Foxx Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I'll gladly discuss this with you if you want to learn something about interpreting statutes yeah, no. my comment wasn't really about interpreting statutes. 27 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Yea, politicians mistating what laws can and cannot do really isn’t relevant. I know that’s dumb, but that’s the way it is. And politicians say a lot of dumb and wrong things about laws. even if there was something ambiguous about the timing portion in the bill, which there is not (which can’t be said enough...seriously quote any ambiguity about timing.), you look to a million other things to figure out the ambiguity, not what the governor said on the radio. right.cause your law makers don't have to know what a law says before passing it as we all learned with the ACA. i know that is the way it is but giving it a pass because of, 'that is the way it is', is complete bull####. 20 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sorry, that’s not how interpreting laws work. An expert on abortion bills can’t weigh in either. It’s not about his qualifications, it’s that there are more important things to consider. And again, the bill isn’t ambiguous with timing so it doesn’t matter. It speaks for itself. if an expert on abortion bills can't weigh in on it, then who should? more important things to consider than what a law means? give me a freaking break. again... what. kind. of. *****ery. is. this?
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: Great to see such experts in Constitutiona law like Crayola pontificating on these documents In areas of negotiating and final passage and intent and actual performance thanks sport!!! you must have a busy slate with your law practice and yet give us hours a day for free Oh boy! This isn't even constitutional law!!!! And I am actually busy today, which is always sucky for a sunday.
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 25 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sorry, that’s not how interpreting laws work. An expert on abortion bills can’t weigh in either. It’s not about his qualifications, it’s that there are more important things to consider. And again, the bill isn’t ambiguous with timing so it doesn’t matter. It speaks for itself. I expected better from you.
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Foxx said: yeah, no. my comment wasn't really about interpreting statutes. 1 Gotcha Quote right.cause your law makers don't have to know what a law says before passing it as we all learned with the ACA. i know that is the way it is but giving it a pass because of, 'that is the way it is', is complete bull####. 3 Right, and I already said that his comments were troubling for lots of reasons. Agreed. Quote if an expert on abortion bills can't weigh in on it, then who should? Just lawyers! You can't get an expert to interpret a statute. If the statute is ambiguous, you look to what the legislature has said, not the executive branch. Though, I could see a court using a governor's statement as further reasoning to support their interpretation. It just would be beyond rare. Quote more important things to consider than what a law means? give me a freaking break. again... what. kind. of. *****ery. is. this? The law! And I don't want to mispeak. Its not that you can't look to what a governor says to interpret a statute. In some circumstances, you might get there. It is just far down the list and is very rare, and wouldn't happen here. Edited February 3, 2019 by Crayola64
row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 He’s talking out of his anal orifice, Crayola is a typical lib deliberately lying and downplaying what is plainly obvious i don’t know how they live with themself
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: I expected better from you. Why, I have already put my thoughts down on this. Of the list of things that matter when interpreting the statute, his comments are near the bottom of a long list. It's just a fact. Just now, row_33 said: He’s talking out of his anal orifice, Crayola is a typical lib deliberately lying and downplaying what is plainly obvious i don’t know how they live with themself haha yea okay buddy. lies lies lies lies.
B-Man Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 30 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I'll gladly discuss this with you if you want to learn something about interpreting statutes Really ?..................gotcha ? Abortion discussion is not a "gotcha" situation Here is how that sounds Of course, the main author of the bill said the same thing, but now we can ignore her actual intent because she also backtracked the same day....gotcha. I have held dozens of dead babies in my hands, and had to comfort the grieving parents. No amount of your attempts at "explaining" the (perfectly obvious) law will be changing anyone's mind. OUR CALHOUN MOMENT by Scott Johnson The internal logic of the uninhibited abortion regime has resulted in a sacramental and/or positive good view of abortion. Before the revelation of his medical school yearbook photo display embarrassed Democrats, Governor Northam extended the cheery view to infanticide. Democrats want him to disappear and take the inconvenient questions he inadvertently raised with him. The abortion regime will be with us long after Northam disappears (as will the Democrats’s cynical charges of racism against political opponents such as Northam employed against Ed Gillespie). Boston College Professor Paul McNellis, S.J., elaborated the sacramental view of abortion promulgated in the film version of The Cider House Rules nearly twenty years ago. Writing in 2000, he commented: “Abortion as a maturing, coming-of-age experience, as a myth to live by–is this what we’re willing to swallow? Apparently. And this is what makes the film a cultural watershed, for it could not have been made even 10 years ago. In fact, it took Mr. Irving 14 years and four directors to get from novel to film. He had to wait for his audience to catch up with him. That we have done so is testimony not to his courage or foresight, but to our own corruption….” By the same token, our own corruption permeates the positive good view of abortion. Kyle Sammin explores the analogue in the evolution of opinion about slavery culminating in the thought of John C. Calhoun. Sammin’s excellent Federalist column was written before we had Northam’s thoughts to consider, but it generally illuminates the abortion mania Northam reflects. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/our-calhoun-moment.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+(Power+Line)
/dev/null Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 34 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: And I am actually busy today, which is always sucky for a sunday. Super Bowl Sunday no less
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Really ?..................gotcha ? Abortion discussion is not a "gotcha" situation Here is how that sounds Of course, the main author of the bill said the same thing, but now we can ignore her actual intent because she also backtracked the same day....gotcha. I have held dozens of dead babies in my hands, and had to comfort the grieving parents. I said gotcha as I understand what you are saying. As in, “gotcha.” and who said anything about ignoring her comments? You love to make stuff up. On the spectrum of reasonable posters, you are on one end of the spectrum for sure. Quote No amount of your attempts at "explaining" the (perfectly obvious) law will be changing anyone's mind. Trust me. I know it won’t for some of you. It will obviously allow after-birth abortion no matter what in your mind Quote 5 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Super Bowl Sunday no less I could have woken up earlier and gotten to work, but I’m lazy on the weekend. I’ll have the game on in the background though. Edited February 3, 2019 by Crayola64
Foxx Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Just lawyers! You can't get an expert to interpret a statute. If the statute is ambiguous, you look to what the legislature has said, not the executive branch. Though, I could see a court using a governor's statement as further reasoning to support their interpretation. It just would be beyond rare. again, yeah, no. you do realize an expert means that they are an expert, right? this means that they should be able to do whatever it is they are an expert in. some experts may be lawyers but that, in and itself doesn't preclude non lawyers. further, i agree that the judicial is the final word on what and how a law may be interpreted but again, you are giving the legislative a pass when most of the legislative is comprised of lawyers. ambiguity is incorporated in some laws for a reason 44 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: The law! And I don't want to mispeak. Its not that you can't look to what a governor says to interpret a statute. In some circumstances, you might get there. It is just far down the list and is very rare, and wouldn't happen here. again, we as the electorate look to our legislators to accurately depict what a law may mean. if they tell us that such and such says this and that, they may be wrong but the general electorate won't know that being as most of them are either brain dead or they just don't pay enough attention outside of sound bites and headlines. it is incumbent upon them to know of what they speak (oh... right, we are talking about our congress... my bad). the legislature had better have a damn good idea of what they are doing or the laws they pass are pretty useless. giving them a pass and saying we have to let the judicial have the final say is ludicrous and giving our law makers a pass where they don't deserve one.. Edited February 3, 2019 by Foxx
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Foxx said: again, yeah, no. you do realize an expert means that they are an expert, right? this means that they should be able to do whatever it is they are an expert in. some experts may be lawyers but that, in and itself doesn't preclude non lawyers. I wasnt clear. I meant the lawyers on the case. You cannot have experts, lawyers or non lawyers, for the purposes of interpreting a statute. This is the way it works. Quote further, i agree that the judicial is the final word on what and how a law may be interpreted but again, you are giving the legislative a pass when most of the legislative is comprised of lawyers. We look to what the legislature said in cases of ambiguous statutes because they were the ones who drafted it. Quote ambiguity is incorporated in some laws for a reason They shouldnt. Discretion and broadness, sure. Ambiguity should not be there. Quote again, we as the electorate look to our legislators to accurately depict what a law may mean. if they tell us that such and such says this and that, they may be wrong but the general electorate won't know that being as most of them are either brain dead or they just don't pay enough attention outside of sound bites and headlines. the legislature had better have a damn good idea of what they are doing or the laws they mean are pretty useless, giving them a pass and saying we have to let the judicial have the final say is ludicrous and giving our law makers a pass where they don't deserve one.. Im agreeing with you. I think there was a miscommunication. What the legislature said can be important, unless the statute is clear, then there is no need to figure out what they meant. Im not giving the governor a pass, he is an idiot. But he isn’t part of the legislature... Edited February 3, 2019 by Crayola64
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I wasnt clear. I meant the lawyers on the case. You cannot have experts, lawyers or non lawyers, for the purposes of interpreting a statute. This is the way it works. We look to what the legislature said in cases of ambiguous statutes because they were the ones who drafted it. They shouldnt. Discretion and broadness, sure. Ambiguity should not be there. Im agreeing with you. I think there was a miscommunication. What the legislature said can be important, unless the statute is clear, then there is no need to figure out what they meant. Im not giving the governor a pass, he is an idiot. But he isn’t part of the legislature... So, the governor/pediatrician thought the law allowed for what amounts to infanticide, and you say it clearly doesn't? I guess there must be some room for interpretation. If so, I wonder how many Drs., PA's, NP's and nurses might have some confusion too? 2
row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 I will take the word of someone on here about the wording and full effect of legiation....
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, the governor/pediatrician thought the law allowed for what amounts to infanticide, and you say it clearly doesn't? I guess there must be some room for interpretation. If so, I wonder how many Drs., PA's, NP's and nurses might have some confusion too? Or its just a politician saying something wrong? They do that a lot. I fully get where you are coming from, but someone putting forth a different interpretation doesn't make it ambiguous. My opinion is that the bill was very clear and I would have tough time seeing an argument that it permits infanticide. You all can, and do, disagree. 1 minute ago, row_33 said: I will take the word of someone on here about the wording and full effect of legiation.... I wouldn't. Just weighing in as someone who did that for a living. And, to some extent, still do. Edited February 3, 2019 by Crayola64
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Or its just a politician saying something wrong? They do that a lot. I fully get where you are coming from, but someone putting forth a different interpretation doesn't make it ambiguous. My opinion is that the bill was very clear and I would have tough time seeing an argument that it permits infanticide. You all can, and do, disagree. I wouldn't. Just weighing in as someone who did that for a living. And, to some extent, still do. Al Franken, is that you? 1
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Al Franken, is that you? Nailed it.
Doc Brown Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 5 hours ago, row_33 said: “Our policy manual forbids racism, therefore there is no racism going on here.” Except you don't get charged with homicide if you make a racist comment. This has turned into an emotionally charged discussion (rare on this forum) that assumes the worst of people. So, to quote our president. 1
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, B-Man said: Lol you are an arm of the other uninformed biased media.
Recommended Posts