling prior case law also occurs in cases having nothing to do with change in legislation. Cases cited and highlighted in contrasting colors for your perusal. The pain of looking so foolish is not moderating your behavior. Know what I MeanMatt?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:31 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The Role of Stare Decisis at the U.S. International Trade Commission ..
The US International Trade commission is not the Supreme Court you complete idiot. :lol: :lol:
Thats what I said. Emphasized by "darn" and having to look some more. The pain of looking so foolish is not moderating your behavior. Know what I MeanMatt?


Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
...........and remember Matt, the Supreme Court you keep refiling is NOT the High Court of Oz. Please answer the question above for the first time?..............even be hillarious if you wish.............Know what I MeanMatt?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: That "NO" referred to "explaining an appeal at Equity...blah, blah" is IRRELEVANT because it is NOT an appeal at the High Court.
We are talking about the Supreme Court of the USA. Did you forget again? :lol: :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: .....even if you were correct: overruling prior case law also occurs in cases having nothing to do with change in legislation.
I am 100% correct.

If the existing case-law precedent concerned judicial interpretation of legislation and that legislation is changed the existing case law ruling no longer exists.....

Poor Bobbo. You really don't have a clue what any of these words mean do you?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:23 am

There is no such thing as an appeal at Equity in the Supreme Court of the USA. The benefit of the doubt applies that this concept/terminology appears in Oz law? More reliant on common law than the USA.

Legislation: you miss the point entirely. The cases cited were not about overturning case law based on new legislation. Pay attention.

I guess thats why you think you are correct.................you don't see distinctions very clearly.


Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:05 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: There is no such thing as an appeal at Equity in the Supreme Court of the USA.
Let's have a bet. The loser leaves the forum forever. Do you agree? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Section 25 of the act enabled the Supreme Court-under the same limited circumstances applying to cases in law-to review an equity decision made by the highest court of a state."

Which forum do you think you will go to next? (I don't really care) :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am

Matt: join the 21st Century..............no, make that 20th Century USA Jurisprudence:

"Law and equity remained separate forms of action in the federal courts until the adoption in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which combined the two into a single type of case, called a "civil action."


Please stay on the forum Matt. your presence provides relief. Know what I MeanMatt?

The record is before us. People can make up their own minds as to how stare decisis affects the building of a monument to Snowden. I'll do my best not to waste my time further with you..................although.......I've learned some interesting points of fact and history. All confirming my position, just more detail. So, I'll do my best: no more correcting you, at least until you answer the question:

Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?

"You don't know what's going on.............etc." Better than I remember.
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: join the 21st Century..............no, make that 20th Century USA Jurisprudence:

"Law and equity remained separate forms of action in the federal courts until the adoption in 1938 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which combined the two into a single type of case, called a "civil action."


You complete idiot!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

That specifically means that the Equity and Common law courts are combined and the Supreme Court of the USA can hear Equity law, which it does.


Bye Bye Bobbo. Have fun with Tom Palven on another forum. :lol: :lol: :lol:

(You really didn't understand any of the words you were copying did you? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:18 am

Q-18: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Bobbo is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What example do you have of the High Court of Oz overturning the law of the case before it and yet is still bound by stare decisis?
Bobbo. You just got caught lying about the Supreme Court of the USA not being able to hear equity appeals. You simply made up a claim.

Don't try change subjects to Australia to hide your lies.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:27 am

Well..........."Just when I think I'm out, I get pulled back in..........." Ha, ha. Its an illness. Not my "fault" per se.

Its distinctions Matt. You don't make them. Post again if you need a more pointed clue..........what else could that be other than a didactic exposition of what is already right in front of you? Know what I MeanMatt?
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:44 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Well..........."Just when I think I'm out, I get pulled back in..........." Ha, ha. Its an illness. Not my "fault" per se.
///////////////////
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What did I make up Matt?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"1) In the USA at the beginning when there was no legislature, all the law was common".
A complete fabrication
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"2)There is no such thing as an appeal at Equity in the Supreme Court of the USA".
A complete fabrication
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: 3) The bottom line being that "basically" the US is a statutory code system with the common law relating to the stare decisis of US courts: NOT the English courts.
A complete fabrication
Three strikes.jpg
The Supreme Court of the USA and the New Equity : Vanderbilt Law Review
https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/wp- ... quity2.pdf

Equity and the Constitution, The Supreme Court, and Equitable Relief
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/vi ... blications
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:09 am

First Link: First Sentence: "The line between law and equity has largely faded away."

Second Link: Irrelevant from my quick perusal. The word "equity" is often used but the link is about the move of the Court to making legislative prescriptive announcements. Different issue from stare decisis.

Another total fail.

Q-18: etc.
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:First Link: First Sentence: "The line between law and equity has largely faded away."
You are lying again Bobbo. :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/wp- ... quity2.pdf

What is the remainder of the paragraph that you tried to hide? :lol: :lol:
"Yet something surprising has happened. In a series of cases over the last decade and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court has acted directly contrary to this conventional wisdom.

You just confirmed AGAIN, that the Supreme Court of the US hears equity cases. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tsk tsk tsk Bobbo. you really are desperate. :mrgreen:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
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 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:20 am

Oh..........sorry Matt. I didn't read past the first sentence. My, my.......see what happens????

I'll go back and read it for myself, but won't respond until...............you know.................Q-18. Thanks. I welcome all corrections. It makes me better informed.
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: 19020
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 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:16 am
You just confirmed AGAIN, that the Supreme Court of the US hears equity cases.
Did read the whole paragraph, and a bit more. For any few of you touching base on this thread: yes...the Supreme Court of the USA does employ and apply Equity Principles in making its rulings: ITS PART OF THE LAW. But unlike some countries, evidently like Oz, the USA does not separate "legal" from "equity" but rather combines them as a single/unified "civil action." Therefore, while a ruling may be based on common law/equity principles IT IS NOT an action in Equity. Its just the law. And if anyone loses their CIVIL ACTION before the Supremes, they cannot file another case based on Equity because they already did and they already lost.

words have meaning.
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: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Did read the whole paragraph, and a bit more.
Good. then you have now been informed that the USA Supreme Court hears equity law. You can see that your lie claiming otherwise was complete nonsense.

You are just a compulsive liar.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:USA does not separate "legal" from "equity" but rather combines them as a single/unified "civil action."
No. The Supreme Court can hear both commonlaw and equity law.

Additionally, as you are very stupid, you forgot that the existing common law and equity law rulings remained in place when the the Supreme Court was allowed to hear both types of arguments.......as detailed in that law paper. :lol:

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by landrew » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:32 am

Still never admitting to any mistake.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.