CNS News, Obama Administration Continues Spending under Unconstitutional HC law. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;28002542]Not just that, but look at what they did after his ruling. They completely ignored it![/QUOTE] kinda like how you ignore everything?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28002567]kinda like how you ignore everything?[/QUOTE] ho ho ho

[QUOTE=Lambeth;28002560]What do you expect him to do? Apologize?[/QUOTE] If they wanted to continue this without being in contempt, they should of gotten a stay on the ruling.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28002542]Not just that, but look at what they did after his ruling. They completely ignored it![/QUOTE] they ignored his non-existent demand to stop implementing the law goddamn how do you do these mental gymnastics [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28002603]If they wanted to continue this without being in contempt, they should of gotten a stay on the ruling.[/QUOTE] uh the judge didn't demand the law stop being implemented should they be found in contempt because they didn't do what the judge thought they'd do?

[QUOTE=Glaber;28002542]Not just that, but look at what they did after his ruling. They completely ignored it![/QUOTE] What did they ignore? No injuction was issued, so nothing needs to be done.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;28002769]What did they ignore? No injuction was issued, so nothing needs to be done.[/QUOTE] they ignored the alternate reality that glaber lives in

What they ignored was the court ruling saying that the law was unconstitutional. What do i have to do to drill that into you? Use an actual Drill? The Judge didn't issue a injunction or order to stop because he though his ruling was enough to get them to stop when it was obviously not! Am I the only one who payed this close attention to the ruling?

And other judges say it's constitutional. [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] Either way Obama is the president and he doesn't take no shit from any state judge.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28003045]What they ignored was the court ruling saying that the law was unconstitutional. What do i have to do to drill that into you? Use an actual Drill? The Judge didn't issue a injunction or order to stop because he though his ruling was enough to get them to stop when it was obviously not! Am I the only one who payed this close attention to the ruling?[/QUOTE] WHAT? They have no legal reason to stop. No injunction was issued, and therefore they are legally permitted to cont on with what they were doing. If the Federal Court were to issue the injunction, they would be required to stop. They haven't ignored the court ruling, otherwise they would have no intention to appeal the decision, which they have indicated. The comment you're basing it off would've been recorded as side remarks to the case, and therefore are not legally binding.

[QUOTE=TH89;28001995]This is thorny legal territory I wish Lankist were back[/QUOTE] Ask the mod who banned him reverse it, it was a shit ban anyway.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28003152]Ask the mod who banned him reverse it, it was a shit ban anyway.[/QUOTE] I argued against it at the time, but the OIFY hated him and that was pretty much all it took

[QUOTE=TH89;28003195]I argued against it at the time, but the OIFY hated him and that was pretty much all it took[/QUOTE] So it has come to this Sharia Law on facepunch

[QUOTE=TH89;28003195]the OIFY hated him[/QUOTE] so they all call each other faggots

Me and my friends always enjoy pinoy videos from this site every time! I really enjoy it! I like to chat with new found pinoy friends, also. The site have great pinoy channels, and pinoy music videos. I really love [URL=http://www.flipbooth.com]FlipBooth[/URL] and [URL=http://www.flipbooth.com]Pinoy Videos[/URL] ! Kudos to FlipBooth and staff - The Pinoy Channel TV .. Sorry I got carried away :) [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spam Bot" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=TH89;28003195]I argued against it at the time, but the OIFY hated him and that was pretty much all it took[/QUOTE] OIFY, what a shithole. [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28003045]What they ignored was the court ruling saying that the law was unconstitutional. What do i have to do to drill that into you? Use an actual Drill? The Judge didn't issue a injunction or order to stop because he though his ruling was enough to get them to stop when it was obviously not! Am I the only one who payed this close attention to the ruling?[/QUOTE] And? Why would the President of the United States care about the ruling of a state judge? Persuasive precedent is not binding precedent, and it certainly makes no difference when they are many judges on both sides claiming it is, or isn't constitutional.

[QUOTE=TH89;28003195]I argued against it at the time, but the OIFY hated him and that was pretty much all it took[/QUOTE] The OIFY hates themselves, what are you going to do about that?

[QUOTE=Glaber;28003045]What they ignored was the court ruling saying that the law was unconstitutional. What do i have to do to drill that into you? Use an actual Drill? The Judge didn't issue a injunction or order to stop because he though his ruling was enough to get them to stop when it was obviously not! Am I the only one who payed this close attention to the ruling?[/QUOTE] well shit, maybe if the judge wanted them to stop he should have [b]issued an injunction[/b]

I'm curious, what exactly is the credibility of CNS news, Glaber?

I wonder what CNS News is, I've never heard of it. Maybe it's a decent source? [quote=wikipedia]The CNSNews.com (or Cybercast News Service), formerly called the Conservative News Service, is an American news website owned by the Media Research Center. [/quote] NOPE

[QUOTE=sp00ks;28007214]I wonder what CNS News is, I've never heard of it. Maybe it's a decent source? NOPE[/QUOTE] Why would you even think that, it's a glaber thread

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;28007101]I'm curious, what exactly is the credibility of CNS news, Glaber?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sp00ks;28007214]I wonder what CNS News is, I've never heard of it. Maybe it's a decent source? NOPE[/QUOTE] Read [url]http://www.cnsnews.com/static/about_us[/url] I wasn't exaggerating on the first page. [i]They call themselves out for being biased.[/i] Also: [url]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/girl-scouts-organization-backs-away-pled[/url] "Wanting girls to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the reduction of greenhouse gases? Do you know how inflammatory that is!?"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28007655]Why would you even think that, it's a glaber thread[/QUOTE] I don't even know...

I swear, glaber really does live in his own little world these days ignorant of reality, just hoping that something happens the way he imagines it.

glaber is weird, he keeps stabbing in an argument trying to find a good point, but once he gets a good point in(he does a lot) he doesnt even elaborate or try to push it, he just goes on metaphorically stabbin

Then he makes a bad point and jams it in hard.

We need a liberal version of glaber so the republicans dont feel left out. Quick someone post a thread about how evil guns are.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28003203]So it has come to this Sharia Law on facepunch[/QUOTE] the daily mail was right. who knows who will get banned next?

I asked Lankist about this, this might help you Glaber: [quote]Lankist: Oh [Obamacare] can [still be enforced] Lankist: just like how the DEA can enforce federal drug laws in places that the state has partially legalized a substance Lankist: Whether or not it's unconstitutional is irrelevant. Until the Supreme Court says so, the federal government can do whatever the fuck it wants to make states enforce it Lankist: It isn't technically unconstitutional until it is successfully challenged Lankist: They aren't breaking the law until a federal court says so Lankist: hence why the states are trying to get this case up to the supreme court ASAP Lankist: Crimes on behalf of government don't work like they do with citizens. A citizen commits a crime and he gets arrested, THEN goes on trial. Lankist: When the government commits a crime, it keeps committing that crime until it gets a trial. Lankist: This is all assuming it is a crime to begin with, which has yet to be determined. The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not currently address the issue in enough clarity to make an immediate judgement.[/quote]

Ask him if he still thinks he's right about the corporate funding supreme court decision. [editline]12th February 2011[/editline] aka Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[QUOTE=TH89;28019546]I asked Lankist about this, this might help you Glaber:[/QUOTE] i miss lankist so much