Don't forget slavery!BigDave wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’m happy the localities are allowed to govern themselves as they best see fit.
Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.[/quote]
In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]
Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]
Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.ip_law-hokie wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]
Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]
except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Same people can't understand that no means no with the ladies either. They're agitators and aggressors.USN_Hokie wrote:IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]cwtcr hokie wrote:In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.ip_law-hokie wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]
except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]
You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.USN_Hokie wrote:IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
The 4th circuit is a mob? The Supremes too?awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.ip_law-hokie wrote:The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.USN_Hokie wrote:IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
That's a laughable position. Just admit that you're for ignoring the constitution as there's no logical path to that decision.ip_law-hokie wrote:The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.USN_Hokie wrote:IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]ip_law-hokie wrote:In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.cwtcr hokie wrote:In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.ip_law-hokie wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]
except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]
You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Nope.USN_Hokie wrote:You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.ip_law-hokie wrote:The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.USN_Hokie wrote:IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.awesome guy wrote:Mob rule, got itip_law-hokie wrote:
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Because?[/quote]awesome guy wrote:Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.ip_law-hokie wrote:In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.cwtcr hokie wrote:In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.ip_law-hokie wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]
except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]
You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too[/quote]
My way works fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]ip_law-hokie wrote:Because?awesome guy wrote:Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.ip_law-hokie wrote:In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.cwtcr hokie wrote:In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.ip_law-hokie wrote:... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]
except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]
You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too[/quote]
My way works fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]I'd say my respect exceeds theirs.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
IP studied morning constitutional law.ip_law-hokie wrote:Nope.USN_Hokie wrote: You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.USN_Hokie wrote:IP studied morning constitutional law.ip_law-hokie wrote:Nope.USN_Hokie wrote: You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.USN_Hokie wrote:IP studied morning constitutional law.ip_law-hokie wrote:Nope.USN_Hokie wrote: You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.USN_Hokie wrote:IP studied morning constitutional law.ip_law-hokie wrote:Nope.USN_Hokie wrote: You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.ip_law-hokie wrote:Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?USN_Hokie wrote:Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.ip_law-hokie wrote:Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
It's not inline with other rulings, not that you care about being honest.ip_law-hokie wrote:Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?USN_Hokie wrote:Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.ip_law-hokie wrote:Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Props to the 4th Circuit and SC
That was the case when the 4CA ruled. Denying cert had no bearing, but I think you know that.ip_law-hokie wrote:Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?USN_Hokie wrote:Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.ip_law-hokie wrote:Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.ip_law-hokie wrote:Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?USN_Hokie wrote:
I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.
You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.