tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5312506094391202337..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Federal Court Rejects Law Limiting AbortionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42905951448756757412022-01-03T23:30:15.617-08:002022-01-03T23:30:15.617-08:00I like this website its a master peace ! Glad I fo...I like this website its a master peace ! Glad I found this on google . <br />I must say, as a lot as I enjoyed reading what you had to say, I couldn't help but lose interest after a while.<br /><a href="https://www.totosafedb.com" title="안전놀이터" rel="nofollow">안전놀이터</a>SITES 2021https://www.blogger.com/profile/05679739250594223292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9371559547888433762021-11-21T23:43:59.627-08:002021-11-21T23:43:59.627-08:00Awesome post. I’m a regular visitor of your site...Awesome post. I’m a regular visitor of your site and appreciate you taking the time to maintain the excellent site. I will be a regular visitor for a long time.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.oncasino.site" title="카지노사이트" rel="nofollow">카지노사이트</a> <br /><a href="https://befonts.com/author/oncoins888" title="바카라사이트" rel="nofollow">바카라사이트</a> <br /><a href="https://oncasinosite.multiscreensite.com" title="카지노사이트추천" rel="nofollow">카지노사이트추천</a><br />프로토https://www.blogger.com/profile/10432206743301799446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64928802208335126772021-11-21T23:41:33.034-08:002021-11-21T23:41:33.034-08:00Incredible post I should state and much obliged fo...Incredible post I should state and much obliged for the data. Instruction is unquestionably a sticky subject. Be that as it may, is still among the main themes of our opportunity. I value your post and anticipate more.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.casinositehome.com" title="카지노사이트" rel="nofollow">카지노사이트</a><br /><a href="https://befonts.com/author/casinositehome" title="안전카지노사이트" rel="nofollow">안전카지노사이트</a><br /><a href="https://casinositehomecom.multiscreensite.com" title="카지노" rel="nofollow">카지노</a><br />프로토https://www.blogger.com/profile/10432206743301799446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88211925010396634452021-11-21T23:39:53.074-08:002021-11-21T23:39:53.074-08:00Thank you for every other informative web site. Th...Thank you for every other informative web site. The place else may I get that kind of information written in such a perfect method? I’ve a project that I’m just now running on, and I have been at the look out for such info.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.toto365.pro/" title="스포츠토토" rel="nofollow">스포츠토토</a><br /><a href="https://befonts.com/author/toto365pro" title="메이저사이트 목록" rel="nofollow">메이저사이트 목록</a> <br /><a href="https://toto365pro.multiscreensite.com" title="토토사이트추천" rel="nofollow">토토사이트추천</a><br />프로토https://www.blogger.com/profile/10432206743301799446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80694410653766410262021-11-21T23:36:41.940-08:002021-11-21T23:36:41.940-08:00Thanks designed for sharing such a fastidious thin...Thanks designed for sharing such a fastidious thinking,<br />post is good, thats why i have read it fully<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.sportstoto.top" title="토토사이트" rel="nofollow">토토사이트</a><br /><a href="https://befonts.com/author/sportstototop" title="토토" rel="nofollow">토토</a><br /><a href="https://sportstototop.multiscreensite.com" title="안전놀이터" rel="nofollow">안전놀이터</a><br />프로토https://www.blogger.com/profile/10432206743301799446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61354915150974501172021-11-21T23:33:44.447-08:002021-11-21T23:33:44.447-08:00Greetings from Ohio! I’m bored to tears at work so...Greetings from Ohio! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your website on my iphone during lunch break. I love the info you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how fast your blog loaded on my mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, great site!|<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://gostopsite.multiscreensite.com" title="먹튀검증" rel="nofollow">먹튀검증</a><br /><a href="https://www.gostopsite.com" title="섯다" rel="nofollow">섯다</a><br />프로토https://www.blogger.com/profile/10432206743301799446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7119794570676396632015-06-10T20:35:35.230-07:002015-06-10T20:35:35.230-07:00I could care less about American courts. But I was...I could care less about American courts. But I was interested in one of your stements:<br /><br /><i>"With evolution the engine of progress is death, and evolutionary thinking has spawned such horrors as eugenics and abortion."</i><br /><br />First, evolution does not require death as you infer by this misleading statement. All it requires is disproportionate reproduction. <br /><br />And, yes, the eugenics movement misused evolution theory. But the misuse of the science doesn't make the science wrong. A nuclear bomb is a misuse of atomic sciences. Why aren't you using this fact as an argument against the reality of nuclear physics? <br /><br />And where do you get this nebulous link between evolution and abortion? If anything, you should be using evolutionary theory as an argument against abortion. If evolution is a "striving" to produce the most offspring, his does abortion fit into this? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78847153168462111112015-06-08T22:05:28.425-07:002015-06-08T22:05:28.425-07:00Zachriel,
"We'll leave your last comment...Zachriel,<br /><br />"We'll leave your last comment be."<br /><br />Sounds good. I'm sure we will butt heads again soon, my friend.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64070639644407713672015-06-08T22:05:11.140-07:002015-06-08T22:05:11.140-07:00Zachriel,
"We'll leave your last comment...Zachriel,<br /><br />"We'll leave your last comment be."<br /><br />Sounds good. I'm sure we will butt heads again soon, my friend.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15710288923121721702015-06-08T15:38:43.430-07:002015-06-08T15:38:43.430-07:00Nic: All I can do is apologize if I was not clear ...<b>Nic</b>: <i>All I can do is apologize if I was not clear enough leading you to misunderstand what I meant. </i><br /><br />The clarification was more than enough. <br /><br />We'll leave your last comment be. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31033874214068585042015-06-08T15:35:42.632-07:002015-06-08T15:35:42.632-07:00Zachriel
"If you had clarified,..."
Al...Zachriel<br /><br />"If you had clarified,..."<br /><br />All I can do is apologize if I was not clear enough leading you to misunderstand what I meant. So, sorry.<br /><br />"You advocate that they violate their oaths rather than resign,..."<br /><br />That would be up to the individual judge of course, but some form of civil disobedience is often necessary to change situations such as the one we see with social activist judges. They have stepped beyond their boundaries and it will probably be necessary for others to do the same to rectify the situation.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16801901796145461932015-06-08T14:26:19.936-07:002015-06-08T14:26:19.936-07:00Nic: And because you could not grasp the intent of...<b>Nic</b>: <i>And because you could not grasp the intent of the comment I clarified my use of the term 'guided' and what was meant by it.</i><br /><br />A lower court is bound. If you had clarified, that would have been fine, but what you did was continue to defend your erroneous statement. No matter. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>That is the intent behind my statement. I made that very clear. </i><br /><br />So lower courts are bound by oath and law to enforce upper court decisions. You advocate that they violate their oaths rather than resign, even though such a violation would be of no legal consequence. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38782848278120958842015-06-08T11:53:20.926-07:002015-06-08T11:53:20.926-07:00Zachriel,
"You made several such statements,...Zachriel,<br /><br />"You made several such statements, including "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it." <br /><br />And because you could not grasp the intent of the comment I clarified my use of the term 'guided' and what was meant by it.<br /><br />"Defying precedent would be for a judge to violate their oath, and of no legal effect. The higher court would just order the lower court to enforce the law, or move the case to another judge who will."<br /><br />You're correct. However, such disobedience may be necessary to reign in activist judges who are increasingly dictating the law rather than applying it. That is the intent behind my statement. I made that very clear. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50078143980896011702015-06-08T11:41:03.642-07:002015-06-08T11:41:03.642-07:00Nic: Only in your fertile little mind is this the ...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling. </i><br /><br />You made several such statements, including "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it." <br /> <br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling. </i><br /><br />Defying precedent would be for a judge to violate their oath, and of no legal effect. The higher court would just order the lower court to enforce the law, or move the case to another judge who will. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Are you doing this intentionally or is your reading comprehension really that poor? </i><br /><br />N: "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it." <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32651637366477006892015-06-08T07:45:40.602-07:002015-06-08T07:45:40.602-07:00Zachriel,
"They are not to be bound by prece...Zachriel,<br /><br />"They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it." <br /><br />Thank you, Zachriel, for providing a perfect example as to how you misrepresent what I say. Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling.<br /><br />As each case is unique any precedent can only serve as a guide for rulings by the lower courts. It is extremely rare that a precedent would apply completely in every case.<br /><br />"Then you made several other statements along the lines of "Judges in Canada and the US have become political and social activists, and I for one am in favour of lower courts taking action to stop them. If that means defying precedence, so be it."<br /><br />Yes, I said that and I stand by it. But how does that imply I think they can simply ignore superior court rulings? I am clearly saying such defiance would be against the tradition of binding precedent but may be necessary to reign in activist judges. <br /><br />This is just another example of your complete failure to understand the argument I'm presenting and your tendency to misrepresent what is actually being said. <br /><br />Are you doing this intentionally or is your reading comprehension really that poor?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53030165592273799932015-06-08T05:10:01.105-07:002015-06-08T05:10:01.105-07:00Nic: I don't recall ever saying the lower cour...<b>Nic</b>: <i>I don't recall ever saying the lower courts could outright ignore a precedent handed down by a superior court. </i><br /><br />N: They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it. <br /><br />That statement was incorrect, and we provided an authoritative citation showing otherwise. <br /><br />The Law Library of Congress: The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.<br />http://www.loc.gov/law/help/judicial-decisions.php<br /><br />Then you made several other statements along the lines of "Judges in Canada and the US have become political and social activists, and I for one am in favour of lower courts taking action to stop them. If that means defying precedence, so be it."<br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64103892029441376672015-06-07T18:32:41.062-07:002015-06-07T18:32:41.062-07:00Zachriel,
First, only in your fertile imagination...Zachriel,<br /><br />First, only in your fertile imagination did I contradict myself. I have been saying all along the lower courts challenge a precedent via a petitioner. <br /><br />Second, I don't recall ever saying the lower courts could outright ignore a precedent handed down by a superior court. I have been very clear from the beginning lower courts can challenge such rulings but must do so via a petitioner while presenting new arguments which may result in a reversal.<br /><br />Another good thing to do in a discussion, Zachriel, is to present your opponents position honestly. Whether or not it is intentional on your part, I don't know, but that is something you rarely do. You very often misrepresent what I say. A perfect example being this last post where you claim I said a lower court could simply ignore a ruling from the higher court.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64945358439658744742015-06-07T08:43:12.499-07:002015-06-07T08:43:12.499-07:00Here's a sample where you directly contradicte...Here's a sample where you directly contradicted yourself. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent... </i><br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Which is what I've said repeatedly, but as usual you never pay attention to what someone writes as it might upset your rhetoric. </i><br /><br />Z: The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ... <br /><br />N: It can if it so wishes. <br /><br />A good thing to do in a discussion is try to find points of commonality. We both agree that when a new issue is raised, then a court may find an exception or mitigation to a precedent. Where we don't agree is that a lower court can ignore a precedent because it disagrees with the upper court. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86830264571213694922015-06-07T08:31:12.257-07:002015-06-07T08:31:12.257-07:00Zachriel,
"The lower court hasn't challe...Zachriel,<br /><br />"The lower court hasn't challenged the higher court's ruling."<br /><br />It's obvious you can never admit to yourself you're wrong. You would argue black was white. I've demonstrated you're wrong on several occasions in this exchange, but in Zachriel's little world he is always right. So go right ahead, tell yourself you were right and I was wrong. Facts are totally irrelevant to you so I will waste no more time trying to present them to you.<br /><br />"You have adjusted your position somewhat over the course of this conversation. Not sure why you are so resistant to changing your mind. It's acts only to stifle your ability to learn." <br /><br />I stifle my ability to learn? Now that is just a hoot! You're the one who has been shown to be wrong at every turn in this conversation and I'm the one who is failing to learn? I'll retire to bedlam.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34973514199363175442015-06-07T07:09:07.857-07:002015-06-07T07:09:07.857-07:00Nic: Not if they agree with his case.
It doesn&#...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Not if they agree with his case. </i><br /><br />It doesn't matter if they agree with his case if the issue has already been adjudicated. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>If they feel the petitioner has presented new and unique arguments which were not presented in earlier cases and believe these new arguments could result in a reversal of the earlier decision of the high court, they can rule in favour of the petitioner and require the superior court to consider these new arguments. </i><br /><br />If there is a new issue, then it may result in a different ruling, as long as it is consistent with previous precedents on the issue. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>the lower court has challenged the superior court's earlier ruling.</i><br /><br />The lower court hasn't challenged the higher court's ruling. In your example, there is a new issue to be decided. Even then, it has to be consistent with any relevant precedent. <br /><br />You have adjusted your position somewhat over the course of this conversation. Not sure why you are so resistant to changing your mind. It's acts only to stifle your ability to learn. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9796645743585953012015-06-06T14:41:16.194-07:002015-06-06T14:41:16.194-07:00Zachriel,
"The lower court is bound to rule ...Zachriel,<br /><br />"The lower court is bound to rule against the petitioner,..<br />You can't keep making the same arguments in court over and over again."<br /><br />Not if they agree with his case. If they feel the petitioner has presented new and unique arguments which were not presented in earlier cases and believe these new arguments could result in a reversal of the earlier decision of the high court, they can rule in favour of the petitioner and require the superior court to consider these new arguments.<br /><br />The superior court, after reviewing the arguments, may rule against the petitioner without convening a formal hearing, but that does not alter the fact the lower court has challenged the superior court's earlier ruling.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46316633546824554402015-06-06T12:51:05.802-07:002015-06-06T12:51:05.802-07:00Nic: If a petitioner comes to a lower court with a...<b>Nic</b>: <i>If a petitioner comes to a lower court with a case which challenges a supreme court ruling and the lower court agrees the argument presented by the petitioner is valid under the law it can rule in his favour resulting in a reference to the higher courts. </i><br /><br />The lower court is bound to rule against the petitioner if the issue has already been adjudicated by the higher court, that is, if there is a relevant precedent. For instance, if a statute is passed prohibiting all abortions, then the judge is bound to overturn the law, even if the judge finds abortion morally repugnant. The argument has already been adjudicated and the issue has been decided. You can't keep making the same arguments in court over and over again. <br /><br />If the law simply makes abortion more difficult, for instance, to protect the health of the woman {nudge, nudge, wink, wink}, then the judge may allow the law as long as it doesn't create an undue burden. <br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc<br /><br />That's why anti-abortion laws are crafted the way they are. They have to work around the existing precedent. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86689683150795091712015-06-06T09:00:31.405-07:002015-06-06T09:00:31.405-07:00Zachriel,
"The lower court does not challeng...Zachriel,<br /><br />"The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ..." <br /><br />Zachriel, please pay attention. If a petitioner comes to a lower court with a case which challenges a supreme court ruling and the lower court agrees the argument presented by the petitioner is valid under the law it can rule in his favour resulting in a reference to the higher courts.<br /><br />Tell me, how is that not a challenge of a precedent?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36556351422669597242015-06-06T05:44:13.960-07:002015-06-06T05:44:13.960-07:00Zachriel: Only a petitioner can challenge a preced...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent...</i><br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Which is what I've said repeatedly, but as usual you never pay attention to what someone writes as it might upset your rhetoric. </i><br /><br />Z: The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ... <br /><br />N: It can if it so wishes. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8556482183101878032015-06-06T05:42:42.891-07:002015-06-06T05:42:42.891-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com