***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:29 -0-09-20
|
|
ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/index.html
&
...Some day, _even_ the horrible [-] effect the Women's Rights movement
had upon male opportunity / employment will be discussed --objectively.
*That* result (imo)... was;
Baby boom daughters and after: W
Baby boom sons and after: L
Regards,
:-( A Son. L
:-) Who fathered daughters. W
Life. L some, W some.
M
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:29 -0-09-20
|
|
*M\®/M* wrote:
> ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/index.html
>
> &
>
> ...Some day, _even_ the horrible [-] effect the Women's Rights movement
> had upon male opportunity / employment will be discussed --objectively.
>
> *That* result (imo)... was;
>
> Baby boom daughters and after: W
>
> Baby boom sons and after: L
>
>
> Regards,
>
> :-( A Son. L
>
> :-) Who fathered daughters. W
>
> Life. L some, W some.
>
>
> M
GET READY! FOX IS GONNA POUND THIS FIREFIGHTER STORY LIKE MY MEAT!!!!!!
YET---- SEPARATELY---
*WHERE* is the "JUSTICE" IN _THIS_ DECISION?!
June 18, 2009
Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA
The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska man
who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the
District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.
WTF?! M
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:29 -0-09-20
|
|
>> ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/index.html
>>
>> &
>>
>> ...Some day, _even_ the horrible [-] effect the Women's Rights
>> movement had upon male opportunity / employment will be discussed
>> --objectively.
>>
>> *That* result (imo)... was;
>>
>> Baby boom daughters and after: W
>>
>> Baby boom sons and after: L
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> :-( A Son. L
>>
>> :-) Who fathered daughters. W
>>
>> Life. L some, W some.
>>
>>
>> M
>
> GET READY! FOX IS GONNA POUND THIS FIREFIGHTER STORY LIKE MY MEAT!!!!!!
>
> YET---- SEPARATELY---
>
> *WHERE* is the "JUSTICE" IN _THIS_ DECISION?!
>
> June 18, 2009
>
> Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA
>
> The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
> right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
> after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska man
> who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
> Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the
> District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.
>
> WTF?! M
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june09/dna_06-18.html
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - WWJD (What Would Jedd Do) - 6-:30 -0-09-20
|
|
*M\®/M* wrote:
>
> Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA
>
> The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
> right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
> after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska man
> who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
> Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the
> District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.
>
>
That is sick. I think *prosecutors* should be held liable
for railroading suspects .
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:30 -0-09-20
|
|
WWJD (What Would Jedd Do) wrote:
> *M\®/M* wrote:
>>
>> Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA
>>
>> The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
>> right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
>> after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska
>> man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
>> Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the
>> District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.
>>
>>
>
> That is sick. I think *prosecutors* should be held liable
> for railroading suspects .
It's unfuckingbelievable. 5-4...
Like the decision that brought us fuckstick from TX to the White House.
While we're all kept mouth breathing at election malfeasance on the
other side of the planet, the U.S. Supreme Court of whackjobs, our own
council of ancient shit heads pulls _this_. Pure evil and injustice,
legally sanctioned.
M
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:30 -0-09-20
|
|
*M\®/M* wrote:
> WWJD (What Would Jedd Do) wrote:
>> *M\®/M* wrote:
>>>
>>> Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
>>> right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
>>> after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska
>>> man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years
>>> ago. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of
>>> the District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is sick. I think *prosecutors* should be held liable
>> for railroading suspects .
>
> It's unfuckingbelievable. 5-4...
>
> Like the decision that brought us fuckstick from TX to the White House.
>
> While we're all kept mouth breathing at election malfeasance on the
> other side of the planet, the U.S. Supreme Court of whackjobs, our own
> council of ancient shit heads pulls _this_. Pure evil and injustice,
> legally sanctioned.
>
> M
...btw...notice how our Pravda infotainment news basically ignored it.
Some "4th Estate" 'freedom of the press' turned out to be...
...twitter...
What a royal flapping asshole this nation has devolved into during my
lifetime...exception- Civil Rights...and Blacks wouldn't have gotten
_them_ if they hadn't finally gone apeshit '67-'68 and scared H88rz
sick with warzones in every major city...
"Supreme" Court. *HOW* anyone with an IQ over 90 could _not_ have
"contempt" for this, is the question.
M
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - Naked - 6-:30 -0-09-20
|
|
On Jun 30, 11:49=A0am, "*M\\=C2=AE/M* " <YNotB-the-BestMan?=AE@peace.net>
wrote:
> *M\=AE/M* wrote:
> M
There is medication that can help you. Please seek the professional
attention that you need.
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22*M=5C=5C=AE/M*_=22?= - 6-:30 -0-09-20
|
|
Clarke / NJ wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:49 am, "*M\\®/M* " <YNotB-the-BestMan?®@peace.net>
> wrote:
>> *M\®/M* wrote:
>
>> M
>
> There is medication that can help you. Please seek the professional
> attention that you need.
>
Mudfuck? You're yet _another_ total zero in the mob, holding your torch
high. A complete H88r loaf yourself, creativity and humor are lost on
you. What do you drool? "Meds"! Like that's some fresh handful of
sparkling, incandescent wit, flung from on high, flittering down for all
to gasp in delight over.
Think about that the very next time (sometime today) you're in a
conversation and out of your stupid face comes;
"EGG-zact-lee"
or
"LIT-er-ally"
perhaps- "AWE-some" with a touch of
"Have a Good 'UN!"
You sorry dullard. Check in with Lost assVaj and your AM radio :-) M
|
|
|
|
Re: ***** ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION! - VOR - 7-:01 -0-09-20
|
|
*M\®/M* wrote:
> ANOTHER 5-4 SCOTUS DECISION
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/index.html
>
> &
>
> ...Some day, _even_ the horrible [-] effect the Women's Rights movement
> had upon male opportunity / employment will be discussed --objectively.
>
> *That* result (imo)... was;
>
> Baby boom daughters and after: W
>
> Baby boom sons and after: L
>
>
> Regards,
>
> :-( A Son. L
>
> :-) Who fathered daughters. W
>
> Life. L some, W some.
>
>
> M
The ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano was just. The only thing that worries
me is the fact that it wasn't more clearly decided in terms of a greater
consensus among the Justices. That one didn't really meet the standards
of long, sleepless nights interpreting the law, situation, and which way
to cast your vote. Not in my mind, at least.
Of greater interest was your comment about the Women's Rights movement
and its impact on males in the workplace. That is definitely up for
debate, and the ugly truth of the matter is that males did get the shaft
in many measurable ways. It isn't politically correct to say such things
even if they happen to be true. Growing up in a post-Women's Rights
world, I know I have always had equal access to all of the education and
tools one needs to be successful in this life. That is the only aspect
of the movement that I think was legitimate. Discriminating against
males in the workplace was one of the nasty little aspects that nobody
wants to admit. You cannot correct a past injustice by committing
further injustice.
|
|
|
|
1 |