| You wish |  |  | |
| Re: Leaps of hysteri-acal fanatic faith -- DWA | Post Reply |  |
Forum |
|
Posted by: Crossbowman 05/31/2009, 00:11:51  (About author)
Edit |
Guilty instincts? Come now. I'm a father of three and a former mental-health caseworker (among other things) whose had the opportunity to hear from the victims first-hand. All these years reading my rants and that's your best conclusion? We're off on one of your famous tangents. Bill, as near as I can tell, is arguing that there is no need for law - a ridiculous position. You have gone sideways into discussing the problems with law enforcement without actually addressing his point or my counterpoint. You have a problem with law enforcement, you work to fix the problem with law enforcement. I suspect you take some of these tangents just for the pleasure of debate. I've noticed you go tangent on some of the more controversial topics when you can't quite bring yourself to endorse the position of the underdog but nonetheless feel the urge to duel with someone. "Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts." WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring. |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|
