Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
California will burn to the ground, with or without Pneusome being a troll.
If the government forces you to give birth to a child,
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
California will burn to the ground, with or without Pneusome being a troll.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
You're confusing the moment stare decesis is stare decesis. Stare decisis is not decision based on case law, it's case decision becoming law. I'm absolutely certain I have a perfect understanding of stare decesis.
But on the outside chance I'm wrong, what then is 'legislation by judiciary' if not stare decesis?
Last edited:
Althea
Althea told me...
Proper translation:
You, like so many other dummies here, believe I am a woman. Despite the fact that I've mentioned my cat Althea dozens of times. I don't need birth control for myself, but if I did I'm lucky to live in a state where the govt. hasn't made it almost impossible to obtain.
Millions of women aren't so lucky.
Althea
Althea told me...
Brandon?
Althea
Althea told me...
No, really. I think it was Brandon
Does the green help?
Well...I am not Brandon.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
See? The reason you didn't, "blah blah fallacy blah" is because since you never cite basis while claiming an argument is a fallacy, you never learned wtf a fallacy was. That thar, is an ad herring fallacy. And frankly it worked on you. An ad herring is an innocuous insult deflection. Understand now, toothbrush face?
Last edited:
Yakuda
Verified User
No. Only an idiot would think so
And again ... you would be wrong.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Does tho if the kid goes to foster care. No one ever brought that up yet.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
So then why haven't grease balls used the opportunity to cash in on the winnings they could earn on it? They cash in on dope through the various junky faggot cults. Why would they skip shaking down a booky?
And on the topic of what kind of sht the Bible doesn't mention.. Why doesn't it mention Jesus sounds just like "marry zeus" in the original roman tongue(the faggot god of the faggot people that killed the guy you're talking about.) Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Seems like, if you actually believed in the thing, you'd be able to guess that it's a warning to you about the people selling it to you, and I don't just mean the Bible, I also mean the dope
Take Uncle Dutch for instance, never will you find a bigger gay for jesus junky faggot desperately ready to write homophiliac daydreams, quotes law like it was his God, on some self professed crusade against pedophiles all while freebasing afghan pederast heroin cartel dope and completely denying jHoe obiden and hillbillery's afghan pederast heroin cartel buddies. The people they just imported to the United States without ever having even been given a drug test.
Now, it's a 12b to say nambla but nazi-nambla wouldn't even begin to cover it. These are literally homosexual supremacist we're talking about. And they're on both sides of the isle.
Wake up sheeple.
Last edited:
When the court makes a ruling, that ruling becomes law (but not necessarily legislation). The next similar case uses that same court ruling to determine the law--that is stare decisis.
If the SC upholds Roe that is stare decisis because it is using Roe as the precedent to establish the law. It did not make legislation when it determined a state cannot prohibit abortion the first 24 weeks, it interpreted the right to privacy in that manner. We can disagree with the court's interpretation, but stopping a state from violating a constitutional right is not legislating.
It has the same result as legislating, but so do court decisions prohibiting states from violating gun rights, 1st amendment rights, procedural due process, etc.
If the SC chooses to overturn Roe, it is choosing not to go by stare decisis (precedent) in that case. It has done so many times on school segregation, free speech, and many other famous cases. But, it is setting new precedent to be followed in the next abortion case (if they choose to follow stare decisis).
]2epo]v[an
Banned
I'm not arguing semantics with ya bro. The problem here is that you thought of the word "legislation" was a less broad definition than what it really is. On top of "legislation by judiciary" there's also "legislation by policy" an unconstitutional method of legistlation used by police unions. Before you try and write me a book of excuses for why legistlation isn't legislation, Google "legistlation by judiciary" or "legistlation by policy" or just search for a list of different types of legistlation and then go learn about it.
Definition of legislation by judiciary--a criticism of a court decision somebody dislikes.
Activist judges--criticism of a court decision somebody dislikes.
legislation by judiciary or activist judges are good if you like the decision.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
You didn't cite a source?
]2epo]v[an
Banned
So.... what are you saying. Seems like you could have said nothing at all. Everything you just said canceled itself out.
:/
No, it means those terms are used loosely to criticize decisions the person doesn't like; otherwise, they have no real meaning the way they are used in a partisan manner.
Althea
Althea told me...
Who said you are?
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Are you trying to tell me my previous citations never happened or are you saying you just never read them. Not sure which. And no, just because people use them in political discourse does not then make them any less meaningful nor dies it detract that they are used objectively either. You're really just making excuses.