Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

  1. #31
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    Ok so start implementing your own suggestion !!!
    wat

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    When I read the initial decision she and another 2 judges left intact, it looked to me that the problem is in the applicable laws. To put it another way, the laws need to be changed. One of our lawyers around here(you guys know who you are) could probably give a more accurate and informative look at the ruling...I know I would be interested.
    My biggest problem with Ricci is not the decision itself, but the way it was reached. It is very rare to issue a summary order affirming a lower court's decision unless the issues involved are incredibly simple. This is most certainly not such a case, and did not deserve to be treated in such a fashion. The way it was handled reeks of an attempt to slip the case under the radar. The fact that the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion 3 days before the entire circuit ruled on the request for an en banc hearing is additionally shady.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #32
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Fare enough here you go,



    In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an "abomination" that the defendant did not deserve.
    .

    Ok so you don't like a ruling she made or comments that she made in a case 15 years ago !!! So from the little I can see about this case it does not appear that you can make this into a racist arguement so what is your complaint here ?
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  3. #33
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,407

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Oh and i didn'tknow this thanks for the news skippy
    Well it seemed like you were struggling with the concept. Just thought I would help you out.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #34
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    wat



    My biggest problem with Ricci is not the decision itself, but the way it was reached. It is very rare to issue a summary order affirming a lower court's decision unless the issues involved are incredibly simple. This is most certainly not such a case, and did not deserve to be treated in such a fashion. The way it was handled reeks of an attempt to slip the case under the radar. The fact that the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion 3 days before the entire circuit ruled on the request for an en banc hearing is additionally shady.
    So you threw out some legal terms in latin big deal !!! In the end this just amounts to your opinion about her opinion. We would need to see one whole hell of a lot of detail before we can determine if you actually have found something that apparently no one else has - a shady deal being onducted by a group of attorneys !!!! lol
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  5. #35
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    So you threw out some legal terms in latin big deal !!!
    =(

    In the end this just amounts to your opinion about her opinion.
    That's generally how opinons work, yes.

    We would need to see one whole hell of a lot of detail before we can determine if you actually have found something that apparently no one else has - a shady deal being onducted by a group of attorneys !!!! lol
    Uh...

    A panel of this Court affirmed in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph. Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 06-4996-cv, (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2008). Three days prior to the filing of this opinion, the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion adopting in toto the reasoning of the District Court, thereby making the District Court's opinion the law of the Circuit. See Ricci v. DeStefano, F.3d (2d Cir. 2008).

    The use of per curiam opinions of this sort, adopting in full the reasoning of a district court without further elaboration, is normally reserved for cases that present straight-forward questions that do not require explanation or elaboration by the Court of Appeals. The questions raised in this appeal cannot be classified as such, as they are indisputably complex and far from well-settled.

    ...

    Four months later, and three days prior to the publication of this opinion, the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court's opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases. This per curiam opinion adopted in loco the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.
    FindACase™ | Ricci v. DeStefano

    That's from Judge Jose Cabranes' dissent from the Second Circuit's denial of en banc review.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #36
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    My biggest problem with Ricci is not the decision itself, but the way it was reached. It is very rare to issue a summary order affirming a lower court's decision unless the issues involved are incredibly simple. This is most certainly not such a case, and did not deserve to be treated in such a fashion. The way it was handled reeks of an attempt to slip the case under the radar. The fact that the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion 3 days before the entire circuit ruled on the request for an en banc hearing is additionally shady.
    Two questions if I could:

    1) What did you think of the original decision? And if you got the time, could you explain it briefly? Talloulou and I spent some time on it the other night, but niether of us is a lawyer.

    2)Could you expand on the bolded part please. It went right over my head.

  7. #37
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    wat



    My biggest problem with Ricci is not the decision itself, but the way it was reached. It is very rare to issue a summary order affirming a lower court's decision unless the issues involved are incredibly simple. This is most certainly not such a case, and did not deserve to be treated in such a fashion. The way it was handled reeks of an attempt to slip the case under the radar. The fact that the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion 3 days before the entire circuit ruled on the request for an en banc hearing is additionally shady.
    You want to throw out latin terms fine !! My learned opinion is that your actions speak for themselves. There is a legal doctrine for that and it is "res ipsa loquitur " or the thing speaks for itself.

    You appear to be acting in a prejudicial manner toward Stomayor. We can presume that you acted prejudicially simply because predujidial posts against Sotomayor exist. The presumption is that the prejudicial opinions are yours and your opinions have casued this prejudice hense your opinion is under your control. The prejudicial posts were as of a result of a careless act of you posting. Sotomayor did not contribute any behavior to cause you to post such prejudicial posts.

    Therefore under the doctrine of "res ipsa." your prejudicial posts speak for themselves therfore you have behaved in a prejudicial posting manner toward Sotomayor.

    the thing ( your prejudice ) speaks for itself
    Last edited by F107HyperSabr; 05-30-09 at 09:43 PM.
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  8. #38
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Two questions if I could:

    1) What did you think of the original decision? And if you got the time, could you explain it briefly? Talloulou and I spent some time on it the other night, but niether of us is a lawyer.

    2)Could you expand on the bolded part please. It went right over my head.
    he is trying to WOW !!!! us !!! and showing off !!!
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  9. #39
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    he is trying to WOW !!!! us !!! and showing off !!!
    Actually he is a really bright guy who knows legal stuff really well. Just because my politics are different from him does not mean I cannot learn from him.

  10. #40
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually he is a really bright guy who knows legal stuff really well. Just because my politics are different from him does not mean I cannot learn from him.
    I have no doubt that he he is bright and /or resourcefull but usually people do not throw jaron that is not commonly know jargon into an discussion without explantion. By all means learn whatever you can from whomever.

    There are pleaty of "legal" sites avaialable and some are free that anyone can tap into. When I was in the claim department of an insurance company a millions years ago we did use WestLaw as an online refernce but not to practice law just to be able to learn enough legal terms so that we could ask the legal department in an informed manner if we had a case that was questionable.
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •