BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

[JakeStarkey]

Mind giving us YOUR background

Yeah, V what is your background for your delusional comments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QuickHitCurepon, of course the case is tied to the earlier one.

Your phanaticism only makes you look shtoopid.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

If you truly believe that this case is tied to a previous one, you are truly an "insider."

Again, and again, I have posted to links to read about the case, which started long before Obama took office:

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, not just states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault using a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that this application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on Congress' statutory implementation of treaties. Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.

yes however the admin chose to continue to defend the governments position

so they must have thought it was constitutional

 

[Vigilante]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

Has to do with far right wing prosecutors overstepping the law.

Good for the court.

Vigilante & crew thought it was about Obama, not a test case to strike the Federal law. The narrow ruling led to a deep division in "concurring" opinions. And, of course, prosecution began under Bush II, the case has been before the USSC twice. Only reading the headlines, as Vigilante did, leads to misinterpretation.

Vigilante sees what he wants to see, which is what he hopes is reinforcement for his strange world view.

No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

She was convicted of the federal charges in 2007, fuckwit. I'm not surprised you don't know who was president in 2007.

Not surprised at all.

 

[Vigilante]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

She was convicted of the federal charges in 2007, fuckwit. I'm not surprised you don't know who was president in 2007.

Not surprised at all.

Point of article.......................................................................YOU!

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

As with ALL Liberals, they take orders from a superior.....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo"]

[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

She was convicted of the federal charges in 2007, fuckwit. I'm not surprised you don't know who was president in 2007.

Not surprised at all.

Point of article.......................................................................YOU!

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

As with ALL Liberals, they take orders from a superior.....

Taking orders from conservativetribune is where you went wrong.

Do you know who was president in 2007, when this woman was convicted by the feds?

Say a name. Take a guess.

 

[Vigilante]

She was convicted of the federal charges in 2007, fuckwit. I'm not surprised you don't know who was president in 2007.

Not surprised at all.

Point of article.......................................................................YOU!

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

As with ALL Liberals, they take orders from a superior.....

Taking orders from conservativetribune is where you went wrong.

Do you know who was president in 2007, when this woman was convicted by the feds?

Say a name. Take a guess.

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, a failure to read the article....What flavor Kool-Aid have you been sipping?

Vigilante, accept that you were mislead by a poorly written article by a site with clear bias. The decision was 5-4 on the issue the impacted conservatives: the applicability of Federal law upon states. The government PREVAILED. There was a majority opinion, and a minority concurrence. READ them, and some light may get through a sliver that must exist in the vise your mind is trapped in. And the decision was on a case begun by Bush II's DOJ, the end.

AND YOUR CREDETIALS BITCH, OR YOU HAVE NO FUCKING STANDING HERE!

You call Cruz NOT SHARP....so what is SHARPER about you, or just another fucked up, scumbag liberal bitch that needs to make herself important to other liberals?

You don't need to be a lawyer to know what day it was when she was convicted. lol

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante, accept that you were mislead by a poorly written article by a site with clear bias. The decision was 5-4 on the issue the impacted conservatives: the applicability of Federal law upon states. The government PREVAILED. There was a majority opinion, and a minority concurrence. READ them, and some light may get through a sliver that must exist in the vise your mind is trapped in. And the decision was on a case begun by Bush II's DOJ, the end.

AND YOUR CREDETIALS BITCH, OR YOU HAVE NO FUCKING STANDING HERE!

You call Cruz NOT SHARP....so what is SHARPER about you, or just another fucked up, scumbag liberal bitch that needs to make herself important to other liberals?

You don't need to be a lawyer to know what day it was when she was convicted. lol

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

COME ON PEACH'S, WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS???

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how saying "It started under Bush" makes this any less a victory for those opposing an over expansive government. Whether it's Bush or Obama, the government needs to be limited.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I don't see how saying "It started under Bush" makes this any less a victory for those opposing an over expansive government. Whether it's Bush or Obama, the government needs to be limited.

it may have started under bush but this admin continued to defend the governments

position

 

[auditor0007]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

I bet Obama was completely involved with this one.

 

[Vigilante]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

I bet Obama was completely involved with this one.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how saying "It started under Bush" makes this any less a victory for those opposing an over expansive government. Whether it's Bush or Obama, the government needs to be limited.

it may have started under bush but this admin continued to defend the governments

position

i agree. and they were both wrong to do this. The Commonwealth had the power to prosecute her and the Federal government has no reason to exceed it's bounds.

We need to stop blaming just one side for something both sides are doing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see how saying "It started under Bush" makes this any less a victory for those opposing an over expansive government. Whether it's Bush or Obama, the government needs to be limited.

Then you should have objected to the thread title and the insinuations of the author of this thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how saying "It started under Bush" makes this any less a victory for those opposing an over expansive government. Whether it's Bush or Obama, the government needs to be limited.

Then you should have objected to the thread title and the insinuations of the author of this thread.

Silly me, I thought I was.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

If you truly believe that this case is tied to a previous one, you are truly an "insider."

Again, and again, I have posted to links to read about the case, which started long before Obama took office:

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, not just states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault using a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that this application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on Congress' statutory implementation of treaties. Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.

With this amount of concern, perfume is an irritant like a pearl in an oyster.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

AND YOUR CREDETIALS BITCH, OR YOU HAVE NO FUCKING STANDING HERE!

You call Cruz NOT SHARP....so what is SHARPER about you, or just another fucked up, scumbag liberal bitch that needs to make herself important to other liberals?

You don't need to be a lawyer to know what day it was when she was convicted. lol

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

COME ON PEACH'S, WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS???

Once you jaywalk, you have all the credentials you need.

 

[JQPublic1]

The title of this OP should read “ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE EXPOSED.”
Yep, folks, some of us actually click on the links to get clues as to the veracity of Right-wing attacks on our beloved Commander in Chief. This op fails miserably upon closer examination.

Not only did I review the original material, I ventured off into a world where legalese is the native language and found the original briefs. Obama had nothing to do with any stage of the Bond vs United States case. The local police refused to do their job. But it didn’t stop there. Because the mailbox was involved, the local cops suggested the desperate woman call the Postal Inspectors.

Between November 2006 and June 2007, Bond went to Haynes's home on at least 24 occasions and spread the chemicals on her car door, mailbox, and door knob. These attempted assaults were almost entirely unsuccessful. The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water. Haynes repeatedly called the local police to report the suspicious substances, but they took no action. When Haynes found powder on her mailbox, she called the police again, who told her to call the post office. Haynes did so, and postal inspectors placed surveillance cameras around her home. The cameras caught Bond opening Haynes's mailbox, stealing an envelope, and stuffing potassium dichromate inside the muffler of Haynes's car.

Did Obama orchestrate the whole thing? Heck no, and it is laughable to even consider such nonsense!

Federal prosecutors naturally charged Bond with two counts of mail theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1708 . More surprising, they also charged her with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon, in violation of section 229(a)

Initial charges were filed during the preliminary investigation and later revalidated by federal prosecutors as being worthy of consideration. Influencing that controversial decision to include section 229 was the past experience of dealing with the Anthrax mailings.
The Conservative Tribune is no more credible than the National Enquirer and anything quoted therein should be suspect. If “conservatives” allow this rag to pose as the ultimate right wing icon of conservative thought, they are lost. The boldness of this false propaganda is shocking. Even more surprising is the following quote by a standing Senator who gleefully endorses, or is possibly the author of this lie:

Today’s ‪#*SCOTUS‬ ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s argument for increased federal power.