The church in England does not know what a woman is

[sqwakvfr]

24 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Impeached from the court and indicted for perjury. I told you already I had posted a link to evidence. If you ever read links outside your echo chamber you might already know,

Is your evidence admissible in a court of law?  I am not in an echo chamber.  I do not read links from others.  

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Is your evidence admissible in a court of law?  I am not in an echo chamber.  I do not read links from others.  

I'd say it was. A senator accused them of lying to the senate. Not reading links from others is the very definition of being in an echo chamber.

[KhunLA]

Church of England to the SCOTUS ... ????

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Church of England to the SCOTUS ... ????

Gender definition to gender definition.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Gender definition to gender definition.

topic to irrelevant

[sqwakvfr]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I'd say it was. A senator accused them of lying to the senate. Not reading links from others is the very definition of being in an echo chamber.

Echo Chamber-an environment where a person only hears information that reflect and reinforce their beliefs.  

[arithai12]

13 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Easy for me;

Male has penis

Female does not

They can call themselves what ever they want.  Only a female/woman, until yet another definition is change, is able to give birth to an offspring.   Only a male/man, can fertilize (naturally) said egg of a female/woman.   Until that changes ...................

 

Until someone shows me a chromosome test, not that I care, but I'm not falling for the "I'm trapped in wrong body" BS.  Maybe in your mind, but probably not in your biology.

 

Just tell me what your name is, but don't expect me to use a (newly defined) pronoun that I was taught means something else, and literally impossible to use in a sentence or conversation.

Your set of "easy rules" apply in a large majority of cases, but Nature is more complicated than that. For example:

-how does your "male has penis..." easy rule work for ermaphrodites?
-according to your easy rule, then a man who has congenital infertility is not a male?
-do you really believe that the mind (=brain) is not part of a person's biology?

 

About your last paragraph, I agree that in many languages it is impossible or it becomes ridiculous to include more than two genders in the grammar. There are languages with three genders, or even more, but still it can be confusing. However, languages evolve with societies. I am old and on the way out, but when I look at the young people around me, especially in Thailand, I have the impression that they are more ready to shed the "binarity". Also, they seem to give a lot of importance to their lives in the virtual world of social media, where genders are whatever you want.

[sqwakvfr]

14 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I'd say it was. A senator accused them of lying to the senate. Not reading links from others is the very definition of being in an echo chamber.

Example of Evidence:  Lying while under oath at a Senate Confirmation Hearing.  AKA-Perjury, an arrestable offense.  It such evidence exists than it's up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute. 

Example of Not Evidence: A conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee in her office.  So far I cannot find a law that states lying to a Senator while not under oath is a crime.  

 

Therefore, the evidence of lying under oath that can be proven is at this point non-existent.   

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Example of Evidence:  Lying while under oath at a Senate Confirmation Hearing.  AKA-Perjury, an arrestable offense.  It such evidence exists than it's up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute. 

Example of Not Evidence: A conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee in her office.  So far I cannot find a law that states lying to a Senator while not under oath is a crime.  

 

Therefore, the evidence of lying under oath that can be proven is at this point non-existent.   

The senate does have the power to refer perjury to the DoJ. The justices lied UNDER OATH. in the senate hearing for confirmation. ALL senate hearings are under oath.

Edited July 14, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The senate does have the power to refer perjury to the DoJ. The justices lied UNDER OATH. in the senate hearing for confirmation. ALL senate hearings are under oath.

Yeah. That is what I said.  But a conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee is not under oath.  Senator Collins implied she was lied to by a Barrett during a conversation in her office.  This is not perjury.  Exactly what was the lie during the confirmation hearings?

 

Also, it is a Confirmation Hearing and not Hearing for Confirmation.  

 

I have testified under oath 100's of times.  So I know a little something about the consequences of perjury.  Do you?

Edited July 14, 2022 by sqwakvfr

[ozimoron]

On 7/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, sqwakvfr said:

Yeah. That is what I said.  But a conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee is not under oath.  Senator Collins implied she was lied to by a Barrett during a conversation in her office.  This is not perjury.  Exactly what was the lie during the confirmation hearings?

 

Also, it is a Confirmation Hearing and not Hearing for Confirmation.  

 

I have testified under oath 100's of times.  So I know a little something about the consequences of perjury.  Do you?

They lied under oath during a senate hearing as well as privately in the senators' offices.

 

WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., have asked the Senate to clarify whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath about their stand on abortion during their confirmation hearings. 

In a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer issued Monday, the lawmakers said  "multiple" Supreme Court justices "misled the American people during their confirmation hearings about their views on Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood."

 

The legislators said, "it is impossible to reconcile the sweeping majority opinion in Dobbs with the statements made by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings."

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/12/aoc-lieu-letter-senate-gorsuch-kavanaugh-lied-roe/10035934002/

Edited July 15, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They lied under oath during a senate hearing as well as privately in the senators' offices.

 

WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., have asked the Senate to clarify whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath about their stand on abortion during their confirmation hearings. 

In a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer issued Monday, the lawmakers said  "multiple" Supreme Court justices "misled the American people during their confirmation hearings about their views on Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood."

 

The legislators said, "it is impossible to reconcile the sweeping majority opinion in Dobbs with the statements made by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings."

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/12/aoc-lieu-letter-senate-gorsuch-kavanaugh-lied-roe/10035934002/

Ocasio-Cortez and LIeu.  I used to live in LIeu's congressional district.  He is more focused gaining national attention than doing anything for his district.  Many in his district think he is a clown.  He wins re-election because many in just don't vote. 

 

Again, no evidence presented of Perjury.

Edited July 15, 2022 by sqwakvfr

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Ocasio-Cortez and LIeu.  I used to live in LIeu's congressional district.  He is more focused gaining national attention than doing anything for his district.  Many in his district think he is a clown.  He wins re-election because many in just don't vote. 

 

Again, no evidence presented of Perjury.

It's by definition perjury. The evidence is clear, they promised under oath to abide by stare decisis and voted otherwise. How do you get to "no evidence" from that?

 

Attack Lieu all you like, it doesn't change this perjury crime.

Edited July 16, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

Stare Decis, so one precedent is all that is needed?  Also, it is a legal principle and not law.  Have you ever heard of a precedent that is overturned?  This is what happens in appeals court?  Just as convictions can be overturned on appeal so can past cases.  

 

If I testify on one day that i would stay the course(legally speaking) but the next day more more or new evidence is  presented then as a Judge I am prohibited from overturning any past case?  This is why cases are presented to the appeals courts and ultimately the US Supreme Court. To overturn past rulings.  For the Pro Lifers, mission accomplished(I do not support this ruling but this is called Due Process).  Unfortunately the US Supreme Court is the “end of the road” and the only other option is to codify with legislation.  

 

About Congressman Ted Lieu, this is the opinion of many in his district.  He is not as extreme as his partner, AOC, but he is getting there.  At one time I had a great deal of respect when he served on the Torrance City Council and served as a JAG Officer in the United States Air Force Reserve but he has changed and often aligns himself with allCongressman Adam Schiff.  You know about Schiff right? 

Edited July 16, 2022 by sqwakvfr

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Stare Decis, so one precedent is all that is needed?  Also, it is a legal principle and not law.  Have you ever heard of a precedent that is overturned?  This is what happens in appeals court?  Just as convictions can be overturned on appeal so can past cases.  

 

If I testify on one day that i would stay the course(legally speaking) but the next day more information is reveal or new facts are present then I the past ruling could be overturned.  Unfortunately the US Supreme Court is the “end of the road” and the only other option is to codify with legislation.  

it wasn't one decision was it? Roe v Wade was reaffirmed in 1992.

[sqwakvfr]

Just now, ozimoron said:

it wasn't one decision was it? Roe v Wade was reaffirmed in 1992.

It could have been reaffirmed 100 times but it can still be overturned.  

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

It could have been reaffirmed 100 times but it can still be overturned.  

not if one respects stare decisis as a concept in law which is well established by SCOTUS. This is why this court is described as being an activist court.

Edited July 16, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

Just now, ozimoron said:

not if one respects stare decisis as a concept in law which is well established by SCOTUS.

In the US Justice System No Law, No past ruling and No conviction is immune from being overturned.  If argued in front of any appeals court it con be overturned.  Love it or Hate that is the way it is.  

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

In the US Justice System No Law, No past ruling and No conviction is immune from being overturned.  If argued in front of any appeals court it con be overturned.  Love it or Hate that is the way it is.  

Then you explain what stare decisis is and what regard should be given to it in deciding cases. Please ensure you provide links to your argument. Stare Decisis does in fact limit legal decisions despite your unqualified and unresearched personal opinion.

 

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.  

When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.  The previous deciding-court must have binding authority over the court; otherwise, the previous decision is merely persuasive authority. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court described the rationale behind stare decisis as  “promot[ing] the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, foster[ing] reliance on judicial decisions, and contribut[ing] to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

[sqwakvfr]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Then you explain what stare decisis is and what regard should be given to it in deciding cases. Please ensure you provide links to your argument. Stare Decisis does in fact limit legal decisions despite your unqualified and unresearched personal opinion.

 

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.  

When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.  The previous deciding-court must have binding authority over the court; otherwise, the previous decision is merely persuasive authority. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court described the rationale behind stare decisis as  “promot[ing] the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, foster[ing] reliance on judicial decisions, and contribut[ing] to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Legally speaking, based upon your reasoning, then Stare Decis would limit the authority of any appeals court and the US Supreme Court.  Then why don’t you present a case where an appeals court or even the US Supreme Court affirmed a past decision based solely on Stare Decis and did not allow oral arguments.  I have never heard of any appeals court or even the US Supreme Court refuse to hear a case strictly based upon Stare Decis.  Appeals courts and the the US Supreme often decline to hear cases but not strictly based upon the principle of Stare Decis alone.  There are always other factors that lead to such decisions.  

 

Also, the US Supreme Court has binding authority on any past case adjudicated in any US Court. Even past Supreme Court cases.  

Edited July 16, 2022 by sqwakvfr

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Legally speaking, based upon your reasoning, then Stare Decis would limit the authority of any appeals court and the US Supreme Court.  Then why don’t you present a case where an appeals court or even the US Supreme Court affirmed a past decision based solely on Stare Decis and did not allow oral arguments.  I have never heard of any appeals court or even the US Supreme Court refuse to hear a case strictly based upon Stare Decis.  Appeals courts and the the US Supreme often decline to hear cases but not strictly based upon the principle of Stare Decis alone.  There are always other factors that lead to such decisions.  

 

Also, the US Supreme Court has binding authority on any past case adjudicated in any US Court. Even past Supreme Court cases.  

Stare Decisis isn't some third party doctrine limiting the supreme court, is is the invention of the courts themselves. It indeed limits their ability to overturn decisions. In this case the supreme court did not challenge the imperative of Stare Decisis, they attacked the previous decisions themselves, hence the radical activist religious court.

[sqwakvfr]

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Stare Decisis isn't some third party doctrine limiting the supreme court, is is the invention of the courts themselves. It indeed limits their ability to overturn decisions. In this case the supreme court did not challenge the imperative of Stare Decisis, they attacked the previous decisions themselves, hence the radical activist religious court.

Ah, so Stare Decis is not legally relevant now and instead it was the “radical activist religious court” argument now.  I get what you are saying now.  

‘

The US Supreme Court hears  approximately 100 case per year.  The court narrows down the number of case it wants to hear from the 1000’s that are submitted.  Previously you argued that Stare Decis should prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning Roe V. Wade and now it was the “radical activist religious court:” argument.  I was wrong to call Ted Lieu a clown but I would never call any US Justice a “radical religious activist”.  

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by sqwakvfr

[jak2002003]

On 7/11/2022 at 2:16 PM, Photoguy21 said:

We live in a world where stupidity reigns supreme

Yes...starting with religious people who believe it all that rubbish. 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Ah, so Stare Decis is not legally relevant now and instead it was the “radical activist religious court” argument now.  I get what you are saying now.  

‘

The US Supreme Court hears  approximately 100 case per year.  The court narrows down the number of case it wants to hear from the 1000’s that are submitted.  Previously you argued that Stare Decis should prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning Roe V. Wade and now it was the “radical activist religious court:” argument.  I was wrong to call Ted Lieu a clown but I would never call any US Justice a “radical religious activist”.  

 

Why not? If it walks like a duck... Did you read the decision? It certainly reads like religious activism to me. What about those judges who dissented?

 

"In a concurring opinion that raised concerns the justices might roll back other rights, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to reconsider past rulings protecting the right to contraception, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, and invalidating state laws banning gay sex."

 

Would the above sound like religious activism to an ordinary person? No doubt!

 

"On Friday, ABC News senior national correspondent Terry Moran claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade marks a new era in which a "strongly activist conservative court" refuses to rule for the "center" of the political spectrum.

 

The reporter listed several, including, "the right to travel across state lines, the right to bodily integrity – you cannot be forced to take medicine or undergo medical procedures – that’s a right not found in the Constitution." He added, "the right to choose contraceptives, the right to marry someone of the same sex," declaring, "all of these rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, neither was abortion."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/roe-v-wade-ruling-new-era-activist-supreme-court-abcs-terry-moran

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why not? If it walks like a duck... Did you read the decision? It certainly reads like religious activism to me. What about those judges who dissented?

 

"In a concurring opinion that raised concerns the justices might roll back other rights, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to reconsider past rulings protecting the right to contraception, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, and invalidating state laws banning gay sex."

 

Would the above sound like religious activism to an ordinary person? No doubt!

 

"On Friday, ABC News senior national correspondent Terry Moran claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade marks a new era in which a "strongly activist conservative court" refuses to rule for the "center" of the political spectrum.

 

The reporter listed several, including, "the right to travel across state lines, the right to bodily integrity – you cannot be forced to take medicine or undergo medical procedures – that’s a right not found in the Constitution." He added, "the right to choose contraceptives, the right to marry someone of the same sex," declaring, "all of these rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, neither was abortion."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/roe-v-wade-ruling-new-era-activist-supreme-court-abcs-terry-moran

 

 

ABC News and Terry Moran.  That settles it.  Clarence Thomas needs to go?  The right to interstate travel is now in jeopardy?  It is now what he says that is relevant but how he decides on the bench that matters.  As far as I know I can buy condoms and can travel from CA to AZ.  

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

ABC News and Terry Moran.  That settles it.  Clarence Thomas needs to go?  The right to interstate travel is now in jeopardy?  It is now what he says that is relevant but how he decides on the bench that matters.  As far as I know I can buy condoms and can travel from CA to AZ.  

You may not be able to if Thomas stated intention is fulfilled. Travel from one state to another for purposes of abortion or assisting in abortion may soon be illegal in many states. So he's really right.

 

There should be term limits for the SCOTUS and the number of justices should be doubled. That would provide much greater consensus, less ability to stack the court against the popular will and reduce the influence of any single President in stacking the court.

Edited July 16, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You may not be able to if Thomas stated intention is fulfilled. Travel from one state to another for purposes of abortion or assisting in abortion may soon be illegal in many states. So he's really right.

 

There should be term limits for the SCOTUS and the number of justices should be doubled. That would provide much greater consensus, less ability to stack the court against the popular will and reduce the influence of any single President in stacking the court.

Doubling is not stacking? What kind of country has 18 Supreme Court Justices?  Also, it cannot be an even number due to the fact this would cause Judicial Gridlock? Even with 17 Supreme Court Justices(they would need a much larger chamber, more chairs and mare clerks) Judicial Gridlock is probable. Maybe that is what some really want.  With Gridlock not much is done.  This sounds the like the proverbial “endgame”.  

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Doubling is not stacking? What kind of country has 18 Supreme Court Justices?  Also, it cannot be an even number due to the fact this would cause Judicial Gridlock? Even with 17 Supreme Court Justices(they would need a much larger chamber, more chairs and mare clerks) Judicial Gridlock is probable. Maybe that is what some really want.  With Gridlock not much is done.  This sounds the like the proverbial “endgame”.  

"Stacking" is an emotionally loaded word which in this context implies appointing the judges to achieve a political end. My arguments in favour were broader than that. Doubling is more precise term which would be my choice. If one were to be accused of "stacking" the the obvious solution would be to have even more judges. Another reform would be to have the American Bar Association give the president the list, instead of the Federalist Society.

 

Australia has 7 justices in our High Court and only 25 million people so 17 for 300 million isn't over the top. It would also allow greater throughput in the court.

[sqwakvfr]

On 7/14/2022 at 5:15 AM, arithai12 said:

Your set of "easy rules" apply in a large majority of cases, but Nature is more complicated than that. For example:

-how does your "male has penis..." easy rule work for ermaphrodites?
-according to your easy rule, then a man who has congenital infertility is not a male?
-do you really believe that the mind (=brain) is not part of a person's biology?

 

About your last paragraph, I agree that in many languages it is impossible or it becomes ridiculous to include more than two genders in the grammar. There are languages with three genders, or even more, but still it can be confusing. However, languages evolve with societies. I am old and on the way out, but when I look at the young people around me, especially in Thailand, I have the impression that they are more ready to shed the "binarity". Also, they seem to give a lot of importance to their lives in the virtual world of social media, where genders are whatever you want.

The state of California has a population of 45 Million and the state Supreme Court has 7 justices.  So your argument pegging the size of a Supreme Court based upon population does not seem logical.  Just my opinion. Heck India has over 1 billion people.  So their Supreme Court should have how many? 33, 45 or 99 justices? 

 

A US Supreme Court with 17 justices would “slow the process down to a crawl”.  I can just imagine the process where each of the 17 justices question the lawyers during oral argument phase and subsequently 17 justices then have to discuss the merits or lack of merits of a case in order to reach a decision.  I can see a scenario where it could take a long time to even achieve even a 9-8 majority decision.  Hence mission accomplished: Judicial Gridlock.  

[bert bloggs]

Bloomin heck has this gone off course or what.

Come on what is a woman,certainly not a man with a penis no matter how much he thinks he is one