|
Termyn8or -> RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander (10/5/2009 12:48:58 PM)
|
Interesting agenda, but probably not the most interesting in history. What might be interesting though is to kick off a discussion of how we would rule on these issues. Of course we can't hear the case, that's their job, but we can sure as hell speculate. Brother can we speculate.
First of all Chicago's ban on guns would be in the toilet just like DC's. Case closed.
I couldn't car less about the dogfighting. They are animals, some of them want to fight. So do some humans, like boxers for example. If the size and weight of the dogs are pretty much equal, let them have at it. It's not like you fight a chihuahua with a bull Mastiff. Something like that is cruel treatment of an animal. Animals can take to a fight right out on the street, that's why they make leashes.
Banning movies is another story. A bit more complex of an issue. Just because you took campaign moneyu means you can't use it to make a movie ? I suspect this is more based on content, because I don't remember Micheal Moore running for President. Where do we draw the line ? Who knows. That's their job to figure it out.
I'm not quite sure what you were looking for in the way of responses. They will rule how they rule. That doesn't mean we can't discuss how we would rule. Actually Marbury v Madison gave the supreme court some awesomke powers. When they rule, they actually rule if you know what I mean. Their rulings become case law and they can also strike down ant law, federal state or local when they see fit. This is quite a concentration of power, so how they rule is an issue. Most of it may never affect us personally, but we either hang together or we shall surely hang seperately.
I'll be looking forward to see what the rest of our merry group has to say on this.
Toodles for now.
T
|
|
|
|
