Trump’s Travel Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Numeroys injunctions were issued.

Oh, so it's alright to use "numerous" here? Count how many injunctions were issued. I don't know if it is a "great number." Hypocrite and semantics add up to shit.

"Struck down" isn't ambiguous. It means a law/order/regulation or other similar legally binding provision was overturned on the merits.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster, Collins, Macmillan, dictionary.com, and just about any other reputable dictionary:


Definition of strike down

annul, nullify

• the board struck down the appointment

1. To cause to fall by a blow.
2. To incapacitate or kill: He was struck down by tuberculosis.
3. To invalidate: The court struck down the law as unconstitutional.

1) to cause to fall by a blow, etc.; knock down
2) to do away with; undo, cancel, etc.
3) to have a disastrous or disabling effect upon

Then, take it up with the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/travel-ban-blocked.html

. . . and Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eals-court-strikes-down-trump-travel-ban.html

. . . and Vox:

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/17/16490890/trump-travel-ban-hawaii

. . . and the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-geltzer-travel-ban-legal-defects-20180424-story.html

. . . and Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ne-of-two-travel-ban-challenges-idUSKBN1CF37E

. . . and NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/17/603160263/supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-law

. . . and BBC:



. . . and the Daily Wire:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2721...t-strikes-down-trump-travel-ban-emily-zanotti

. . . and ABC News . . . and Vanity Fair . . . and . . .

So, even though numerous leading dictionaries define it as being appropriate to use in that sense and even though leading media organizations from both sides of the aisle used it just like I did, you're claiming they are all wrong and you're right. Got it.

 

[ThunderCat98]

First, I know of at least 10 injunctions off the top of my head - so, yeah - numerous. That's more than 3 times as many as the 3 instances you cited.

Second, from your own citation:

To invalidate: The court struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Soooo, the one definition of "strike down" that applies in a legal context means exactly what I said. You know the ban was never struck down, but you'll also never admit your mistake.

Third, I can't help it if the morons in the MSM don't know what "struck down" means. I'm also not surprised by that.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I was accepted into Georgetown immediately out of Marshall. At the time, Georgetown was a top 10 law school in the country.

Awesome! That makes you just as qualified to discuss legal matters as the bum I gave change to at the intersection a few hours ago. Congrats!

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

First, I know of at least 10 injunctions off the top of my head - so, yeah - numerous. That's more than 3 times as many as the 3 instances you cited.

You failed to answer: if a woman had sex with four men at a house party in the same night, would you believe it accurate to claim she had sex with numerous guys that night?

Soooo, the one definition of "strike down" that applies in a legal context means exactly what I said. You know the ban was never struck down, but you'll also never admit your mistake.

Where the hell do you conclude that there is only one definition that applies in a legal context? I copy-and-pasted seven or eight definitions of the phrase. All of them are legitimate uses of the phrase and all apply perfectly fine in the context all of those media outlets used it.

You're the one attempting to pick-and-choose a single definition out of many to support your argument. Too bad that all of the definitions of that word are valid, able to be used, and can be applied correctly in the context it was used by the numerous (doh!) dictionaries, media outlets, and me .

Awesome! That makes you just as qualified to discuss legal matters as the bum I gave change to at the intersection a few hours ago. Congrats!

No, it makes me far more qualified than you to discuss this matter. The LSAT measures the ability of the test taker and the level of aptitude of him to succeed in law school. It showed that, even without studying like most do, my ability to understand and succeed in a top 10 law school was likely. On the other hand, you went to a tier 3 law school because your LSAT results yielded the truth about your aptitude; you don't have the intelligence to succeed in a top law school.

I still doubt you're an attorney - nobody would hire somebody who argued as poorly as you with your attempt at "numerous."

 

[ThunderCat98]

Sure thing, chief.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Also, please provide the legal opinion where the travel ban was "struck down," that is, found to be Unconstitutional. I'll wait.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Also, please provide the legal opinion where the travel ban was "struck down," that is, found to be Unconstitutional. I'll wait.

Why do you keep avoiding my question, coward? I answer all of yours, yet you continue to run from mine. We both know why.

As for your most recent request, work on your reading comprehension, then come back and read the thread again. I said that the ban was revised multiple times because it was unconstitutional, not that any court/legal opinion stated it was. The White House can and did make revisions based on its own review of the ban, knowing that it wouldn't pass. They continued to make revisions each time it failed.

But since you're begging, enjoy the read linked below. Pay particularly close attention to the majority opinion which states the government’s “proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself“ . . . and "examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude that the proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.”

Tier Threed.


http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/172231.pdf

 

[ThunderCat98]

if a woman had sex with four men at a house party in the same night, would you believe it accurate to claim she had sex with numerous guys that night?

Multiple, yes. Numerous, no.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Multiple, yes. Numerous, no.

Multiple if at the same time, numerous if in a row.

 

[ThunderCat98]

But since you're begging, enjoy the read linked below. Pay particularly close attention to the majority opinion which states the government’s “proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself“ . . . and "examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude that the proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.”

You do realize the only thing the Fourth Circuit was deciding in the case you linked was whether or not the injunctions granted by several of its lower courts should remain in place, right? And they weren't actually ruling on the Constitutionality/merits of the travel ban (although the dicta you quoted certainly indicates which way they would vote), right? Of course you didn't. Stick to carrying clipboards and washing jock straps, champ.

 

[murox]

You failed to answer: if a woman had sex with four men at a house party in the same night, would you believe it accurate to claim she had sex with numerous guys that night?




Where the hell do you conclude that there is only one definition that applies in a legal context? I copy-and-pasted seven or eight definitions of the phrase. All of them are legitimate uses of the phrase and all apply perfectly fine in the context all of those media outlets used it.

You're the one attempting to pick-and-choose a single definition out of many to support your argument. Too bad that all of the definitions of that word are valid, able to be used, and can be applied correctly in the context it was used by the numerous (doh!) dictionaries, media outlets, and me .




No, it makes me far more qualified than you to discuss this matter. The LSAT measures the ability of the test taker and the level of aptitude of him to succeed in law school. It showed that, even without studying like most do, my ability to understand and succeed in a top 10 law school was likely. On the other hand, you went to a tier 3 law school because your LSAT results yielded the truth about your aptitude; you don't have the intelligence to succeed in a top law school.

I still doubt you're an attorney - nobody would hire somebody who argued as poorly as you with your attempt at "numerous."

You're really not doing yourself any favors here, rifle. I know ThunderCat. He's an attorney and went to a very well-respected law school, not a third tier law school as you have claimed. You're having a legal argument with an actual attorney and your argument is you know more about the law because you were allegedly (no proof provided) accepted into Georgetown. Do you know how fvcking retarded that makes you look?

 

[ThunderCat98]

Appreciate the vote of confidence. He will never concede he's wrong though. It's not in him.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You're really not doing yourself any favors here, rifle. I know ThunderCat. He's an attorney and went to a very well-respected law school, not a third tier law school as you have claimed. You're having a legal argument with an actual attorney and your argument is you know more about the law because you were allegedly (no proof provided) accepted into Georgetown. Do you know how fvcking retarded that makes you look?

Have you read this thread? Have you seen how dumb he looks with his last attempt? How has he not thrown in the towel? This is exactly what he asked:

"Also, please provide the legal opinion where the travel ban was 'struck down,' that is, found to be Unconstitutional. I'll wait."

What did I do? I found the majority legal opinion of a circuit court that clearly, without question, stated that the travel ban was unconstitutional. I provided exactly what he challenged me to do. Now, he claims that doesn't count because the court wasn't actually ruling on the Constitutionality of it, which is irrelevant to what he asked me to prove, considering the court clearly states that it is unconstitutional.

Your comments show that you don't understand the legal world. There are plenty of attorneys who don't know shit about the vast majority of the legal world. They practice one type of law and are clueless on most others. I've had plenty of arguments with "actual attorneys." Hell, I can't count on one hand how many times I have corrected and/or called out attorneys for bullshit information they have tried passing off as fact. In fact, I have emails where one claimed to have "misspoke" and apologized for messing up after I corrected him on what costs could or couldn't be granted by a court in a certain type of suit. Yet another advised me in one case to accept a $15,000 settlement offer, then a $10,000 settlement offer, only to end up getting more than ten times that amount (not counting attorney's fees). Many, many attorneys are morons who not only screw up their own "expertise" but also are clueless when it comes to other types of law.

What type of proof would you like for the Georgetown admission? I thought this was common knowledge, as it is far from the first time having been mentioned on here over 15+ years. Why the hell else do you think I moved to DC? I took deferred enrollment so that I could play that last season of football, then immediately moved to DC while awaiting if they would grant an exception for me to enroll in the spring instead of the fall. It was denied forcing me to wait until the fall, at which point I started working on March 3rd, 2003. I'm sure, at minimum, I can get a copy of my LSAT sent to me so you can compare my score with the average Georgetown enrolled score.

Appreciate the vote of confidence. He will never concede he's wrong though. It's not in him.

You have to be out of your fvcking mind. I proved exactly what you asked me to prove. Clearly, you must be a patent attorney, work in estate planning, or do something other than give arguments and/or be involved in trials, because you have bombed your challenge to me. Move the goal posts again; maybe this time you will have some success.

 

[i am herdman]

Rifle is greed on sterioids.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Rifle knows more about law than the resident lawyer, more about teaching than the resident teacher, more about finance than the resident bankers, and more about real estate than the resident real estate mogul.

If Jethro Bodine posted on this forum, I would suspect Rifle would attempt to know more about brain surgery than him.

 

[19MU88]

You're really not doing yourself any favors here, rifle. I know ThunderCat. He's an attorney and went to a very well-respected law school, not a third tier law school as you have claimed. You're having a legal argument with an actual attorney and your argument is you know more about the law because you were allegedly (no proof provided) accepted into Georgetown. Do you know how fvcking retarded that makes you look?

But but but he was accepted....

Anyway Rox no he doesn’t know

 

[ohio herd]

You failed to answer: if a woman had sex with four men at a house party in the same night, would you believe it accurate to claim she had sex with numerous guys that night?




Where the hell do you conclude that there is only one definition that applies in a legal context? I copy-and-pasted seven or eight definitions of the phrase. All of them are legitimate uses of the phrase and all apply perfectly fine in the context all of those media outlets used it.

You're the one attempting to pick-and-choose a single definition out of many to support your argument. Too bad that all of the definitions of that word are valid, able to be used, and can be applied correctly in the context it was used by the numerous (doh!) dictionaries, media outlets, and me .




No, it makes me far more qualified than you to discuss this matter. The LSAT measures the ability of the test taker and the level of aptitude of him to succeed in law school. It showed that, even without studying like most do, my ability to understand and succeed in a top 10 law school was likely. On the other hand, you went to a tier 3 law school because your LSAT results yielded the truth about your aptitude; you don't have the intelligence to succeed in a top law school.

I still doubt you're an attorney - nobody would hire somebody who argued as poorly as you with your attempt at "numerous."

I would think passing the Bar Exam is the best indicator.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Rifle knows more about law than the resident lawyer,

I know more about certain aspects of law. Procedurally, I don't make that claim. Regarding the type of law the person does, I probably don't.

Think of a first baseman in MLB. Who knows more about pitching or catching? Most people would heed the word of a big league baseball player as being the expert opinion. However, I can guarantee I know more about pitching and catching than most MLB first baseman. But how could that be? After all, he is an actual big league baseball player.

It's because many first baseman are lefties. That means they were never catchers. Many have never pitched or worked extensively with pitchers. So though they are current big league baseball players, their expertise is far from being in catching or pitching. Likewise, though somebody may be an attorney, their expertise is far from being an expert in certain types of law, logic, etc.

more about teaching than the resident teacher,

I didn't make that claim. That doesn't prohibit me from knowing more about grammar than a teacher, especially on an individual basis, which is what the discussion centered around.

and more about real estate than the resident real estate mogul.

.

No idea who or what this refers to.

But, yes, I know I am far more intelligent overall than the average HerdNation poster. A lot of that has to do with the apathy so many of you have. For example, look at BC. He isn't a moron. Yet he got involved in an argument regarding something he isn't well-versed in. He was told by multiple posters where he could find the exact answer and proof of him being wrong. However, he refused to take the time to read the actual proof that the opposing argument was showing. That lack of concern is baffling to me. I don't understand how somebody can claim to care about something, take the time to engage in timely dialogue about it, yet not have the thirst to actually learn about what the fvck they claim to know.

Many on here are like that. If you don't know, teach yourself. Another problem is that so many on here who try to learn only seek information or support (many times bogus information and illogical arguments) that agrees with their preconceived beliefs.

But why don't all of you - @Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM , @murox , @i am herdman put some skin in this game. I made a claim. Thunder challenged my claim by giving a clear request. I, without manipulating words, without finding a loophole, or without finding an anomaly, fulfilled that request and proved my claim. Now, he came back saying I was wrong due to him moving the goal posts. So, I ask all three of you to explain how I was wrong in providing exactly what he asked. You can't; neither can he.

But, hey, continue backing a guy who claims that it isn't correct to say a woman had sex with "numerous" guys at a party if she had intercourse with four of them, because according to him, "numerous" must be some set minimum number. Great argument.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I would think passing the Bar Exam is the best indicator.

You should stop thinking.

 

[WV-FAN]

I know more about certain aspects of law. Procedurally, I don't make that claim. Regarding the type of law the person does, I probably don't.

Think of a first baseman in MLB. Who knows more about pitching or catching? Most people would heed the word of a big league baseball player as being the expert opinion. However, I can guarantee I know more about pitching and catching than most MLB first baseman. But how could that be? After all, he is an actual big league baseball player.

It's because many first baseman are lefties. That means they were never catchers. Many have never pitched or worked extensively with pitchers. So though they are current big league baseball players, their expertise is far from being in catching or pitching. Likewise, though somebody may be an attorney, their expertise is far from being an expert in certain types of law, logic, etc.




I didn't make that claim. That doesn't prohibit me from knowing more about grammar than a teacher, especially on an individual basis, which is what the discussion centered around.



No idea who or what this refers to.

But, yes, I know I am far more intelligent overall than the average HerdNation poster. A lot of that has to do with the apathy so many of you have. For example, look at BC. He isn't a moron. Yet he got involved in an argument regarding something he isn't well-versed in. He was told by multiple posters where he could find the exact answer and proof of him being wrong. However, he refused to take the time to read the actual proof that the opposing argument was showing. That lack of concern is baffling to me. I don't understand how somebody can claim to care about something, take the time to engage in timely dialogue about it, yet not have the thirst to actually learn about what the fvck they claim to know.

Many on here are like that. If you don't know, teach yourself. Another problem is that so many on here who try to learn only seek information or support (many times bogus information and illogical arguments) that agrees with their preconceived beliefs.

But why don't all of you - @Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM , @murox , @i am herdman put some skin in this game. I made a claim. Thunder challenged my claim by giving a clear request. I, without manipulating words, without finding a loophole, or without finding an anomaly, fulfilled that request and proved my claim. Now, he came back saying I was wrong due to him moving the goal posts. So, I ask all three of you to explain how I was wrong in providing exactly what he asked. You can't; neither can he.

But, hey, continue backing a guy who claims that it isn't correct to say a woman had sex with "numerous" guys at a party if she had intercourse with four of them, because according to him, "numerous" must be some set minimum number. Great argument.

holy shit, i can't believe you put that much time into a joke. seriously, kid, take a break.

 

[ThunderCat98]

What did I do? I found the majority legal opinion of a circuit court that clearly, without question, stated that the travel ban was unconstitutional.

What you don't seem to get is the fact that the 4th Circuit was merely ruling on the propriety of the injunctions/stays to remain in place. They were NOT ruling on the Constitutionality or merits. There is a difference between dicta and a binding legal opinion. I don't really know how else to explain it to you. The part in which they wrote that they believed it to be Unconstitutional was dicta. It had no legal impact on the ban. It certainly didn't invalidate it. You just continue to show you have no clue what you're talking about. All the opinion did was keep the injunction in place pending SCOTUS ruling on the merits, which they did.

Did the 4th Circuit panel discuss whether or not they believed the ban was Constitutional? Yes. Did that discussion invalidate the ban? No. It was the 4th Circuit panel making their feelings known to the ultimate/sole arbiter on the merits, the SCOTUS. It's not binding legal precedent.

I'm sorry their opinion proved you, the msm, and every other lib on this board wrong when you all were predicting it would be overturned. I know you're butthurt, and I know you'd never admit to being wrong, but the fact remains - SCOTUS ruling is the ONLY one issued on the Constitutionality of the ban.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I will agree with this: a lot of attorneys know little about areas outside their experise, and it is very possible to not be an attorney and know more than one out of their field.

I got into an online argument with a Michigan contract attorney on Indiana criminal law. He gave me that typical "where did you go to law school" smug bullshit. I asked him what Indiana court was letting him represent a criminal case without being licensed in this state. And it was just dumb shit: he challenged my claim that my county regularly presses Class D felony charges on less than 3 grams of meth and regualry hands out 2 and 3 year sentences for the same. How the fvck would he know? Well, he's an attorney. Garbage.

I can guarantee there are non-attorneys that know more on Consitutional law than many actual attorneys. They simply don't practice in that area. Yet there are historians and political scientists that do specialize in Constitutional law, and certainly know what they are talking about.

 

[19MU88]

You should stop thinking.

More Greed material ?

 

[19MU88]

What you don't seem to get is the fact that the 4th Circuit was merely ruling on the propriety of the injunctions/stays to remain in place. They were NOT ruling on the Constitutionality or merits. There is a difference between dicta and a binding legal opinion. I don't really know how else to explain it to you. The part in which they wrote that they believed it to be Unconstitutional was dicta. It had no legal impact on the ban. It certainly didn't invalidate it. You just continue to show you have no clue what you're talking about. All the opinion did was keep the injunction in place pending SCOTUS ruling on the merits, which they did.

Did the 4th Circuit panel discuss whether or not they believed the ban was Constitutional? Yes. Did that discussion invalidate the ban? No. It was the 4th Circuit panel making their feelings known to the ultimate/sole arbiter on the merits, the SCOTUS. It's not binding legal precedent.

I'm sorry their opinion proved you, the msm, and every other lib on this board wrong when you all were predicting it would be overturned. I know you're butthurt, and I know you'd never admit to being wrong, but the fact remains - SCOTUS ruling is the ONLY one issued on the Constitutionality of the ban.

Damn! You don’t see anyone but dtard and country owned like that! Nice

 

[19MU88]

I will agree with this: a lot of attorneys know little about areas outside their experise, and it is very possible to not be an attorney and know more than one out of their field.

I got into an online argument with a Michigan contract attorney on Indiana criminal law. He gave me that typical "where did you go to law school" smug bullshit. I asked him what Indiana court was letting him represent a criminal case without being licensed in this state. And it was just dumb shit: he challenged my claim that my county regularly presses Class D felony charges on less than 3 grams of meth and regualry hands out 2 and 3 year sentences for the same. How the fvck would he know? Well, he's an attorney. Garbage.

I can guarantee there are non-attorneys that know more on Consitutional law than many actual attorneys. They simply don't practice in that area. Yet there are historians and political scientists that do specialize in Constitutional law, and certainly know what they are talking about.

i know when I don’t need specialized legal guidance I go to random sports related forums for general legal advice. I will use you and Rifle in the future!

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

i know when I don’t need specialized legal guidance I go to random sports related forums for general legal advice. I will use you and Rifle in the future!

If you want to know what sentences judges in Floyd County IN hand down in drug cases I can probably help you more than a random attorney in another state. What the hell else is my local paper going to cover besides court and who won the blue ribbons at the county fair?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

What you don't seem to get is the fact that the 4th Circuit was merely ruling on the propriety of the injunctions/stays to remain in place. They were NOT ruling on the Constitutionality or merits. There is a difference between dicta and a binding legal opinion. I don't really know how else to explain it to you. The part in which they wrote that they believed it to be Unconstitutional was dicta. It had no legal impact on the ban. It certainly didn't invalidate it. You just continue to show you have no clue what you're talking about. All the opinion did was keep the injunction in place pending SCOTUS ruling on the merits, which they did.

I understand it perfectly well. How else could I have found the copy-and-paste that I showed without having read the opinion which states what exactly the court is reviewing. You have kept moving the goal posts in an attempt to make your challenge not make you look as dumb as you are. You asked for the legal opinion where the travel ban was found to be unconstitutional. I couldn't have provided any clearer of exactly what you asked: I showed the majority opinion stating that the travel ban was unconstitutional. You've added another qualifier by now wanting the opinion to be one that invalidates the ban.

If you go back to my very first post in this thread, I stated that the White House revised the wording in the ban to be able to get it passed because previous attempts were found to be unconstitutional. That is entirely accurate. Due to that concern, the White House had to keep changing their version of the ban . . . so it faced a better chance of not being considered unconstitutional.

You're wrong. You asked for something, received it perfectly, and now want to move the goal posts.

Did the 4th Circuit panel discuss whether or not they believed the ban was Constitutional? Yes. Did that discussion invalidate the ban? No.

But you didn't ask for an opinion that invalidated the ban! You asked for a court opinion stating that it was unconstitutional, and that is what you received.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Maybe this^^^ is why you didn't go to law school - you're obviously not intellectually equipped for it.

What you don't seem to understand that it didn't "invalidate" anything. Their statements about the Constitutionality had no force or effect. That wasn't the very narrow issue before that court - being the validity of the injunctions. The 4th Circuit wasn't tasked with making a Constitutional determination. You're wrong. Deal with it.

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

This whole thread should be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Maybe this^^^ is why you didn't go to law school - you're obviously not intellectually equipped for it.

Is this coming from the guy who said it would be incorrect to use "numerous" to describe the number of guys a woman had sex with in one night if the actual number were four?

Is this coming from the guy who claimed that only his one, hand-selected definition of "struck down" is the correct one while dismissing the numerous other definitions and the numerous major media outlets using the same phrase as I did?

It's not that I think you are completely obtuse. It's just that you are dishonest with your arguments.

But, lets settle this once and for all. I am so confident that my LSAT was higher than yours that I took the time to look at how I can get the score. It appears that they can be requested to me mailed. We both know Murox. How about we both have our LSAT scores mailed to him directly. The loser either has to pay the other, refrain from posting for a certain timeframe, or admit that he is a complete moron. I'll let you pick.

What you don't seem to understand that it didn't "invalidate" anything. Their statements about the Constitutionality had no force or effect. That wasn't the very narrow issue before that court - being the validity of the injunctions. The 4th Circuit wasn't tasked with making a Constitutional determination. You're wrong. Deal with it.

Oh, I understand that quite well. I never claimed that it "invalidated" anything. You made that claim. I never disputed that. I disagree that the court opinions had no effect. They had enough of an effect to get the White House to revise their ban numerous times. The White House realized that if those court opinions were that the ban was unconstitutional, they probably needed to make it more constitution-friendly in order to give it a better chance of succeeding. That is quite an effect.

You finished your post with a straw man. I never claimed that the 4th was "tasked with making a Constitutional determination," so how can I be wrong about that? I proved that the 4th stated that the ban was unconstitutional. That is what you asked me to prove, which I did.

Face it: you either were embarrassed to be proven wrong and then tried moving the goal posts to save face or you have a severe inability to articulate in writing what you really want. I am leaning towards the former, as you now have a repeated history of being dishonest with your numerous (yep) arguments.

Tier threed!

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Lol, LSAT dick swinging contests.

I would hope no one is embarrassed about anything in here. It’s a distraction from the important / stressful things in life IMO and a chance to act goofy and argue about stuff I’d HATE to talk about in real life.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Lol, LSAT dick swinging contests.

Sorry, I didn't intend to leave you out. You and Sisters can compare MCAT results.

 

[i am herdman]

I know more about certain aspects of law. Procedurally, I don't make that claim. Regarding the type of law the person does, I probably don't.

Think of a first baseman in MLB. Who knows more about pitching or catching? Most people would heed the word of a big league baseball player as being the expert opinion. However, I can guarantee I know more about pitching and catching than most MLB first baseman. But how could that be? After all, he is an actual big league baseball player.

It's because many first baseman are lefties. That means they were never catchers. Many have never pitched or worked extensively with pitchers. So though they are current big league baseball players, their expertise is far from being in catching or pitching. Likewise, though somebody may be an attorney, their expertise is far from being an expert in certain types of law, logic, etc.




I didn't make that claim. That doesn't prohibit me from knowing more about grammar than a teacher, especially on an individual basis, which is what the discussion centered around.



No idea who or what this refers to.

But, yes, I know I am far more intelligent overall than the average HerdNation poster. A lot of that has to do with the apathy so many of you have. For example, look at BC. He isn't a moron. Yet he got involved in an argument regarding something he isn't well-versed in. He was told by multiple posters where he could find the exact answer and proof of him being wrong. However, he refused to take the time to read the actual proof that the opposing argument was showing. That lack of concern is baffling to me. I don't understand how somebody can claim to care about something, take the time to engage in timely dialogue about it, yet not have the thirst to actually learn about what the fvck they claim to know.

Many on here are like that. If you don't know, teach yourself. Another problem is that so many on here who try to learn only seek information or support (many times bogus information and illogical arguments) that agrees with their preconceived beliefs.

But why don't all of you - @Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM , @murox , @i am herdman put some skin in this game. I made a claim. Thunder challenged my claim by giving a clear request. I, without manipulating words, without finding a loophole, or without finding an anomaly, fulfilled that request and proved my claim. Now, he came back saying I was wrong due to him moving the goal posts. So, I ask all three of you to explain how I was wrong in providing exactly what he asked. You can't; neither can he.

But, hey, continue backing a guy who claims that it isn't correct to say a woman had sex with "numerous" guys at a party if she had intercourse with four of them, because according to him, "numerous" must be some set minimum number. Great argument.

I coached Rec Ball, Cal Ripken, and Babe Ruth for 7 years. I guess I know more than you and any big league player because I have coached. You just played and I actually made game time decisions and ran the damn ball club.

Time for you to go to the end of the bench and think about the bull shit you are spewing. You are getting on coach's nerves. And, no damn it, you are not playing short stop and hitting clean up.

 

[19MU88]

at this point, Rifle should just say..."thank you sir, may I have another" and we can put this one to bed

 

[ThunderCat98]

Wait. You actually care enough about this to go back and look up an LSAT score from 20 years ago?!?! That is beyond weird, and frankly, sad and pathetic.

In any event, I would think a much better way to determine which of us is qualified to discuss the law would be the Bar Exam - you know, a test that actually discusses the law - as opposed to the LSAT.

I'll go first. I've passed the Bar in two different states (each on the first try). Your turn.

I take full responsibility for what's happened in this thread. Frankly, I shouldn't have gotten into a legal argument with someone so ill-equipped to respond. My bad.

See, what you're failing to grasp is that attorneys are wordsmiths. What do I mean by that? Words matter. Semantics matter. A certain phrase - like "struck down" has a specific meaning under the law. It means a statute, rule, or regulation has been overturned by a court. Your attempts to argue otherwise are ridiculous.

In your last post, you attempt to twist things even more. If I may use one of your own favorite lines - learn basic reading comprehension. What I initially asked was for you to show me a legal opinion where the travel ban was "'struck down,' that is, found to be Unconstitutional." Now a lawyer (or anyone with an ounce of sense) would understand that to mean overturned by a court as being Unconstitutional.

You couldn't do it. Moreover, you can't do it - because there isn't one. Instead, you cited a Court of Appeals case where the majority stated, in dicta, they believed the ban to be Unconstitutional. They didn't overturn or strike down the law. They weren't even addressing that. So, no, you didn't provide what I asked for. You provided something you were too ignorant to understand what it meant and now you're trying to try anything and everything to save face because, for some reason, you actually stress over and care what a bunch of anonymous people on a message board - let me say that again, a goddamn message board - think about your intellectual capacity. Face it, that's just sad. You're wrong. You lost. I'm done with this thread.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

. Face it, that's just sad. You're wrong. You lost. I'm done with this thread.

No, you lost this thread when it was revealed that you were lying to defend your arguments. Claiming that a woman who sleeps with four guys in a night can't accurately be referred to as "having slept with numerous guys" that night proved that. Claiming that all definitions of "struck down" are wrong, except for your single use of it, proved that. Claiming that all of the numerous major media organizations who used that phrase were also wrong proved that.

Your attempts were so bad that you had to be dishonest in order to defend them.

If you claim that words matter, semantics matter, and you're a wordsmith, you either have yet another odd definition of a word or you are the least articulate writer on this board. A wordsmith is somebody who is good with words; one who is skilled, especially pertaining to writing. If you claim to be a wordsmith, you would be better at articulating what you wanted. I provided exactly what you asked. Just because you only accept one definition of a word while disregarding all of the others doesn't make you correct . . . it makes you the opposite of a wordsmith.

Numerous. You've read too many posts by raleighherdfan and have resorted to lying to save face.

 

[ThunderCat98]

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Oh, so you were being dishonest yet again when you said “I’m done with this thread.”

This is becoming a pattern for you. We already have one liarherdfan. We don’t need another.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

No, you lost this thread.

 

[sistersville]

You should stop thinking.

Yagi you sure stay mad a lot. Is it because the supreme court is going to lean towards the right for 40 years like they are reporting. Is it the thought Trump might win a Nobel peace prize? Gay marriages will get over turned in some states and the wall will get built. Securing the borders are a far bigger issue than if 2 flamers getting married. Trump seems to win some battles with zero talent for the job. His lack of knowing his History is a pretty bad subject to be lacking in. No way would I be a deployable who sees no wrong in trump or highly educated and never admit to anything good. Just a good ol boy who likes good country music and treatin people right.