If the government forces you to give birth to a child,

Jack said:
Yeah. You talk your shit now. But when Jesus and some of the Apostles come out of a dark alley and fuck you up, you'll be singing a different tune.
I have this Vision. You, waking up inside a Dumpster, no shoes, no wallet, no front tooth.
Click to expand...

Do you have the first clue what kind of wrath you're buying yourselves for being a bag of reprobate faggots? You're going to be saved. Particularly, you're going to be saved for last. The world will die under your feet and you'll be left to fight for your lives against the rest of humanity. You'll devour yourselves down to the last as the cannibal scum you are. So fuck you, and your canoes too. No eternal hell can match what's going to happen to you all. You should have learned by now what you were not to do.

Do you know why I had you given that vision? Because your chewed remains were in that dumpster and you were given way to haunt it till the last of your kind rotted in the guts of the last survivors.

Bitch.
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
Do you have the first clue what kind of wrath you're buying yourselves for being a bag of reprobate faggots? You're going to be saved. Particularly, you're going to be saved for last. The world will die under your feet and you'll be left to fight for your lives against the rest of humanity. You'll devour yourselves down to the last as the cannibal scum you are. So fuck you, and your canoes too. No eternal hell can match what's going to happen to you all. You should have learned by now what you were not to do.
Click to expand...


I have gone into deep contemplation. Talked to the Virgin Mary.
She said, and I'm paraphrasing now. She said: You need to get a large stick and beat yourself to within a hair of your life. Then, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior. (don't fuck this up, Zepo)
 
Jack said:
I have gone into deep contemplation. Talked to the Virgin Mary.
She said, and I'm paraphrasing now. She said: You need to get a large stick and beat yourself to within a hair of your life. Then, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior. (don't fuck this up, Zepo)
Click to expand...

Jack said:
Yeah. You talk your shit now. But when Jesus and some of the Apostles come out of a dark alley and fuck you up, you'll be singing a different tune.
I have this Vision. You, waking up inside a Dumpster, no shoes, no wallet, no front tooth.
Click to expand...

Do you know why I had you given that vision? Because your chewed remains were in that dumpster and you were given way to haunt it till the last of your kind rotted in the guts of the last survivors. You can go visit it right now and talk to your self if you want. It's behind an abortion clinic.

Bitch.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
Do you know why I had you given that vision? Because your chewed remains were in that dumpster and you were given way to haunt it till the last of your kind rotted in the guts of the last survivors. You can go visit it right now and talk to your self if you want. It's behind an abortion clinic.

Bitch.
Click to expand...



:whoa:
 
Once upon a time a woman was told that if she came, she swore it was womens place to cum on their owners dick in honor of a man's right to breed them. And in the moment she came, and in the moment it became always so, she wished we were all free of strange and unusual things. You faggots are that strange and unusual things. You're a bit of filth stuck under the fingernail of human history. You'll be removed by biological and chemical chemotherapy warfare.
 
Last edited:
Why would you think to threaten a man who grew up with living nightmares for christmas?

Didn't you ever think he might share?
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
Stare decesis is passing a law by the decision of a court, not the use of established case law to determine a case.
Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what stare decisis is. If a state passes a law prohibiting the discussion of religion in a derogatory manner, that clearly violates the 1st Amendment. When a person is convicted for violating this law and appeals his conviction the appellate court(s) would find this law unconstitutional based on stare decisis citing numerous cases (case law) establishing that is protected speech.

If the person appeals to a higher court it would likely uphold the lower appellate court's decision that the law is unconstitutional.

If the person appeals to the Supreme Court it would likely refuse to hear the case because case law (stare decisis) has firmly established the law in this area.
 
Flash said:
No, that is exactly what stare decisis is. If a state passes a law prohibiting the discussion of religion in a derogatory manner, that clearly violates the 1st Amendment. When a person is convicted for violating this law and appeals his conviction the appellate court(s) would find this law unconstitutional based on stare decisis citing numerous cases (case law) establishing that is protected speech.

If the person appeals to a higher court it would likely uphold the lower appellate court's decision that the law is unconstitutional.

If the person appeals to the Supreme Court it would likely refuse to hear the case because case law (stare decisis) has firmly established the law in this area.
Click to expand...

You are correct. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stare-decisis Similar cases should be decided by previous court decisions. That is what Trump's Supremes lied about blatantly.
 
Nordberg said:
You are correct. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stare-decisis Similar cases should be decided by previous court decisions. That is what Trump's Supremes lied about blatantly.
Click to expand...

What did they lie about? So far they have made no decisions contrary to their testimony. They have been fairly conservative in opinions although they are making many supporters unhappy because they wanted more judicial activism (overturning legislation conservatives disliked).

All nominees lie about not having opinions about current issues, but that opinion does not determine their ruling on individual cases which are about specific narrow issues and not big questions.

What decision(s) did they lie about? They have not ruled on abortion, yet. Those may not come until June. They allowed abortion providers in Texas to continue to sue in federal court. You seem to be anticipating decisions which have not occurred (or I am not aware of the decisions you are referring to).
 
Citation citing the use of "legislation by judiciary" as a title of a chairman "legislation by Judiciary Chairman Corey Palumbo"
https://www.register-herald.com/new...cle_72aa9931-e65d-5607-88c4-f63494ace608.html

Senators gave the idea another shot Tuesday, approving legislation by Judiciary Chairman Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, to upgrade the mandatory seatbelt law, so that a police officer can stop a motorist solely for not wearing one.
Click to expand...
Note, neither the source nor the context are partisan right, as was the claim the term "legislation by Judiciary" is only used in right wing criticisms of court decisions and then somehow thusly meaningless(which would be erroneous anyway)

The legislation by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis
Click to expand...
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2005/oct/28/house-panel-oks-splitting-9th-circuit/

I'm finding dozens of citations regarding a "legislation by judiciary" committee

18. Undoubtedly, legislation by judiciary is not permissible and the Court cannot read something which is not in the provision. Vide Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharastra . But the text and context of the entire provisions must be looked into while interpreting any of the provision of the Statute. The Court must look to the object which the Statute seeks to achieve while interpreting the provisions of the Act/Rules/Regulations. A purposive approach for interpreting the provision is necessary. Vide S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 2184; and Durga Oil Co. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. .
Click to expand...

Here's a India law citation of legistlation by judiciary not being permissible citing existing legistlated statute law as holding supremacy.

So the concept that "legistlation by judiciary" is not a real thing is preposterous in that it's overwhelmingly obvious u first need a female to lay the egg. There never was a case law that was not a precedent first.

Still pulling references for stare decesis claim. This was just a previously loosely regarded point
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top