Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
I didn’t as for specifics, I just asked if the fact that the accusations are made outside of a courtroom means there aren’t any consequeces if you’re wrong.
Some persons, such as most criminals, are effectively unable to prove damages for defamation because their reputations are already bad, and statements as to public figures enjoy a qualified privilege. Statements made as opinion or supported by facts are also strongly defensible.
Sanctions may be imposed by a court or bar association against an attorney for a knowing or reckless false accusation of a crime, but rarely and in more limited circumstances. Proof of the knowing or reckless nature of an accusation is often hard to establish.
So, as long as you don't get sued there aren't any consequences?
That depends. What do you have in mind?
Does it matter?
Does your assesment of the potential consequences of your actions ever extend beyond what the effect might be on you, personally?
More so than you, I wager.
So far, none of your replies have exhibited any evidence of it.
This comes from someone who called me a “liberal plant” — which are near fightin’ words in this forum.
I did not call you a liberal plant. I observed that your arguments are consistent with what a liberal plant wanting to subvert any attempt to organize a campaign to take back their gains based on a return to original intent jurisprudence would argue.
You don't have to be a liberal plant to make those arguments, but the net effect of adopting them will be the same.
Hairsplitting.
The difference between disagreeing with someone's opinion or ideas and attacking them personally is not "hairsplitting".
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:07:35 PM · 487 of 611
tacticalogic to Rockingham
but they never expected modern conditions of commerce or the weakening of the states due to the Civil War, Progressivism, Socialism, the Depression, and the New Deal.
And Rockinghams.
I may have been mistaken about that. They did include and ratify the 10th Amendment.
?
If the Founder's never anticipated any of those things happening, how can it be submitted that they would support using stare decicis to prevent a return to original intent?
Stare decisis was a recognized principle of judicial reasoning at the time of the Convention and when the Bill of Rights was drafted. The Tenth Amendment did not address stare decisis.
The lipstick is stare decisis. The pig is the substantial effects doctrine.
You say it has lipstick.
I say it's a pig.
You ask why I don't like lipstick.
It's not about the lipstick, it's about the pig.
No, I’m still on the pig.
It’s very simple, you cant have freedom in a welfare state. Which is what we are.
Crack and Crystal Meth. One or two highs and we got another zombie taken care of by the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.