You tried to talk **** and you were wrong. Someone with a functioning noggin would pull back and stop acting like an arse. But not you. You'll keep charging ahead full steam.
Trump and Hegseth get slapped down yet again.
- Thread starter LafayetteBear
- Start date
You tried to talk **** and you were wrong. Someone with a functioning noggin would pull back and stop acting like an arse. But not you. You'll keep charging ahead full steam.
Sigh ...
Congratulations to you for your "big words." Stare decisis (Latin for "the decision stands") is indeed a short hand way of expressing the principle that courts should follow case law precedent. It is "binding" precedent when the prior court opinion is from a higher court within the same state, circuit or (in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court) country. Otherwise, it is "persuasive authority" (i.e., non-binding precedent).
One thing you overlooked, however, is that a prior court opinion has precedential value only to the extent that the facts of the prior case are similar to those of the case under consideration. If a case has very similar (verging on the same) set of facts, it is said to be "on all fours with" the case under consideration.
You cited Dred Scott v. Sanford as form of precedent for the birthright citizenship case currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, noting (correctly) that its holding (that black slaves were not U.S. citizens even though born in this country) gave impetus to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But, unfortunately for you, nothing in the 14th Amendment states that its effect is limited to former slaves. Its phraseology is far more general than that.
If you wanted to cite a case which is much closer to being on all fours with the current birthright citizenship case, you would have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the Court held that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment for children born in the U.S. to foreign-born parents, upholding jus soli (citizenship by birth). This ruling confirmed that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' status. THAT is the case that the current Supreme Court will need to either overrule or somehow distinguish if it decides to limit birthright citizenship.
Why do you bother? You know he's not here to learn ... only throw out raging nonsense and insult.
so, and you know I'm not a lawyer, how did we have roe v Wade for so long and then all of a sudden have a different decision ? I really don't know, which is why I'm asking
lol when did CNN start putting out approval ratings for Sec of Defense? Can you dig up Lloyd Austin’s for me?
This is all you need to know:
Austin was confirmed by the Senate in a 93-2 vote on January 22, 2021.
Hegseth was confirmed by the Senate in a 51-50 vote on January 24, 2025
It was stupid AF to elevate a FoxNews weekend host to Defense Secretary but that's what you have to do when you're so hated that credible options don't want to work for you. .
Last edited:
Let’s read on a bit, shall we…
“Public Opinion: As of latest data from YouGov, Lloyd Austin had a popularity rating of 14% (how many people have a positive opinion of him), with low recognition levels among the general public (16% fame”
Thanks for proving my point, dumba$$. Also, who was SOD during Afghanistan withdrawal?
Pete Hegseth: Worst, Least Qualified Secretary of Defense in Modern U.S. History
Murdockinations – A deep dive into horror, sci-fi, film, screenwriting, psychology, politics, and thought-provoking stories by JZ Murdock.
NEW POLL: Pete Hegseth’s Approval Rating Hits Rock Bottom Amid Iran War
According to a CNN poll shared by senior political reporter Aaron Blake on Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's approval rating has hit rock bottom amid the war with Iran.
Pete Hegseth: Worst, Least Qualified Secretary of Defense in Modern U.S. History
Murdockinations – A deep dive into horror, sci-fi, film, screenwriting, psychology, politics, and thought-provoking stories by JZ Murdock.www.murdockinations.com
NEW POLL: Pete Hegseth’s Approval Rating Hits Rock Bottom Amid Iran War
According to a CNN poll shared by senior political reporter Aaron Blake on Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's approval rating has hit rock bottom amid the war with Iran.www.yahoo.com
this is what desperation looks likeYou could’ve just said “you’re right, JinxyPat. I should’ve held off posting stupid ****, but my TDS overtakes my fat little fingers sometimes’
Lloyd Austin was diagnosed with prostate cancer in early December of 2023, and was hospitalized on December 23, 2023 in order to have a prostatectomy, which is minimally invasive surgery. He was released from the hospital the next day. He was readmitted to the hospital on January 1, 2024 after complaining of nausea and severe abdominal, hip and leg pain, and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. He spent several days in the hospital (Walter Reed Hospital), returning to full duty on January 5. Austin's hospitalization was not disclosed to President Biden until January 4, and his cancer diagnosis not disclosed to the President until January 9. President Biden characterized the non-disclosure as a lapse in judgment, and it triggered some review of White House policy when a Cabinet member must transfer decision making authority to a deputy. Austin nonetheless continued to enjoy the President's full confidence, and served until January 17, 2025.
Austin's popularity no doubt suffered as a result of this lack of transparency. But consider his resume prior to becoming Secretary of Defense. He was a West Point graduate who served in combat as a 1, 2, 3, and 4 star general. He served as the Commander of CENTCOM.
Pete Hegseth, by contrast, was and is a drunk. He assaulted his wife and had the distinction of being a second rate Faux News talking head. Such a glorious resume.
Last edited:
might I detect just a little bit of bias here?
I didn't support Hegseth either, but not because of Llyod Austin stellar performance.
The Afghan withdrawal was late 2021, right? Who was SOD then?
“Pete Hegseth, by contrast, was and is a drunk. He assaulted his wife and had the distinction of being a second rate Faux News talking head. Such a glorious resume”
Kamala Harris is a blabbering drunk that worked her way to the top by giving blowjobs. Who did you vote for PRESIDENT this last election?
Haha.... As if the concept of an appeal is total new information to anyone with less than 3 episodes of matlock watching. Get a better rebuttal . Your litigation sucks.
No you are actively arguing against the first amendment.
You reek of desperation and I'll gotten gains
You could’ve just said “you’re right, JinxyPat. I should’ve held off posting stupid ****, but my TDS overtakes my fat little fingers sometimes’
I don't know enough about Lloyd Austin to have a positive or negative bias as far as he is concerned. But what I DO know, just from checking his Wikipedia bio, is that he has a stellar record of military service. You don't rise to 4 star general simply because you are black.
As for his lack of transparency with respect to his prostate cancer diagnosis, I agree that he should not have withheld that information from the President for even a day. But Austin's resume is in no sense comparable to Pete Hegseth's resume. It's laughable to compare the two.
And as concerns lack of transparency concerning one's health condition, why don't you train your focus on your Orange Hero? The guy is showing some serious signs of old age. He wears a "Whoops I Crapped My Pants" pull up around the clock. He sloshes around wearing a Foley Catheter.
He bruises up like a mad dog. His cankles are perpetually swollen. He has comb overs galore to (try and) hide his balding. He falls asleep in Cabinet meetings on a routine basis. He has crapped his pants in a Cabinet meeting. And he won't release his medical information, unless it is a selective release intended to ballyhoo his being "the healthiest president in U.S. history."
1. Your proof of this? Please link it.
2. Assuming that one can (pardon the pun) get ahead in life by "giving blowjobs," why have you been mired for years in the same crappy blue collar job? If that is the recipe for success, you should be a captain of industry by now.
I don't think I ever owned a beta max. Wait. That went right over your poor head.
You needed to insert the word "are" after the word "and" in order for the latter portion of your post to mean what you intended. You poor thing. You are like the proverbial one legged man at an *** kicking contest.
"It doesn't even take an attorney, let alone one with trial experience, to know that the decision is "gospel" in that jurisdiction until it's overturned on appeal"
No it isn't. If there are several federal district judges in one district and there typically are, they are not bound by that decision. Nor are small claims courts, municipal courts, trial courts and any other courts in that same state or in the rest of the country. It is just a decision of one person.
No it isn't. If there are several federal district judges in one district and there typically are, they are not bound by that decision. Nor are small claims courts, municipal courts, trial courts and any other courts in that same state or in the rest of the country. It is just a decision of one person.
I should know better than to discuss matters with somebody so stupid.
However, here are a few of the compliments I have received in the past. I won a property tax reduction decision for a landowner about 10 days ago and the informal chief administrative hearing officer (he was much more experienced than the others and asked 90% of the questions) commented to my client at the end of the hearing that the client had a really good lawyer. I handled a case in the Ohio supreme Court with the assistance of the Ohio afl-cio's lawyer who submitted an amici brief in support of my case. He was probably the most experienced Ohio Supreme Court lawyer in the state at that time. At the end of oral argument, he stated that I gave the best rebuttal argument that he'd ever seen. I sent him a thank you note and took him out to lunch after we won the case. During the lunch, he stated that I was the nicest amici lawyer he had ever worked with. (Which floored me because I thought I was just being routinely polite)
Last edited:
This may be one of the saddest posts I've read on this board.
What does any of the above have to do with ... ANYTHING? What made you think that was a post that would help your situation? Are you neurodivergent?
Throughout this thread you've been so desperate to prove you're not a loser, you've embarrassed yourself repeatedly.
It started when you tried to insult LafayetteBear, as you were wrongfully trying to correct him. Everyone and their momma knows trial court decisions can be overturned on appeal. The majority of lay people know this ... and if you didn't know this as a lay person, you learn it quick, fast and in a hurry in the beginning stages of law school. So, not only were you stupid to accuse him of not understanding this, but why in the world would you think a "do you even litigate, brah?" type of insult would help you? It made you look doubly dumb.
Nevermind the fact that this decision is technically "gospel" in that jurisdiction until it's overturned/vacated ... even if it wasn't, there was no evidence LafayetteBear didn't know this, and you brought nothing else to the table by bringing litigation experience into the discussion. Psst ... "gospel" means "guiding principle or doctrine." So, yes, persuasive authority is gospel.
So, in return, I made a joke about your stupidity, in the same vein as your failed attack.
You decided to try to prove you weren't an idiot, and took my comment about "no practical legal knowledge" seriously. And you made yourself look even dumber, by mumbling about your 150 jury trials. You still didn't get the joke or the point.
So, I again mocked your stupidity by taking advantage of your poor wording and turning your statement on its head.
And now you're trying to again prove that you're not an idiot by sharing compliments you've received?!?! That's nuts.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?
The simple truth is, you were wrong to insult and try to correct LafayetteBear, and the way you tried to do it, by pulling in litigation experience, was embarrassing for you. And you've continued to double and triple down on that, by providing your "bona fides" when no one asked for them, nor do they make a lick of difference here.
“The simple truth is, you were wrong to insult and try to correct LafayetteBear”
There’s no way you freaks aren’t in some weird cult. Hate to break it you, SimplyComplcated12, but Lafayettebear is of age and he’s fat, so I’m guessing he’s probably not the one for you
Okay, I thought that Moogy was simplycomplicated from the Penn State test board. He was banned three times over there for doing really low life things and I can just put him on ignore.“The simple truth is, you were wrong to insult and try to correct LafayetteBear”
There’s no way you freaks aren’t in some weird cult. Hate to break it you, SimplyComplcated12, but Lafayettebear is of age and he’s fat, so I’m guessing he’s probably not the one for you
It's the same dude.
Edit to say it's really annoying having a buckeye post on here and I really wish you wouldn't either.
One of the times involved me. My then 12-yr old daughter had a friend whose parents were very bad at parenting. I saw her friend walking home from lacrosse practice in the rain and felt sorry for her. I've forgotten the context of how this came up -- probably in reference to parenting standards. I didn't offer her a ride. In any event, he transformed that statement to an admission by me that I had sex with underage girls.Three times?
Phuck that’s pathetic
Oh, snap ... I've heard about you! The stories about DailyBuck span the internet. You're an infamous legend.
No, the story was, you took a fairly random 14-year old in without her parent's knowledge or consent, and she stayed with you for a prolonged period of time (weeks), sleeping there even when your daughter wasn't there. And then you'd ask for help as to how to keep your daughter safe, because she would wander the streets alone, and these were allegedly dangerous streets, while this other girl was home alone with you.
Another story I heard was you had a mail-order bride from China who was so unhappy with you, she became a habitual criminal and tried to get caught in order to get arrested and deported, just to get away from you.
You also shipped one of your kids overseas to China to extended family you'd never met, for a year or more because you and your wife were "too busy to parent" (your characterization) and couldn't be bothered because of work.
Oh, and when that mail order bride died, you got another one from China ... she already had a kid ... and you drove her so nuts she smeared feces all over the walls of your house before trying to escape from you and disappear ... but you hunted her down because you wanted her kid.
That's you, right? The notorious DailyBuck?
Yea, dude has a few screws loose . He’s on here every day cherry-picking someone to disagree with.
He def has some weird fascination with what got him banned from the psu site 3 times. He’s brought it up in here too. Probably why dpinc likes him so much
Perfect proof of what a sleazeball and low life this guy is. My daughter's Chinese mother died of liver cancer when daughter was 3 years old. She never spent time alone at either age 12 or 14 because I was her single parent. Easily provable. The lie simplycomplicated makes here is even more outrageous than his original lie that got him banned on previous board.
He is mentally ill. I could go on with many more stories. His latest lie is really a doozy.
Now, first, you're not reading the story correctly, so you're responding to things that weren't said. I heard that's a continual issue with you.
But, yeah, the story I heard was that you talked to the board about how you tried to make sure your daughter was "safe" while riding her bike alone on what you called unsafe/dangerous streets. Some wondered why you'd send her out there alone. At the same time, you talked about how the "neglected" child you took in would be home alone with you while your daughter was out and about on these dangerous streets.
Last edited: