Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.
Return to Forum

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.
Return to Forum

[/ QUOTE ]


???

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.
Return to Forum

[/ QUOTE ]


???

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means this should be in Politics. I would agree with him.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

I eat on BART regularly even though I'm not supposed to. I clean up too. Nobody seems to care. I gave one of the conductors who was eyeing my burrito a taste when he got off at the airport (why the [censored] do they do that, anyway?) for the 5-minute pause.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

ahhhh

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

Did they have ketsup on them?

If so...Yes

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

you should be sent to jail for that bastardization of catsup/ketchup

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

I thought this gimmick account was dead...wishful thinking I guess.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.
Return to Forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is clear that you do not have the judgement to ever serve as a modertor. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you should be sent to jail for that bastardization of catsup/ketchup

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't use the goop and therefore have not spent hours (and hours) staring at the bottle like you.

Oh, plus, I are not anal enuf to care obout spealing on intrnet fourums

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

I don't use it either but I still know how to spell

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't use it either but I still know how to spell

[/ QUOTE ]

something that is sorely lacking here:

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it is clear that you do not have the judgement to ever serve as a modertor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't use it either but I still know how to spell

[/ QUOTE ]

linky

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should eating french fries send you to jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Eating anything French should send you to jail. A bunch of cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. Freedom fries, now that's the ticket.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

If that's the law, yes. Unfortunately, it seems that ChristinaB missed the part (or didn't care) where the decision to uphold the lower court's ruling was unanimous. The decision was whether or not the girl's fourth and fifth amend. rights were violated, not whether she should have eaten a french fry.

C'mon, libs. This is getting beyond lame.

YES..........
 

..........at least according to the City of Washington DC.

The people of DC elected the people that made these rules. Being a judge his job was to determine whether the law was legal. It is NOT his job to determine whether the law is a good law. He practiced judicial restraint which is very rare among US judges. This link has increased has increased my respect of him. The conservative judges who voted for legal medical marijuana in California did so because it was a legal law.....not because they support marijuana.

If you want to b**** about girl being arrested for breaking the subway rules then call the City of Washington DC and tell them. By-the-way, 95% of the elected officials in DC are Democrats. Perhaps we should refer to the Democrats are the 'French Fry Nazis'. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should eating french fries send you to jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand the alleged logic of this post. A couple of storm troopers over-zealously enforce a law. The judge says that's the law, and I can't change it. So the judge is a storm trooper. Brilliant!!!

The rallying cry of every partisan on both political wings is that judges must not legislate from the bench. What they really mean is that judges should not interpret laws contrary to my personal interests. What part of the following did the OP not understand:

[ QUOTE ]
Roberts agreed with a lower court ruling upholding the arrest


"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.


"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."

[/ QUOTE ]

It means that he refused to legislate from the bench. If the law is stupid, it is because of stupid legislation, not because a judge ruled that it is constitutional.

That said, people who are obnoxious in public with their food or their cells phones or their pets or their kids ought to be cuffed and jailed.

Re: YES..........
 

[ QUOTE ]
..........at least according to the City of Washington DC.

The people of DC elected the people that made these rules. Being a judge his job was to determine whether the law was legal. It is NOT his job to determine whether the law is a good law. He practiced judicial restraint which is very rare among US judges. This link has increased has increased my respect of him. The conservative judges who voted for legal medical marijuana in California did so because it was a legal law.....not because they support marijuana.

If you want to b**** about girl being arrested for breaking the subway rules then call the City of Washington DC and tell them. By-the-way, 95% of the elected officials in DC are Democrats. Perhaps we should refer to the Democrats are the 'French Fry Nazis'. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. "Judicial restraint" is so unusual that this was a unanimous decision.

Seriously, what planet are you from? My guess is that it ends with "anus".

Re: YES..........
 

Seriously, what planet are you from? My guess is that it ends with "anus".
*****************************************
Based on your responses to my posts, you are doing a great imitation of a psycho-stalker. I suspect you are no older than 19. Right?

Re: YES..........
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what planet are you from? My guess is that it ends with "anus".
*****************************************
Based on your responses to my posts, you are doing a great imitation of a psycho-stalker. I suspect you are no older than 19. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on to me. I love you. And I'm jailbait.

Re: YES..........
 

Back to the topic at hand...

This is what Judge Roberts said during his 2003 confirmation hearing. The accusation (I call it this because of the tone) from Sen. Kennedy was that Roberts was refusing to answer questions on decisions like Brown, Miranda, and Roe. Here's what Roberts said in response:
[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that it is not appropriate for nominees to answer questions seeking their personal views on the correctness of binding Supreme Court precedent. If confirmed, the nominee would be bound to follow the precedent, regardless of whether he personally viewed the precedent as correct, and regardless of whether he personally the precedent as "activism" or "strict constructionalism"

[/ QUOTE ]
Roberts' testimony

I would also like to point out a Federalist Society (of which, Roberts belongs, so take it fwiw) paper which deals with the precedent that Ginsberg's hearing set with regards to SCOTUS nominee hearings.

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/...nomconduct.pdf

Note the preface that Senator Biden made with regard to how the hearings should be conducted. Let's hope that this is how Roberts is treated, but my gut tells me it will be worse.

Re: YES..........
 

Amen Felix, another left wing looney argument shot down.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

So he , and the rest of that court upheld the law.
Roberts then went on to say the conductor and the police overreacted in handcuffing the girl.
The law was changed soon after.
Any problems at all with this ??
Can't see any.

Re: Should eating french fries send you to jail?
 

Here is a link to the opinion in case anyone wants to read it for himself.

Let\'s hope he remains prudent
 

I read the article and his decision seemed balanced. He ruled on the constitutionality of the law, as he was supposed to. As a matter of fact, for a moment, the article's title (and your post's title) informed me that Roberts was after french fries ! It is all much less scary than that; actually, not scary at all.

Should eating french fries send you to jail?

Re: YES..........
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to point out a Federalist Society (of which, Roberts belongs, so take it fwiw)

[/ QUOTE ]
This now appears to be incorrect. My apologies.