Supreme Court decision of the day

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

The article was written with an individual in mind rather than two trying to navigate the same path. It would be a good project to draw your octopus and the draw what you think your wife's is. Then swap drawings to see if you both really understand each others goals and if you can make goals that intersect. The goal is to create a Kraken not a squid.

 

Sounds kinky.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, cals said:

Just positing out facts, chief.

Well keep soothing yourself bro.  I think it’s obvious that you are pretty threatened by people that have opinions you dont agree with, and God forbid somebody has an opinion that is related to the law.  That stirs your inner insecurity like nothing else.

Yiu really shouldn’t have to be anywhere close to being a law professor to have a valid opinion about law related things.

But that really makes you look less like the isolated decorated expert, doesn’t it?

it’s pretty transparent.  This has nothing to do with me.  If you were more secure with yourself you might just hear my opinion and either agree or disagree with no need to whine.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Blarg]

23 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Sounds kinky.

[cals]

32 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Well keep soothing yourself bro.  I think it’s obvious that you are pretty threatened by people that have opinions you dont agree with, and God forbid somebody has an opinion that is related to the law.  That stirs your inner insecurity like nothing else.

Yiu really shouldn’t have to be anywhere close to being a law professor to have a valid opinion about law related things.

But that really makes you look less like the isolated decorated expert, doesn’t it?

it’s pretty transparent.  This has nothing to do with me.  If you were more secure with yourself you might just hear my opinion and either agree or disagree with no need to whine.

No.  It’s just that you literally don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

I understand you think you do, but you don’t.

But please keep going, as I stated multiple times it’s rather remarkable to watch you spew nonsense with impunity.  I actually enjoy it.  

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, cals said:

No.  It’s just that you literally don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

I understand you think you do, but you don’t.

But please keep going, as I stated multiple times it’s rather remarkable to watch you spew nonsense with impunity.  I actually enjoy it.  

If the point that the word “conservative” could describe two entirely different types of judges is past your ability to understand, this is exactly how you would react.  . . Given that you are a very small person, threatened by others, with a big mouth.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[cals]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

If the point that the word “conservative” could describe two entirely different types of judges is past your ability to understand, thus is exactly how you would react.  . . Given that you are a very small person, threatened by others, with a big mouth.

Keep going 

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, cals said:

Keep going 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, cals said:

Just positing out facts, chief.

He does not appreciate your racist comment 

[Jay]

Slippin' Jimmy thinks he's the only one who has a valid opinion regarding legal matters.

We'll remember that the next time he shares one of his pearls of wisdom on the topic of climate change, womens' health, or Ukraine.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

It would be a good project to draw your octopus and the draw what you think your wife's is. 

[Taylor]

23 hours ago, Jay said:

Slippin' Jimmy thinks he's the only one who has a valid opinion regarding legal matters.

We'll remember that the next time he shares one of his pearls of wisdom on the topic of climate change, womens' health, or Ukraine.

 

It's been a while since we had a genuine "in the industry" argument here.

Also lol @ calling cals Slipping Jimmy. 

 

[cals]

17 hours ago, Taylor said:

It's been a while since we had a genuine "in the industry" argument here.

Also lol @ calling cals Slipping Jimmy. 

 

I have a Saul bobblehead in my office.  I don’t take it as an insult.  

And if you’re too stupid to understand how a lawyer knows more about constitutional law than a pipe fitter or toll booth worker or whatever downtown Carlsbad is, then I don’t know what to say.

You understand that  Constitutional law classes are an integral part of the law school curriculum, correct?

[Taylor]

5 minutes ago, cals said:

I have a Saul bobblehead in my office.  I don’t take it as an insult.  

And if you’re too stupid to understand how a lawyer knows more about constitutional law than a pipe fitter or toll booth worker or whatever downtown Carlsbad is, then I don’t know what to say.

You understand that  Constitutional law classes are an integral part of the law school curriculum, correct?

I believe this is addressed to Jay, not me.

[cals]

2 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I believe this is addressed to Jay, not me.

No, Jay isn’t stupid.

[cals]

Or gay for that matter.

[Lou]

Someone's getting reported....

[Lou]

or at least a lame emoji 

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, cals said:

I have a Saul bobblehead in my office.  I don’t take it as an insult.  

And if you’re too stupid to understand how a lawyer knows more about constitutional law than a pipe fitter or toll booth worker or whatever downtown Carlsbad is, then I don’t know what to say.

You understand that  Constitutional law classes are an integral part of the law school curriculum, correct?

Talk about “keep going”. . .

Every person who ever went to law school has at least a slightly different view of Constitutional law.  So please keep telling us how YOU are the expert and nobody else knows anything.  It is all debatable.  If you don’t know that then you shouldn’t have graduated.

Too funny.

Any nobody ever claimed to know “more about” the subject than you.  That was purely your fantasy driven by your own insecurity taking over.

Everyone is entitled to have opinions about law related things.  In fact, I would argue that people have an obligation to develop opinions about such things since we are tasked to vote.

You are coming off like Keith Olbermann showing his actual paper Cornell degree on TV.  He was sure he had the ultimate winning moment and he had absolutely no idea how embarrassing that was.

 

[cals]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Talk about “keep going”. . .

Every person who ever went to law school has at least a slightly different view of Constitutional law.  

 

Odd that you made this statement when you were basically telling Taylor the only true way to interpret the Constitution was through strict constructionism.  What you fail to understand as to why I called you out for being a dumbass is that "strict constructionism" is a fallacy itself.  Even those that purport to provide opinions based on it are doing the same as anyone else. Reading the document in a manner to suit their political needs.  At this point strict constructionism is just a Fox buzzword that dummies throw out when they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, cals said:

Odd that you made this statement when you were basically telling Taylor the only true way to interpret the Constitution was through strict constructionism.  What you fail to understand as to why I called you out for being a dumbass is that "strict constructionism" is a fallacy itself.  Even those that purport to provide opinions based on it are doing the same as anyone else. Reading the document in a manner to suit their political needs.  At this point strict constructionism is just a Fox buzzword that dummies throw out when they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Buddy, honestly you need some help in reading comprehension.  I did not, ever, say the “only true way to interpret” was strict constructionism.

Here is what happened.  I shared my opinions related to law.

You don’t like me and since it was law related, your insecurities took over.

You are going to keep spinning her to try to save face but it is what it is.

What else can you fabricate now to dig out of this?

[cals]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Buddy, honestly you need some help in reading comprehension.  I did not, ever, say the “only true way to interpret” was strict constructionism.

Here is what happened.  I shared my opinions related to law.

You don’t like me and since it was law related, your insecurities took over.

You are going to keep spinning her to try to save face but it is what it is.

What else can you fabricate now to dig out of this?

You're starting to go full Lifetime.

[Dtwncbad]

17 minutes ago, cals said:

You're starting to go full Lifetime.

No idea what that means.

Cals, I don’t think you can personally be objective in discussing things with me.  You are just not able to set aside your interest in trying to “burn” me.

If you honestly want to argue that there isn’t a difference between a “conservative” judge that will exploit their seat for purely political purposes, and a judge that does their personal best to have the discipline to rule based on what is in the document, regardless of how their professional ruling is or is not in alignment with their own personal political agenda (this person would ALSO be labeled a “conservative” judge), then go for it.

Is there such a thing as a judge that is 100% devoid of being influenced at all by their own political leanings?  Probably not.  But that was never a position I or anyone else took.

The opinion shared is there is a range of this.

I prefer a judge that attempts to minimize their political leanings.  I think we should all want that, if we trust the three branch system to actually work.

How on earth this fired off your “I am the authority and you are a moron” reaction is peculiar at best.

But is sure is consistent with your displayed interest in going at me personally.

Pretty lame dude.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[cals]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You are just not able to set aside your interest in trying to “burn” me.

[cals]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If you honestly want to argue that there isn’t a difference between a “conservative” judge that will exploit their seat for purely political purposes, and a judge that does their personal best to have the discipline to rule based on what is in the document, regardless of how their professional ruling is or is not in alignment with their own personal political agenda (this person would ALSO be labeled a “conservative” judge), then go for it.

 

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, cals said:

And there it is. . .
I am actually glad you posted this.

It supports another explanation for your vitriol.  You clearly hate Fox News.  So anybody that has a conservative opinion is obviously just the product of watching Fox News, right?

This is a vacuous, shallow, lazy way to just insult people instead of staying mentally organized.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dtwncbad