|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 3, 2011 15:29:50 GMT -8
...in the dirt for this bunch of pricks by a Federal court... “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order...” www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48745.html |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 5, 2011 9:00:06 GMT -8
YAWN. Another conservative judge and another unbiased view of his ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 5, 2011 12:38:57 GMT -8
YAWN. Another conservative judge and another unbiased view of his ruling. Do away with the "Yawn" and you have a pretty accurate statement. Just where would you disagree with the ruling based on law? |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 5, 2011 16:21:08 GMT -8
YAWN. Another conservative judge andhe ever Do away with the "Yawn" and you have a pretty accurate statement. Just where would you disagree with the ruling based on law? Aside from the fact that I was being bitterly sarcastic, Conservative judges leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to separating their political, financial and religious views from their rulings. Scalia speaks to the Tea Party, behind closed doors. But he does not include moderates or liberals. Alito publicly mocks a president with different view and destroys any semblance of objectivity. The mute with the with activist wife all but champions her causes from the bench. I have no faith in conservative judges whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 5, 2011 16:33:13 GMT -8
Do away with the "Yawn" and you have a pretty accurate statement. Just where would you disagree with the ruling based on law? Aside from the fact that I was being bitterly sarcastic, Conservative judges leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to separating their political, financial and religious views from their rulings. Scalia speaks to the Tea Party, behind closed doors. But he does not include moderates or liberals. Alito publicly mocks a president with different view and destroys any semblance of objectivity. The mute with the with activist wife all but champions her causes from the bench. I have no faith in conservative judges whatsoever. Again, bitter partisanship aside, where do you differ on the ruling on the issue based upon the law? It appears to be pretty solid. The things you cite, that have nothing to do with this issue, are even more egregious on the other side. It is all a matter of perspective, point of view, and personal beliefs that make up your opinion on Judges. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 5, 2011 17:06:10 GMT -8
Aside from the fact that I was being bitterly sarcastic, Conservative judges leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to separating their political, financial and religious views from their rulings. Scalia speaks to the Tea Party, behind closed doors. But he does not include moderates or liberals. Alito publicly mocks a president with different view and destroys any semblance of objectivity. The mute with the with activist wife all but champions her causes from the bench. I have no faith in conservative judges whatsoever. Again, bitter partisanship aside, where do you differ on the ruling on the issue based upon the law? It appears to be pretty solid. The things you cite, that have nothing to do with this issue, are even more egregious on the other side. It is all a matter of perspective, point of view, and personal beliefs that make up your opinion on Judges. Less point of view and more adherence to precedence, the rule of law and greater appearance of objectivity would go a long way toward increasing my confidence in any conservative judge's ruling. Ok, to the issue, then. For a judge to hold the government in contempt and call their approach dismissive is ludicrous on its face. The government attempted to stop a dangerous practice, until better safeguards could be established. It seems perfectly logical to me that the government would move to stop a practice, whose dangers are not well understood by the so called experts and poorly executed by the firms doing the work. I suppose you could say there was no threat for the government to stop, but then, you would be in a blue dress following the Mad Hatter down the hole. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 5, 2011 17:25:25 GMT -8
>>>For a judge to hold the government in contempt and call their approach dismissive is ludicrous on its face.<<< Bet you didn't bother to read the judge's holding. If you do, you will find that his original finding was sustained on appeal to the 5th CCA. Of course, "ad hominem" is what you do when you have no rebuttal. That's just the way it is with your ilk. It's who you are. It's what you do. Try to read it.... www.politico.com/static/PPM191_feldman.html |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 5, 2011 17:26:37 GMT -8
Again, bitter partisanship aside, where do you differ on the ruling on the issue based upon the law? It appears to be pretty solid. The things you cite, that have nothing to do with this issue, are even more egregious on the other side. It is all a matter of perspective, point of view, and personal beliefs that make up your opinion on Judges. Less point of view and more adherence to precedence, the rule of law and greater appearance of objectivity would go a long way toward increasing my confidence in any conservative judge's ruling. Ok, to the issue, then. For a judge to hold the government in contempt and call their approach dismissive is ludicrous on its face. The government attempted to stop a dangerous practice, until better safeguards could be established. It seems perfectly logical to me that the government would move to stop a practice, whose dangers are not well understood by the so called experts and poorly executed by the firms doing the work. I suppose you could say there was no threat for the government to stop, but then, you would be in a blue dress following the Mad Hatter down the hole. Well, I see you did not bother to read the ruling and therefore your response still appears to be based only on your own opinion. There may be or have been dangerous methods or lack of safety monitoring in place by BP, but that is not the issue. Now do you care to try again without the snarky little comment at the end that lends no weight to your argument? Here is a little hint to help you. Think along the lines of arbitrary and capricious action by Interior in the face of a Federal Judge's order. What does this footnote mean to you? "Even though the Office of the Inspector General found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Department of Interior or its employees, at the hearing on the first moratorium, in response to a question by the Court, the government’s answer then was wholly at odds with the story of the misleading text change by a White House official, a story the government does not now dispute." |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 5, 2011 20:08:50 GMT -8
Less point of view and more adherence to precedence, the rule of law and greater appearance of objectivity would go a long way toward increasing my confidence in any conservative judge's ruling. Ok, to the issue, then. For a judge to hold the government in contempt and call their approach dismissive is ludicrous on its face. The government attempted to stop a dangerous practice, until better safeguards could be established. It seems perfectly logical to me that the government would move to stop a practice, whose dangers are not well understood by the so called experts and poorly executed by the firms doing the work. I suppose you could say there was no threat for the government to stop, but then, you would be in a blue dress following the Mad Hatter down the hole. Well, I see you did not bother to read the ruling and therefore your response still appears to be based only on your own opinion. There may be or have been dangerous methods or lack of safety monitoring in place by BP, but that is not the issue. Now do you care to try again without the snarky little comment at the end that lends no weight to your argument? Here is a little hint to help you. Think along the lines of arbitrary and capricious action by Interior in the face of a Federal Judge's order. What does this footnote mean to you? "Even though the Office of the Inspector General found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Department of Interior or its employees, at the hearing on the first moratorium, in response to a question by the Court, the government’s answer then was wholly at odds with the story of the misleading text change by a White House official, a story the government does not now dispute." I give this website and your instructions their due consideration. That consideration is perfectly proportional to the anxiety I feel if you disapprove of my research. None. Unfortunately, I am not retired. I have a new job and I have been wading through hundreds of pages of text concerning a particular type of law. I do not have countless hours to pour over the stylings of some Louisiana judge who should have allowed the ban in the first place. So, I read the Politico piece and not the ruling. As far as the piece is concerned the judge blocked the ban on the government's first attempt. That is what set off my bias alarm. That is what I was referring to. He didn't like the ban in the first place and the government would not let it go. I could tell that the esteemed Louisiana judge had his pique up. Hard cheese. Louisiana style judges are one reason I don't live in the South. I am sorry that you disapprove of my research, though. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 6, 2011 7:50:47 GMT -8
Well, I see you did not bother to read the ruling and therefore your response still appears to be based only on your own opinion. There may be or have been dangerous methods or lack of safety monitoring in place by BP, but that is not the issue. Now do you care to try again without the snarky little comment at the end that lends no weight to your argument? Here is a little hint to help you. Think along the lines of arbitrary and capricious action by Interior in the face of a Federal Judge's order. What does this footnote mean to you? "Even though the Office of the Inspector General found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Department of Interior or its employees, at the hearing on the first moratorium, in response to a question by the Court, the government’s answer then was wholly at odds with the story of the misleading text change by a White House official, a story the government does not now dispute." I give this website and your instructions their due consideration. That consideration is perfectly proportional to the anxiety I feel if you disapprove of my research. None. Unfortunately, I am not retired. I have a new job and I have been wading through hundreds of pages of text concerning a particular type of law. I do not have countless hours to pour over the stylings of some Louisiana judge who should have allowed the ban in the first place. So, I read the Politico piece and not the ruling. As far as the piece is concerned the judge blocked the ban on the government's first attempt. That is what set off my bias alarm. That is what I was referring to. He didn't like the ban in the first place and the government would not let it go. I could tell that the esteemed Louisiana judge had his pique up. Hard cheese. Louisiana style judges are one reason I don't live in the South. I am sorry that you disapprove of my research, though. OK! I guess you see that to really understand an issue like this you have to get past petty prejudice and really explore the meat of the issue. I understand lacking time or being unwilling to try to delve into something like this. I take your response as a reluctant surrender all unnecessary had you avoided the "yawn".  |
|
