Through a jury nullification as well, although in recent years the courts have started preventing this.
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:31 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc A law can be thrown out by a judge as well for various reasons...usually for violations of the Constitution or violations of precedents. Eric -----Original Message----- From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:54 AM To: cf-community Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc It's still not law. A law must be reregulated to change it or get rid of it. A precedent can be changed at anytime by a judge. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:20 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc In our legal system it does. This is as opposed to a system based on something like Napoleonic code where all laws are codified. Our system has more in common with English common law which is based on Saxon common law. It is a precedent based system that has some codification, but precedence, has the same weight as codification. That is why you see ruling being such a big deal, because once it is ruled on, it sets a precedence, which the courts usually defer to. For example, that is why legal scholars are saying these lawsuits against the HCR law are going to fail because there is legal precedence where the SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government can require the purchase of a product from it's powers to effect internstate commerce. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:22 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc legal precedent != a law On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > But it does make it law... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Medic [mailto:hofme...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:10 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere > d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc > > > Just because a judge has made a ruling and set precedence does not mean that > it's a right. Just saying. > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Eric Roberts < > ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > >> >> You are not paying attention...we have the right to privacy via court >> precedence. Not all laws and rights are written into the constitution. > Do >> I have to repeat this again or did you get it this time? >> >> Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Timothy Heald [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:43 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> You do not have either of the rights you mentioned. Not in this country >> under the constitution as written. >> >> Sent from my MOTOBLURT smartphone on AT&T >> >> -----Original message----- >> From: Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> >> To: cf-community <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> >> Sent: Tue, Mar 30, 2010 15:14:48 GMT+00:00 >> Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> That's called common sense and common courtesy...but we do have a right to >> privacy and a right not to be harassed. This Chritofascist wackjobs do > not >> have a right to intrude in people's lives like this. My only hope is that >> when they do cross the wrong family (and that is a when...not an if) is >> that >> no one, other than these fucktards, gets hurt. >> >> Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:01 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> Wait we have a RIGHT to mourn in peace? >> >> What article or amendment of the constitution or USC or State and local >> code >> is that in? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 5:59 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE: _Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> It's not the right decision. What the court is saying the Westboro > Baptist >> Church's right's are more important that the right of a family to mourn in >> peace. An individual's right is more important that the right of a > church. >> This is bullshit it is what it is. While they do have a right to be > heard, >> they also have the responsibility to do so when it is appropriate. A >> funeral is not the appropriate place to protest with signs that have >> nothing >> to do with this individual who served honorably in our armed forces. If >> they ant to protest outside the pentagon, or outside the Whitehouse, then >> that is their right. Where this court has failed is one day they are > going >> to cross the wrong veteran's family and someone is going to come out guns >> blazing. While I would call it karma, that would have been very >> preventable. >> >> >> Not only do we need to put up a collection, but we also need to call for >> the >> impeachment of this judge. >> >> Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Timothy Heald [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:43 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE:_Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> Its unpopular but the right decision. >> >> Sent from my MOTOBLURT smartphone on AT&T >> >> -----Original message----- >> From: Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> >> To: cf-community <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> >> Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 21:10:49 GMT+00:00 >> Subject: RE:_Speaking_of_the_Supreme_Court:_Marine's_father_ord_ere >> d_to_pay_court_costs_to_Westboro_Baptist_Churc >> >> >> WTF? *shakes head in disgust* >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:48 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Speaking of the Supreme Court: Marine's_father ord ered to pay >> court costs to Westboro Baptist Churc >> >> >> >> > http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/03/29/marines-father-ordered-to-pay-court-cost >> s-to-westboro-baptist-church/ >> >> Lawyers for the father of a Marine who died in Iraq and whose funeral was >> picketed by anti-gay protesters say a court has ordered him to pay the >> protesters' appeal costs. >> >> Lawyers for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., also say he is struggling to come >> up >> with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. >> ... >> >> >> Phelps is a tool. >> (full disclosure - it's one of my company's papers) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:314432 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
