Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Double Jeopardy is the law of the land!
Reply
Page 2 of 4 12 34
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old
  (#16)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,927
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
Yeah, well. I think I would rather play Johnny on a table that was just recovered with old nappy cloth that raveled. At least Johnny is not just trying to find or create issues with his playing partner or opponent.
That's not what I heard personally from Alex, though.

At first he wouldn't say his name, calling him 'Mr. Perfect.' But then he confirmed he meant JA.

(He wasn't talking directly to me, but to some others and I was just a bystander in the crowd, to be clear. It was a story about racking.)


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#17)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
Plus, one offending circumstance may break several laws at the same time (even restricting it to either federal or state laws). Piling up the varying charges for the trial is called 'throwing the book' at a defendant.

I already basically said that.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
That's not what I heard personally from Alex, though.

At first he wouldn't say his name, calling him 'Mr. Perfect.' But then he confirmed he meant JA.

(He wasn't talking directly to me, but to some others and I was just a bystander in the crowd, to be clear. It was a story about racking.)
Did you not understand the exchange... or are you just ignoring it?

Would you tell me how old you are?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,927
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 01:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
Did you not understand the exchange... or are you just ignoring it?

Would you tell me how old you are?
If your 'At least Johnny is not just trying to find or create issues with his playing partner or opponent' was meant ironically, I admit I missed that.

I am older than you, most likely, and retired. So ballpark that.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 01:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
If your 'At least Johnny is not just trying to find or create issues with his playing partner or opponent' was meant ironically, I admit I missed that.

I am older than you, most likely, and retired. So ballpark that.
How old am I as a gauge? Why can't you simply post a number like 68 or 28?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
06-18-2019, 02:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
I see your point, but ENGLISH has 7 members of the Supreme Court agreeing with his 'naive' take on this, including CJ Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh (and Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan).

One offense may violate both federal and state laws, and if so, the two sovereigns, each with jurisdiction, bring charges on the basis of the separate law violations (albeit on the same offense).

That right there caught my interest. That implies the states are on equal standing with the federal government.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 02:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
That right there caught my interest. That implies the states are on equal standing with the federal government.

Hu
We are the United STATES of America. Naturally there are some legalities that may be in play regarding HOW each State became one in the Union. I do not really know, but one would think that each was put onto equal footing. The Confederate States of America were militarily invaded by what remained of The United States of America. Does THAT have an effect on those States as a conquered nation. I don't know.

All of this should have been taught in Civics & American History.

Best Wishes.
  
Reply With Quote
same act, different charges
Old
  (#23)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
same act, different charges - 06-18-2019, 02:44 PM

Granted games have been played in the past but I have never heard of the fed's and the state proffering the same charges for the same act which is now blessed. For example, one of the huge civil rights cases of years ago, the defendents were freed of murder charges. The fed couldn't turn around and charge the defendents with murder again, they charged them with violation of the victim's civil rights. How did they violate his civil rights? They killed him!

That was the kind of game playing required to skate around double jeopardy in the past. Now the Supreme Court is saying both the state and the fed are sovereign and a crime is not a single crime but two crimes, one against the fed and one against the state. Of course both can bring a suitcase of charges for each crime as we saw with the actor faking the assault recently. I think he had eighteen charges against him at one time which was ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as him going unpunished.

We won't know how big this ruling is until we see how lawyers use it. One example, Manofort(SP?) is screwed! It doesn't matter if President Trump was to pardon federal convictions, New York can come right back with the same charges. That is cited as one result of this ruling so apparently it wasn't so clear in the past.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,927
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 02:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
That right there caught my interest. That implies the states are on equal standing with the federal government.

Hu
In some respects, sure. In other respects, no (cf: the supremacy clause, article VI, clause 2, in the COTUS).

The Indian tribes are also sovereigns on their rez. Cities are the sovereigns in their limits, as to city ordinances. Nobody would consider the tribes or cities on an equal standing with the federal government, surely. Although they are equally 'sovereigns' in some respects, they are also subject to a higher sovereignty over them (hence, not equal).


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by Sofla; 06-18-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,927
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 03:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
Granted games have been played in the past but I have never heard of the fed's and the state proffering the same charges for the same act which is now blessed. For example, one of the huge civil rights cases of years ago, the defendents were freed of murder charges. The fed couldn't turn around and charge the defendents with murder again, they charged them with violation of the victim's civil rights. How did they violate his civil rights? They killed him!

That was the kind of game playing required to skate around double jeopardy in the past. Now the Supreme Court is saying both the state and the fed are sovereign and a crime is not a single crime but two crimes, one against the fed and one against the state. Of course both can bring a suitcase of charges for each crime as we saw with the actor faking the assault recently. I think he had eighteen charges against him at one time which was ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as him going unpunished.

We won't know how big this ruling is until we see how lawyers use it. One example, Manofort(SP?) is screwed! It doesn't matter if President Trump was to pardon federal convictions, New York can come right back with the same charges. That is cited as one result of this ruling so apparently it wasn't so clear in the past.

Hu
Murder is not generally a federal crime. It becomes one only in special circumstances (typically if it is a murder of a federal official, and some other specific situations. Clinton added about 20 new federal capital crimes in his time, so he expanded the applicable criteria).

The point about Manafort is that he would have been cleared of the jeopardy he would otherwise had, if this decision went the other way. Not that his being subjected to the state prosecutions was unexpected or different. Just that his potential relief from state prosecution jeopardy was decided in the negative (maintaining the status quo ante prior to this case).


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by Sofla; 06-18-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
The justices are usually very careful with their wording
Old
  (#26)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
The justices are usually very careful with their wording - 06-18-2019, 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
In some respects, sure. In other respects, no (cf: the supremacy clause, article VI, clause 2, in the COTUS).

The Indian tribes are also sovereigns on their rez. Cities are the sovereigns in their limits, as to city ordinances. Nobody would consider the tribes or cities on an equal standing with the federal government, surely. Although they are equally 'sovereigns' in some respects, they are also subject to a higher sovereignty over them (hence, not equal).

You cannot be sovereign and subject to someone else's power. The justices are usually extremely careful with their wording. That is why I found the use of "sovereign" so interesting.

"sovereign: possessing supreme or ultimate power."

Other definitions too but they all mean essentially the same thing. A sovereign is the supreme ruler of a land, or granted sometimes a figurehead these days in which case they are no longer a sovereign. Sovereign power means that there is no power above yours any way you slice it. Saying a state has sovereign power is very significant. It is applied to a fairly broad area of law in this ruling, no doubt in my mind that this will be the basis of states claiming greater rights in other areas. I still think there will be some interesting outcomes of this ruling.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#27)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
In some respects, sure. In other respects, no (cf: the supremacy clause, article VI, clause 2, in the COTUS).

The Indian tribes are also sovereigns on their rez. Cities are the sovereigns in their limits, as to city ordinances. Nobody would consider the tribes or cities on an equal standing with the federal government, surely. Although they are equally 'sovereigns' in some respects, they are also subject to a higher sovereignty over them (hence, not equal).
Minutia to distract.

Cities are Political Subdivisions of The States. Some City Charters predate those of the States such as New Orleans.

The bottom line is that expansion of The Federal Government is Unconstitutional as the Authority & Duties of the Federal Government are specifically 'spelled out' & ALL else falls to the States. The phrase for the Common Good or whatever it specifically is was perverted so as to basically strip the States of ALL authority except as "allowed" by the Federal Government. It was NEVER intended to be that way. In fact, it was intended to be the other way around. The People Grant to the States & the States to the Federal Government.

Leftist Democrat is from Big Government down to "the serfs".

Republican Right is We the People to The States & then to a small Federal Government granting ONLY specific Authorities & Duties.

Please Vote Accordingly?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 03:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
You cannot be sovereign and subject to someone else's power. The justices are usually extremely careful with their wording. That is why I found the use of "sovereign" so interesting.

"sovereign: possessing supreme or ultimate power."

Other definitions too but they all mean essentially the same thing. A sovereign is the supreme ruler of a land, or granted sometimes a figurehead these days in which case they are no longer a sovereign. Sovereign power means that there is no power above yours any way you slice it. Saying a state has sovereign power is very significant. It is applied to a fairly broad area of law in this ruling, no doubt in my mind that this will be the basis of states claiming greater rights in other areas. I still think there will be some interesting outcomes of this ruling.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
06-18-2019, 03:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
We are the United STATES of America. Naturally there are some legalities that may be in play regarding HOW each State became one in the Union. I do not really know, but one would think that each was put onto equal footing. The Confederate States of America were militarily invaded by what remained of The United States of America. Does THAT have an effect on those States as a conquered nation. I don't know.

All of this should have been taught in Civics & American History.

Best Wishes.

Legally since the Southern States were never accepted as having seceded from the union, their status as states was unchanged after the war of northern aggression. Did it have an affect as a conquered nation? Reconstruction was still bitterly remembered when I was a child. Mention of the word was enough to make some elders furious. Yankees in general and carpetbaggers in particular weren't warmly regarded either.

All states are on equal footing at the moment. Texas has the right to divide into five states if it ever takes a notion, a condition of them entering the union. Other states may have some peculiarities. The small area I am in is a bit of an oddity. It was an independent nation for a short time. The area wanted to join the US but since it had seceded from Spain the US wasn't in a hurry to get in a pissing contest with Spain. When Louisiana was purchased from France a little sharp pencil work made this area part of the union at the same time the Louisiana Purchase was added despite France having no claim to the area! We had our own flag and the same flag was the first to fly over the confederacy.

If you get bored look up the West Florida Parishes or the Bonnie Blue Flag. The Bonnie Blue Flag still flies over some government buildings in this area and if things go right I may fly it myself.

Strong states vs a strong fed was a debate from before founding the nation. It was still a hot topic up until the time of the war of northern aggression although some would like to claim differently. A friend was given a class assignment to list 200 causes of the war. He thought that was insane! However he was easily able to list 200 causes, which didn't include slavery.

The winners write the history books, civics books too. Generally the truth lies somewhere betwixt and between the two sides.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#30)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
06-18-2019, 03:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
Minutia to distract.

Cities are Political Subdivisions of The States. Some City Charters predate those of the States such as New Orleans.

The bottom line is that expansion of The Federal Government is Unconstitutional as the Authority & Duties of the Federal Government are specifically 'spelled out' & ALL else falls to the States. The phrase for the Common Good or whatever it specifically is was perverted so as to basically strip the States of ALL authority except as "allowed" by the Federal Government. It was NEVER intended to be that way. In fact, it was intended to be the other way around. The People Grant to the States & the States to the Federal Government.

Leftist Democrat is from Big Government down to "the serfs".

Republican Right is We the People to The States & then to a small Federal Government granting ONLY specific Authorities & Duties.

Please Vote Accordingly?

I agreed with you 100% until you got down to the political parties. Unfortunately both only try to draw power unto themselves and anything they say otherwise is purely lip service.

We the people has turned into we the peon. Our founding fathers would have torn down this mess their union has turned into a long time ago.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 4 12 34

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.