Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it. |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it.
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
It has been posted here that SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of law at theis site. I know that SETI is University--in california---of Berkeley. So, being that true they would like to have the BEST and CORRECT information for the VIEWING public. | |
| ID: 1330280 · | |
|
*sigh* (here goes nothing) It has been posted here that SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of law at theis site. Can you elaborate where anyone said that SCOTUS has anything to do with anything that happens on this site? ____________ -Dave #2 | |
| ID: 1330281 · | |
|
ID, welcome back. | |
| ID: 1330294 · | |
|
Years ago (early 90s), Rush Limbaugh liked to say "Words mean something" and would frequently claim that liberals like to shift the meanings of things. To say that someone is demonstrating intellectual cowardice is to say that they are simultaneously putting forward a claim as a claim and refusing to stand by it. For example, a scientist could demonstrate intellectual cowardice by presenting an empirical generalization on the basis of data but refusing to stand by that generalization as a good one. Intellectual cowardice is motivated by a fear of being shown to be wrong, hence its name, but at the same time desiring to recognized for intellectual accomplishments. And this leads to the somewhat contradictory practice of putting forwards claims in one context, but at the same time adopting the position that the claim is not necessarily worth standing by. This allows them to accept any compliments that come their way as a result of the quality of their claim, but at the same time dismiss any criticism of it as reflecting badly on them, because they refuse to stand by it. We all know yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no such fire, does not fall under "free speech". Similarly, S@H has its rules. You're allowed to say a lot. But:
Breaking any of these rules leaves us subject to a post or thread being hidden, and, if severe enough, banishment. It is like yelling "fire". Many of us have learned that the hard way. Some, a very very hard way. We have the right to post elsewhere, in the way we like, if the rules are different in those other places. And there are plenty of other places to do so. When here, we follow the particular rules of S@H, so that we are not yelling "fire!" Consider this thread in light of: No messages that are deliberately hostile or insulting.Along with: No messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people ... . Casting claims of "intellectual cowardice", incorrectly used, antagonizes all but about 3 posters in the Political Forum. Calling them socialists, when many demonstrably are not, is similar. "Sheeple"? Same logic. This thread also comes quite close to "comments related to specific moderator actions". In the last few years, the project scientist acting as the Forum Admin, and the current mods, have worked very hard on fair moderation approaches. They are a lot easier to discuss concerns with. Do keep that in mind when feeling "persecuted". | |
| ID: 1330308 · | |
*sigh* (here goes nothing) SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law. It doesn't matter how much ID protests about it either, the ink is dry. ____________ | |
| ID: 1330310 · | |
|
Sarge Da Pro Say: antagonizes all but about 3 posters in the Political Forum Definition Of Politics: To Antagonize Others Not Of Your Viewpoints. To Not Discuss and Compromise. To use Rhetoric and Other Very Divisive Devices To Obliterate Opposition. To use The Friendly Media to Further Bury Your Opponent. Many Tactics will be illegal, nearly illegal, Conspritorial, and Definitely Not Democratic. In Other Words: To Be POTUS in The 21st Century. So Why Should A Political Forum Be Any Different? PROFessor S. Say: Let The Vapid Vicious Vitriol Vaporize Any Vestige Of Violable Compromise Begin. ____________ | |
| ID: 1330311 · | |
|
SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law. So, the next time I lose my case at the SCOTUS, I can appeal to the ICJ. Good to know. | |
| ID: 1330334 · | |
LOL! There is NO law made by man in this world that trumps the Constitution. We don't pledge our allegiance to ICJ. Nor did Barry take a oath to the ICJ. Such people who think so have no understanding of rights. Oaths mean nothing to them. And law is only agreed with if it has a socialist tint. ALL law has come from God whether the God less want to believe it or not. LOL, law does not come from the ICJ. ____________ What is free speech here? It's called--banished! Why is it called banished? Because socialist don't understand free speech. Why don't they understand free speech? They are sheeple. | |
| ID: 1330387 · | |
You can as long as you can convince the ICJ to take the case. Enforcing the judgement is another matter. ____________ | |
| ID: 1330456 · | |
Sorry to disavow you of your ignorance about the law. I live in a country which is NOT covered by the US constitution, indeed somewhat more than 50% of the world's population are not covered by it, however somewhat more than 50% of the world's population do live in countries that have signed up to the IJC as the "final legal arbiter", and that figure includes the USA. No argument, fact, the US constitution is therefore, in legal terms, subservient to the an ICJ ruling. ____________ Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? | |
| ID: 1330481 · | |
No argument, fact, the US constitution is therefore, in legal terms, subservient to the an ICJ ruling. Yes, the US Constitution even provides for this whereby it delegates the authority for treaties to the President with the consent of the Senate. ____________ | |
| ID: 1330493 · | |
|
The Constitution is the only law that we citizens abide by. | |
| ID: 1330510 · | |
|
Wrong. | |
| ID: 1330511 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it.
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |