Oh, although it*s difficult to tear myself aware from this fun game of Whack-A-Moron, I found this photo interesting:
http://www.gasupreme.us/justices_bios.php
Maybe those here who have opined that Georgia racism is to blame for what the judicial outcome will reconsider?
Urf. That should have read: …for the judicial outcome here will reconsider?
What an enormous, pompous, lackwit asshole you are.
Not against a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass, it appears.
Let’s ALL play pompous, sanctimonious pedant, boys and girls! How’s this: I didn’t say that, the New York Times said that. Boy, what fun you must be having being a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass, Random!
You said you doubted “the legislator”, as if it were just some single, arbitrary congresscritter probably ignorant of the State’s Constitution, whereas I replied:
To which you stupidly and pompously and pedantically replied:
Let’s play pompous pedant again in return, okay kiddies? You said “the legislator” (singular), whereas the spokesperson quoted in the Times was speaking for “the legislators [plural] on the judicial committee”.
Now, while I’d have been happy to go along with your skepticism if indeed it was just some single, arbitrary congressperson possibly ignorant of the State’s Constitution, when the legislators on the Congressional Judicial Committee of all things speak as one, such an absurd level of skepticism can only be equated with a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass. QED.
Might these attorneys (for surely such are by far the most likely constituents of such a committee) conceivably be wrong about their own constitution? In the extreme abstract case, sure. In the real world? Almost certainly not.
Ooops. Preview might have saved you from looking foolish here.
Or maybe not. Some things are just impossible to hide.
Your reading comprehension is singularly unimpressive, which comes as no surprise. The very article from the New York Times referenced and quoted that very ruling, followed immediately by this:
Since I obviously have to break that down even further for your tiny little sanctimonious mind, let’s see if you can follow this: Georgia Supreme Court Justice Carol W. Hunstein merely opines that the legislature didn’t make changes to the law in question retroactive. In response, the Judicial Committee replies to that apparently doubtful ruling that the constitution forbid them from making it retroactive, which is the only reason they couldn’t make it retroactive.
So your citation to the very decision being challenged is very far from conclusive or even particularly probative on the question at hand.
As to your remarks regarding racism, you are aware that I never claimed racism was involved, right? Right?
Quit foaming.
Show me where I said otherwise. In fact, when making that comment, I prefaced it by saying that I was taking a break from my game of Whack-A-Moron.
Apparently, you haven*t grasped that you are the moron in question.
The only foolishness is yours, you pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass.
I stand by what I wrote.
All the frothing is coming from your pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass, not mine.
From the Georgia Constituion:
Perhaps that’s what the committee is referencing.
Okay, congratulatins. Youve caused me to waste some time that I didnt want to waste. I*ve actually looked up the Georgia constitutional provision that your scurrying politician was (apparently) relying upon.
But I*ll return to that in a bit.
First, do you realize the idiocy of deprecating the Supreme Court*s ruling by characterizing it as an opinion (or what they “opined”?)
Thats what binding, legal determinations of a court are called. Brown v. Board of Education was an opinion. Theres nothing “doubtful” about it. It*s both conclusive and probative.
You remind me of those (other) idiots who argue against evolution by claiming that it*s only a theory. In doing so, both of you reveal your ignorance of what the term means.
Second, you apparently fail to realize the corner that your politicians were in. The Supreme Court opinion had revealed to the world that the legislature had done a stupid thing. They had to say something. Their constituents were outraged. (Am I allowed to use that term? I forget) So they came up with this ex post facto bullshit.
(By the way, have you decided on your opinion (heh) of the legislatures legal wisdom yet? I know its tough. Youre screwed either way. But Im not going to let you off the hook – are these guys citable as thoughtful legal scholars, or are they not?)
(Continued)
And perhaps not. IANAL, which Random has long known and I never claimed.
You are truly a wonder.
Is the barrel comfortable? Are you getting along with the other fish?
Yes, you have cited a Georgia constitutional provision.
Unfortunately, you have the wrong Georgia. There are two, you know.
One is very far away. Not in the United States at all. Although they don*t speak English there, through the wonders of the web, English translations of its constitution are available. And through your ignorance, you have stumbled across one such translation, similar to this: http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/gg00t___.html
Note the article 42 that you cite. Also note where the constitution establishes the state capital at Tblisi, and the state language as Georgian. Yeah, they talk kinda funny down there in the American Georgia, but it still counts as English. Maybe that should have been a clue.
But I forgot. You never have a clue.
(more follows)
That’s primarily your poor reading comprehension problem again, but I’ll take a bit of a hit, too, if I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I was in no way suggesting that the justice’s decision was not a “binding, legal determination”, pedant! The take-away point is that the justice merely opined that the legislature didn’t make the law retroactive (i.e., it was merely an observation, not a legal finding). She did NOT opine or hold that they could have done so! So it is still doubtful, as I claimed, lackwit.
See this post, in particular the bottom portion.
Prove it, you pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass. Prove they lied or stop up you’re festering gob.
It depends on whether my previous citation to the contents of the Georgia constitution are on point or not. I honestly do not know, but I’ll still give them the benefit of the doubt.
Unlike you.
Let me explain in little words for you, you pedantic, sanctimonious ass.
I can try to explain in littler words if you ask politely. But you probably wouldn’t understand even that.
Here’s from the U.S. State of Georgia, pedant.
What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, Random.
-interlude-
Should I continue?
On the one hand, one shouldn*t torment the handicapped.
On the other hand, he*s been pretty free with the insults, has attacked several people in this thread without any basis, and still seems to think people should believe his nonsense.
And arrogant, ignorant blowhards should be revealed for what they are. Especially here.
But do I really want to do a dissertation on ex post facto laws, and the related issue of how a legislature may make a law retroactive? It*s pretty late, and the Georgian diversion, as entertaining as it was, ate up some time.
-end interlude-
I think what Im going to do, is link to the correct Georgias constitution, point out the provision that the Georgia legislator probably had in mind, and hope that someone else explains the extent and limits of a prohibition on ex post facto laws. (Maybe someone who has the benefit of a two hour time difference? If she does, Ill buy the beer if were ever in the same city.)
Amazingly, even with all my hints, you are still not 100% correct, although you are close.
From the 1998 Georgia Constitution, as amended:
Article I, Paragraph X. Bill of attainder; ex post facto laws; and retroactive laws. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed.
I look forward to ambushed*s legal analysis of this provision and his likely conclusion that the Georgia legislature had no power to repeal or otherwise undo the law under which the defendant here was convicted.
However, as a famous cartoon character based on a blowhard Southern legislator (appropriate, no?) might say at this point: “Lookit here, son. I say son, you might want to be careful with what you say here.”
As for me,
…it*s time for sleep, so I can justify getting paid for this kind of thing tomorrow.
See post 175 as well as my statements declaring that I am not a lawyer.
What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, Random.
The “arguments” you’ve made here against me have been revealed to be shallow, off-base, pedantic, pompous ranting and/or evasions of my actual points, and have been just as full of personal insults, asshat.
“cc” me and the board with your pedantic, poorly-reasoned diatribe to the committee proving that they’re complete idiots who don’t even understand their own Constitution.
And their replies.
It’ll be a hoot!