Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will Obama win a landslide victory?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Obviously shining examples of adherents to the basics of the modern US legal system: Charging people has nothing to do with due process and evidence, and everything to do with how loudly we shout and cause damage...

    NTM

    Your reasoning on this is quite astounding. Though I feel this discussion probably belongs in a different thread.

    Here are the facts of the case.

    1) Zimmerman shot and killed Travyon. An unarmed, black teenager. He did so after seeking out a confrontation with the man despite being told by 911 to not do so. At the time, the young black man was talking on the phone to his girlfriend, and told her he was afraid that someone was following him.

    So the indisputed fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed Travyon after approaching him.

    Zimmerman CLAIMS self-defense. That's his claim. But there is more than enough there to charge him and make the case in court.

    Of course people are baying for blood. An unarmed black kid, minding his own business was gunned down in the street. And there is no semblence of justice. If a jury aquits him so be it, but how can he not be charged at all? How can the police just take his word for it? Is there some strong evidence that corroborates his version of events? If there was I'm sure the police would be eager to get the mob off their backs.


  • Options
    #93
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Your reasoning on this is quite astounding. Though I feel this discussion probably belongs in a different thread.

    Here are the facts of the case.

    1) Zimmerman shot and killed Travyon. An unarmed, black teenager. He did so after seeking out a confrontation with the man despite being told by 911 to not do so. At the time, the young black man was talking on the phone to his girlfriend, and told her he was afraid that someone was following him.

    So the indisputed fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed Travyon after approaching him.

    Zimmerman CLAIMS self-defense. That's his claim. But there is more than enough there to charge him and make the case in court.

    Of course people are baying for blood. An unarmed black kid, minding his own business was gunned down in the street. And there is no semblence of justice. If a jury aquits him so be it, but how can he not be charged at all? How can the police just take his word for it? Is there some strong evidence that corroborates his version of events? If there was I'm sure the police would be eager to get the mob off their backs.

    MOD NOTE:

    There is actually a running thread on the Martin case in this forum, so let's stick to Obama's re-election for this thread, thanks.


  • Options
    #94
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I hope you're kidding? The Harvard Law Review is and has been the most cited and influential legal periodical for 125 years. He is the only president to have been the president of the review. He is up there with 7 supreme court judges and many other jurists. It is literally the most notable academic position in law that I can think of.

    As for work he did, I think you misunderstand... the president of the Review does not write all of the articles; but politico has put out the contents of all of his reviews here - the actual articles being subject to copyright.

    I have found nothing that would merit his selection, but I could be wrong. Yes the selection of president of the law review is essentially a popularity contest, and who’s function includes the selection the articles on perceived merit… but one who can also drive the articles based on his or her ideologies such as "pushing a strong minority perspective"… or not!
    He worked at Sidley & Austin, probably the oldest law firm in the USA (whom I believe handled the estate of Lincoln after his death) where he met Michelle who was also an associate there.

    He was a senior lecturer of constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School:


    He then went on to work as a senior partner and civil rights litigator in a Chicago law firm...

    I mean, if that's not enough what would be? Oh, becoming the POTUS I guess.

    Yes, all those indicate he is smart and intelligent, but do they prove he is as I’ve been told ad nauseam “the smartest POTUS in US history?”
    (GW Bush was also POTUS… would he be just as smart?)
    Considering it is an elected position of chosen candidates based on legal academic ability I doubt that he was being serious.

    How were his grades? And oh yeah... So this president of the law review wasn't serious in his official capicity?

    http://hlrecord.org/?p=11263
    He's a constitutional lawyer... are you a constitutional lawyer? It's a pretty tough academic gauntlet to become any lawyer.
    No... are you? And becoming a lawyer gives you instant credibility to become POTUS?
    It depends. You've clearly swayed this in light of "obamacare" and "forced" insurance. I'm sure you'll argue the medicine is not a "commercial" business as well. Yes, if you accept that modern medicine is not truly "commercial at its core" I]United States v. Lopez[/I then it could be argued that "obamacare" (for example - and I think it's what you're getting at) may be unconstitutional or at the very least ultra vires the powers of the federal legislature. But I would disagree that medicine is not "commercial at its core", especially in the US. Hospitals are corporations run for profit, so are pharmaceutical companies and so are insurance companies. A simplistic view of the integrity of the body being the core of medicine requires a severe detachment from the reality of the commercial nature of healthcare in the modern world.

    I think the ruling of Judge Silberman in Seven-Sky v. Holder is a good and logical explanation without too much legalese:


    I would also have to agree that nowhere in the real world of rational thinking can a penalty for not doing something be considered a 'tax'.

    Thanks for your opinion. The decisions of the SCOTUS will untimately decide who is right. Yes I have my opinion but I'll wait for their decision because I've been wrong once or twice before :).

    Personally, if the Federal Government wants to ingore the Tenth Ammendment and force its citizens into commerce (and the citizens agree), it should be done through ammendments, not legal shenanigans.
    Can you tell me why people shouldn't be forced to purchase a minimum level of personal insurance? Could that argument be extended to cover car insurance? Driving licences? Gun licences?
    Perhaps becasue our constitution doesn't allow it? Should I be required to buy car insurance if I don't own a car... Get a gun license if I don't own a gun?


  • Options
    #95
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    I hope Obama wins.

    He wanted to reinstate the Ireland-America fund but the Republicans recently tried to block it. The Democrats have a large Irish-American support also, not least because of their policy supporting the reunification of Ireland - that will win any Irish support.

    Obama for President 2012.


Advertisement