“Your way,” may well be the way of justice. I don’t disagree with the fact that the action against ACORN was not justified.
But it wasn’t a Bill of Attainder. And all the mouth-breathing idiots in the world cannot make it so, even by closing their eyes and wishing really really hard.
I’m sure many of us gasp in admiration for your rhetorical victory over Gonzo, who so often tries to parse his way to a hair-splitting, sophistic, and legalistic triumph. And I must admit that even I, incensed over the back stabbing of a bunch of idealists by a cynical band of political low-lifes, even I lose track of the crucial and all-important distinction of whether the instrument was a dirk or a dagger.
Bad Gonzo! Bad! Now, go lay down by your water dish!
BRICKER you are such a insulting jerk.
Mouth beathing idiots include
Nina Gershon
REp Robert Wexler
Cong, Jerrold Nadler
Kenneth Thomas, Congressional Research Committee
Law Blog, who declares it a very close call
Constitutional Law Prof. Blog
Strange some highly qualified experts disagree. I suppose in BRICKER land they are all mouth breathing idiots.
Others declared it a close call for very specific reasons such as whether ACORN had a “right” to the contracts.
(bolding mine)
Bricker, in the above OP I count but two sentences which address the Bill of Attainder issue. Are you really so desperate for a victory that you dug this thread up to have him apologize for being wrong about that particular issue? You’re a lawyer, he’s not (at least as far as I know). Do you often call up laymen who defend themselves against you in court and gloat when they lose?
And does gonzomax’s wrongness on the Bill of Attainder issue invalidate the rest of his post?
This is seriously weak tea here, Bricker. You’re better than this.
Sadly, the weight of the evidence is that he is not.
Bricker’s gloating may be slightly unseemly, but a far worse offense is the failure of certain posters to just admit error.
And it wouldn’t be terribly offensive for those posters in question to just say that the current state of the law doesn’t match their notions of where it ought to be - an opinion I have concerning several subjects, myself. Why not just state this and move on with the issue on other legal or political venues?
More important than all of that is ACORN was destroyed by ruthless people for political reasons. It was never about a legal definition of Bill of Attainder. However the latest ruling( is it the final ruling?) says Gershon was incorrect. OK. On a purely technical definition the ruling was tossed. At this point in time, BICKER was correct. He may begin breathing out of his gills again.
The ruling was because they determined it was not a corporate death sentence because not all their funding was Federal. That is it? It sure as hell became a death sentence, due to the gutlessness of the politicians.
Well, at the time of the controversy private support for ACORN also collapsed. But I don’t know what except for a possible civil remedy ACORN has there - private organizations are entitled to donate to whoever they wish, and they may make a decision to withdraw funding even when an organization has done nothing wrong.
what other kinds of definitions are there?
oh, yeah In liberalland, definitions are never technical; they change to whatever the needs of liberal orthodoxy require at the time. They are living, breathing definitions. they serve The People. the actual words mean nothing. the law consists of whatever the liberal mind wants to have happen.
so i can see how disappointing and frustrating it must be to encounter a technical definition.
The debate over whether ACORN was put out of business seems like an aside. Whether parts of it reformed does not strike me as germane. This is the law. But is appears outside the definition because it deals with the impact. Why should the impact of the decision have any thing to do with it, when it comes after the fact?
Quit being snotty. It is ill becoming. Act like a reasonable adult some times. Put downs are high school stuff. You should be over that by now.
Meanwhile, 11 posts earlier…
Nice try but he came up with calling calling those who disagreed with him “mouth breathing idiots”. I merely pointed out it was time to breathe air now. He set the table. I did not call him a name.
45 posts ago, and not incidentally the post that caused me to bookmark this thread and wait for the appellate reversal:
I guess civility is important only when you’re on the losing end.
Do you really not see the difference? I responded with humor. You as a condescending ass. That is quite different.
No. See, if that had been humor, then we’d both have been laughing.
You are a lawyer. You can not laugh.
I’m not entirely sure what a Bill of Attainder is, but I know jackasses when I see them.
Great. I won’t insist you’re a jackass, when I have no idea if you are; you don’t insist a law is a Bill of Attainder when you have no idea what that is. We’ll get along great.
Anybody know any lawyer jokes?