(Slade Farney) wrote in message news:<abe991f.0403310457.e0c118@posting.google.com>...
bruno@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.0403300929.2335cbdb@posting.google.com>...
(Slade Farney) wrote in message news:<abe991f.0403300006.162bbdee@posting.google.com>...
yitzgood@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote in message news:<c338b5c0.0403282226.1f6e4667@posting.google.com>...
Slade Farney wrote:
yitzgood@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote in message news:<c338b5c0.0403272104.116e031e@posting.google.com>...
chetlyle@bigfoot.com (Chet Lyle) wrote in message news:<1de2435b.0403271203.5fd550b5@posting.google.com>...
Shifting to the USA, unbeknownst to most Americans, the US
Congress has been gradually changing the fundamentals of American
law. The movement for change started as early as 1975, when
Congress passed a resolution honoring the birthday of a prominent
rabbi, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, ("the Rebbe") of the
Chabad Lubavitch sect (sometimes this sect is called
"ultra-Orthodox"). The movement ratcheted forward in 1991, when
Congress coupled Rabbi Schneerson's happy birthday message with a
declaration that the United States of America was founded on the
seven Noahide Laws, weird so-called "Laws" of sinister import to
Gentiles.
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
Do you really think the Congressional resolutions cited at the
above URL are evidence that Congress means to enact Carol
Valentine's misinterpretations of the Talmud and Jewish law? This
assumption is one of the things that makes her website seem so
completely bonkers.
When the "National Institute for Judaic Law" succeeds in filing a
brief with the US Supreme Court that is based completely on Talmud
law - yessir, the motion to install the Talmud is in motion. Maybe
YOU don't think that is a bad thing, but Talmud law - stoning
people, burning people, poisoning suspected adulteresses, Unequal
Justice for All - is very different from US Constitutional law.
The United States Supreme Court will accept briefs from anybody.
Dead wrong. You have to have "standing" in the court to file a brief.
That is, you have to demonstrate that you have interest in the case
at hand. Otherwise the court would be receiving daily briefs on the
sex lives of congressmen, and accepting them.
*****. The brief has to be relevant to a case the court is
currently considering. You're just a damn liar. Have you ever heard of
the words "amicus curae", idiot? That means "friend of the court". You
don't have to be a plaintiff or defendant to subit a brief.
When the ACLU or NIJL file a brief with the Supreme Court, they go in
as "amicus curiae" - that is, "friend of the court". Everyone
pretends the court and the big lawyers are just trying to do "the
right thing" in the case, and these folks are just offering friendly
advice.
The
United States Supreme Court also accepts appeals from convicted felons
serving time in the penitentiary. For proof, see Gideon vs Wainwright,
1961. Gideon's appeal was written by himself in pencil while he was
serving time in Florida for Petty Larceny. He eventually won a new
trial and was set free. He didn't have any money, so the Court
appointed Abe Fortas to represent him.
So that is the example you pick to show the Supreme court accepts
briefs from "anybody"?
I was making an analogy, you fucking idiot.
Gideon had standing with the court because he
was directly inviolved. The format of his appeal should be of no
interest or remark.
Oh, yes, it is, you lying piece of *****. The instructions of the
Supreme Court handbook on appeals say appeals should be "typed
whenever possible".
In fact, your term "convicted felon" is proven to be wrong by the
story you told: the man was a convict, but not a felon since he was
eventually found Not Guilty.
When he wrote the appeal, he was serving time in the pen. He could not
do that if he had not been convicted of a felony. The fact that he got
a new trial on appeal and was set free came later, AFTER he was
convicted. You don't even have the slightest grasp of legal
terminology. I went to law school, *****, so you can't snow me with
your *****.
Apparently, you are badly challenged by the concept.
No. You're just a damn liar who doesn't know his ***** from ahole in the
ground. You're also a fucking liar, because I rooted for Gideon. It's
one of my favorite cases and I quote it often.
The Supreme Court does not have the power to make law. It only
interprets existing law and applies it to cases before it.
And here you launch into an windbag harangue unrelated to the topic at
hand.
You're lying again. You seem to think the Supreme Court can make law
and I am demonstrating to you that it CANNOT.
Article III [US Constitution]
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to
controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to
controversies between two or more states;--between a state and
citizens of another state;--between citizens of different
states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under
grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The laws to consider are those of the United States and treaties. It
says nothing here about considering cases on Esquimeaux law or Talmud
law.
In considering Talmud based law in a case before it, the court would
not be ruling on Talmud law, you idiot. It would be considering the
principle espoused in the Talmud law. The Supreme Court considers
material from lots of sources all the time. You just can't read and
you are pathetically ignorant.I'll bet you've never even read any
Supreme Court decisions.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both
as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations
as the Congress shall make.
Still no mention of the Talmud.
I didn't say the court would rule on Talmud law, you lying piece of
stupid *****.
And the brief from the National Institute for Judaic Law somehow
proves that Congress is likely to institute stoning as a form of
execution? You're completely off your rocker.
You are such a pleasure to discourse with, Yitzy. Let me help you
across this difficult passage of reasoning:
The US Supreme Court is impaneled to rule on matters of US law.
The Supreme Court can only rule on cases on appeal before it. Before
it rules on any case, it must grant certiorari to the appellant. Your
statement is innaccurate, since the Supreme Court can also review and
interpret state or local laws involved in cases before it and strike
them down if they conflict with the Constitution. In Roe Vs Wade, the
famous abortion case, the Court struck down a Texas law.
Quack, quack. Still no mention of Talmud law.
You're really afraid of dealing with the issues aren't you, dumbass? I
was making a point that your remark was WRONG-the court can rule on
matters of state law, too, not just federal law. You can't take it
when your ***** is exposed, can ya?
Not
Swahili law, not Chinese law, not Norwegian law -- US law, the law of
the land.
Now when the US Supreme Court accepts a brief based completely on
Talmud law, what does it indicate?
It indicates that we have free speech in the USA, where everyone's
opinion can be heard.
So free speech guarantees that your opinion "can be heard", and thus
the Supreme Court has to accept every brief thrown at it?
It doesn't have to, idiot, but it will. Have you ever heard of the
word "courtesy"?
That is so cornball, it hardly deserves a comeback.
I can see why Yitz calls you names. You are an absolute moron.
Did you expect the Supreme Court to take the
brief from the NIJL and throw it back in their face or have the
bailiffs throw them out of the building? That would be rather rude,
yes? Anyone who is rude and inconsiderate is not likely to be
appointed to the Supreme Court.
Mmph!
Relax and stop frothing. American law is based almost exclusively on
English Common Law and has been for centuries. Stoning would likely
conflict with the Constitutional provision prohibiting "cruel and
unusual punishment".
Strangely, the argument of the NIJL was that by stoning people,
pouring molten lead down their throats, and strangling them in pits of
dung, the ancient rabbis were more "humane" than modern America. You
really should read the NIJL brief. It is Chicken Soup for the Soul.
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
Why should I? I don't agree with the principle they espouse. You're
just a Jew hater, so you are using their material to attempt to
ridicule and demonize Jews. Your little tactic fails miserably because
it is so transparent and you don't know what you are talking about.
You have embarrassed yourself more than anyone else. You've been
exposed as a liar and an ignoramus.
It should also make you darned glad the US is not based on Talmud law
(yet). The logic is tortured, disingenuous, superstitious, and
dishonest. As I pointed out, the alleged purpose of the brief was an
argument for humane executions.
I didn't write those words and don't agree with them, you fucking
idiot. Direct your complaints to the people who wrote them. I'm
Jewish, so you ain't gonna be able to demonize Jews with your stupid
***** in my eyes.
Nathan Lewin, the lawyer who founded the NIJL and wrote the brief, is
a very questionable character. Lewin published another essay (a year
or so later) arguing that the best way to handle suspected suicide
bombers is to kill their families - no trial, no proof of complicity,
just kill them. He argues that the right of Israelis to defend
themselves overwhelms the rights of all other people - even their
right to life. I kid you not. Lewin is one scary dude.
Afraid of free speech, you hypocrite? You said I was afraid of
Gideon(a lie) but now you've admitted you are afraid of Lewin. I'm not
afraid of anyone's words, but apparently you are a craven coward who
would, if he could, hide behind censorship.
I agree with Yitz.
(1)You ain't rowing with both oars in the water.(That's Navy talk
which means you are just plain nuts)
(2) I wouldn't trust you with bilgewater. (That's Navy talk which
means you are a liar)
If you were in my division, I'd assign you to watches on the fantail
during a typhoon.(See if you can figure out what that means, smartass)
.
