« Previous 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 104 Next »

This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#1177 Aug 18 2010 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

gbaji wrote:

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Wow.

And? The defense could spend millions of dollars calling hundreds of witnesses and filing tons of motions, and it'll still end out appealed to the 9th, and then to the Supreme Court. Or they could spend a fraction of that, and yes, save their best arguments for the court which actually matters.

Why do you find this strange?

And again, they can't appeal based on witnesses they declined to call the first time.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1178 Aug 18 2010 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1596990078323

View User Forum

Sage

19,727 posts

Gbaji doesn't understand the process. [:frownyface:]

He must feel pretty disenfranchised right about now.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 5:41pm by Barkingturtle

#1179 Aug 18 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1630282721753

View User Forum

Sage

14,174 posts

Quote:

You're off on the specifics but you're correct to assume I'm the guy who will always be sleeping with the girl you want, who will always be happier than you and will always just be, in general, at the front of the line while you stew in your own juices at the back of the bus.

Weren't you really miserable for ages, though? You know, when you were breeding dogs and fighting your sofa. And what about that time you were on trial for rape? That can't have been very enjoyable.

Now, I'm willing to accept that you, or indeed anyone else, is more successful than Almalieque, but I'm not convinced he's intelligent enough for it to get him down. I guess he must know, deep down, but he seems pretty good at sticking his head in the sand.

#1180 Aug 18 2010 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

When I disagree with you, it's because you have a bad argument, not the other way around.

tee-hee

Yeah, that actually is kind of funny.

So if I say "Root beer tastes good.", and for whatever reason you don't like root beer, I have a bad argument, gbaji?

#1181 Aug 18 2010 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1630282721753

View User Forum

Sage

14,174 posts

gbaji wrote:

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Wow.

And? The defense could spend millions of dollars calling hundreds of witnesses and filing tons of motions, and it'll still end out appealed to the 9th, and then to the Supreme Court. Or they could spend a fraction of that, and yes, save their best arguments for the court which actually matters.

Why do you find this strange?

You know arguments don't get used up, right? You can use them again and again.

Fuck, you of all people must realise this.

#1182 Aug 18 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent

Gurue

16,299 posts

Almalieque wrote:

ElneClare wrote:

I'm beginning to think Alma was a bubble child, as his world view is so shallow.

That or he has aspergers and no one was able to teach him how to comprehend that he isn't a special butterfly his mom always told him he was.

Really I would be amaze if he went to college due to the fact he can't write at middle school level.

Thankfully I know why I don't always make sense and try to correct my more glaring grammar mishaps.

Even BT's "making points without making points" posts added more value than your presence and that's pretty sad. Politely go back smoking crack or whatever it is that you smoke and leave this conversation to the sober. The audacity of some people... seriously, you? Of all people, you, really? You're so below me it's almost offensive to me that you would even think to criticize me. Why don't you go find a VCR to steal or something. I'm sure there's someone to represent you in court.

What the fUck are you even talking about??

#1183 Aug 18 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Samira wrote:

IF it goes to the Supreme Court - IF anyone has standing to pursue appeals, given that the State of California has declined to do so - no new arguments will be allowed, you realize. They can only appeal based on what has already transpired.

Huh? Last I heard, the 9th already granted a stay to the defense to prevent more gay couples from marrying until after it's heard the appeal. They are going to hear arguments for standing in Dec, and I suppose it's possible they could dismiss the case on that grounds, but that seems unlikely. And the restriction on "new arguments" isn't as limiting as you're making it out. They can't argue the case on completely new grounds, but that's about it. They still get to make oral arguments, and call witnesses, and the usual courtroom stuff.

I was speaking mainly of motions and whatnot. You can use lots of tricks to slow down proceedings, but the defense hasn't chosen to do this. It has nothing to do with their argument though.

Interestingly enough, there's some indication that the couples challenging prop8 in this case wont appeal to the US Supreme Court if they lose. I'd assume that's because of a larger movement which isn't comfortable with their odds of a win at that level. So we may not see this at the Supreme Court after all. But it wont be because the defense doesn't want to go there, but because those challenging prop8 don't want it to.

Which is somewhat telling. I just ran into that in one article though, so take that for what it's worth.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 5:44pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1184 Aug 18 2010 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

I meant "talented" as well. The implication being that talented lawyers would choose (for ethical reasons apparently) to support the "no on prop8" position, and the only lawyers who would choose to defend prop8 would be the dregs.

Can you get yourself down off that cross, please? The lawyers for No on 8 are very good completely regardless of what they're arguing. This has nothing to do with which side they chose to support. They're very good lawyers.

gbaji wrote:

I happen to think that statement wasn't so much a statement of fact as one of wishful thinking. Lots of people confuse "good arguments" with "arguments I agree with".

No. The No on 8 lawyers completely mauled the already unprepared defense, and these statements are being based on their history as well. Your sob story is cute though.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 8:45pm by CBD

#1185 Aug 18 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Samira wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Wow.

And? The defense could spend millions of dollars calling hundreds of witnesses and filing tons of motions, and it'll still end out appealed to the 9th, and then to the Supreme Court. Or they could spend a fraction of that, and yes, save their best arguments for the court which actually matters.

Why do you find this strange?

And again, they can't appeal based on witnesses they declined to call the first time.

Yes. Which means you present the minimum evidence needed to win an appeal. Which is what they're doing.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1186 Aug 18 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

CBD wrote:

gbaji wrote:

I happen to think that statement wasn't so much a statement of fact as one of wishful thinking. Lots of people confuse "good arguments" with "arguments I agree with".

No. The No on 8 lawyers completely mauled the already unprepared defense, and these statements are being based on their history as well. Your sob story is cute though.

Why do you think they "mauled the already unprepared defense"? Is that based on fact? Or because you agree with one side, and that side one this round, so you use that sort of colorful language to describe what happened?

I'm going to go with option 2. Case closed.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1187 Aug 18 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1596990078323

View User Forum

Sage

19,727 posts

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:

Quote:

You're off on the specifics but you're correct to assume I'm the guy who will always be sleeping with the girl you want, who will always be happier than you and will always just be, in general, at the front of the line while you stew in your own juices at the back of the bus.

Weren't you really miserable for ages, though? You know, when you were breeding dogs and fighting your sofa. And what about that time you were on trial for rape? That can't have been very enjoyable.

Hey, fUck you.

Really though, I never even saw a trial. I spent seven years in pre-trial hearings and enduring continuance after continuance all for her to recant in the end, on the eve of Judgment's Day. My lawyer was a hell of an evil man, a bad dude, but I reckon he was a damn good lawyer. He got in excess of thirty-thousand dollars from me, and in the end I probably could have achieved the same result without him.

Still, thank God I was accused under this system, and not just castrated in an alley somewhere. I mean, other than an Arab nation, I can't think of a place I'd rather be charged with rape.

#1188 Aug 18 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

Why do you think they "mauled the already unprepared defense"? Is that based on fact? Or because you agree with one side, and that side one this round, so you use that sort of colorful language to describe what happened?

Did you even read the decision and/or pay attention to the trial as it was going on? No? I didn't think so.

gbaji wrote:

I'm going to go with option 2. Case closed.

HAHAHAHA.

Oh gosh, you. Whatever makes you happy, sparky. Wouldn't want you to try to get your big head back out of your ***.

EDIT: I just realized that you still don't seem to get it.

I don't give a **** what case Olson and Boies are on. They're still going to be good lawyers in the eyes of most people because - shocker! - they're really good lawyers! Clever how you just tried to change to topic to something else though because you realized you picked a fight over the wrong thing. It almost worked even.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 9:04pm by CBD

#1189 Aug 18 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

I'm not talking about whether Olsen and Boies are "good lawyers". I'm talking about the perception/assumption by some that the defense is made up of "bad lawyers", and speculating that this is largely because of a position on the issue itself, and not an assessment of the lawyers involved. Of course, this is helped along by media coverage which seems aimed specifically to create this perception, also presumably because those writing the stories hold an opposing view and want those on the defense to appear that way.

Way to be manipulated though.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 6:14pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1190 Aug 18 2010 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

I do find this quote from the defense interesting:

Quote:

The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships.

Strange. I thought that I was the "only person making that argument".

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1191 Aug 18 2010 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

I'm talking about the perception/assumption by some that the defense is made up of "bad lawyers"

Quote someone in this thread saying that. I'll be here.

Point being that no one in this thread said anything about the defense being "bad" until you can in here ******** that someone said that Olsen and Boies were good. Guess what? If they had never taken this case... they'd be good lawyers still! Try to wrap your head around that before replying.

gbaji wrote:

and speculating that this is largely because of a position on the issue itself, and not an assessment of the lawyers involved.

Reads as, in a whiny child's voice, "You guys aren't saying the Yes on 8 lawyers were good just because you don't like what they were supporting and THAT'S. NOT. FAIR."

gbaji wrote:

Of course, this is helped along by media coverage which seems aimed specifically to create this perception, also presumably because those writing the stories hold an opposing view and want those on the defense to appear that way.

The defense was couldn't even get the majority of the witnesses they had to actually show up and testify. Some blatent nonsense about them being afraid of public backlash over their testimony. PS - I eagerly await your defense of their excuses, we all know it's coming.

I guess that's just my media bias speaking though!!! *~LoLoL~*

gbaji wrote:

Way to be manipulated though.

You're too immature to handle the concept that someone can think for themselves and disagree with you. While it's highly entertaining for the rest of us, you should probably stop this rampage of tears eventually.

#1192 Aug 18 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

I do find this quote from the defense interesting:

Quote:

The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships.

Strange. I thought that I was the "only person making that argument".

Wow, way to try and catch up. We've been laughing at this for well over a month now.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#1193 Aug 18 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

gbaji wrote:

I do find this quote from the defense interesting:

Quote:

The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships.

Strange. I thought that I was the "only person making that argument".

And when asked to prove that (which is what you do in a court of law) I believe he responded with, "I don't have proof, it's just obvious."

You can see how well that turned out for him.

#1194 Aug 18 2010 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

You can see how well that turned out for him.

You're only saying that because the media told you to. Disappointing.

#1195 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 18 2010 at 8:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So you must think stupid = sexy and appealing and that women actually like that? You're so funny. Women on internet videos don't actually count neither do $20 crack whores. On the other hand, if you think being a **** is cool, then have at it. It has become apparent that you lack any sort of morals and values.

#1196 Aug 18 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1596990078323

View User Forum

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

BT wrote:

Uh, no I wouldn't tell the defense attorney "good job". Because if the guilty go free, it's not necessarily because the defense attorney did a "good job", you @#%^ing speck in my ****, but rather because the prosecution and/or the police did a poor one. A lawyer doing a "good job" is only illuminating to the court how poor a job the prosecution is doing.

Wait, you do realize that someone HAS to win, you impotent dunce. You're only accounting for a part of the possibilities, but that probably has to do with your limited thinking capacity. Even prolonging the imminent future is considered a win.

Prolonging the imminent future?

We were talking about a guilty party who got away with it, right? You understand how in that scenario, there is nothing imminent in the future.

Now I will leave you to try and figure out why someone found not guilty of a crime can go on without fear of future, let alone imminent, prosecution.

And yes, that's a "win" for a defense attorney. Still doesn't mean he's done a "good job", but if a guilty man goes free the police and prosecutors have almost certainly done a poor one.

There you go: easy, bite-sized morsels of information, ready for your subhuman *** to bastardize in translation.

Also: Haha. You thought about my *****, at length.

#1197 Aug 18 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

CBD wrote:

gbaji wrote:

I'm talking about the perception/assumption by some that the defense is made up of "bad lawyers"

Quote someone in this thread saying that. I'll be here.

Someone said something like "All of the good lawyers are on the side opposing prop8". this was several pages ago, so I'm not going to go looking for it, but it's what spawned this entire discussion about lawyers and their obligations and plea bargaining and god knows what else.

The clear implication was that qualified lawyers wouldn't defend prop8 out of some kind of ethical reasons. Which further kinda implies that the ones defending it *aren't* "good lawyers".

Quote:

The defense was couldn't even get the majority of the witnesses they had to actually show up and testify. Some blatent nonsense about them being afraid of public backlash over their testimony.

If the name calling and vitriol in this thread are any indication, is this really surprising? Seriously? You guys call anyone who defends prop8 a bigot, homophobe, stupid, immoral, and every other name in the book, and then think that a claim that people are afraid to testify in defense of prop8 is unlikely to be true?

Lol...

Quote:

PS - I eagerly await your defense of their excuses, we all know it's coming.

Wow. You're a freaking psychic! What next? Nixnot wont take a shower?

Quote:

I guess that's just my media bias speaking though!!! *~LoLoL~*

I'm not sure why you're laughing at that. Seriously. Go read the articles talking about the prop8 decision in court. I'm not sure you're able to look past your own bias to see that of those who agree with you, but I keep being hopeful...

Quote:

You're too immature to handle the concept that someone can think for themselves and disagree with you. While it's highly entertaining for the rest of us, you should probably stop this rampage of tears eventually.

When I read a news article about a controversial court case, and the article seems to go out of it's way to paint one side as incompetent, unprepared, and generally confused, and then you start talking about how the defense was mauled due to lack of preparation, it's kinda hard for me to assume you arrived at that conclusion because you actually read the entire transcript of the testimony, opening and closing remarks, and witness statements and examination. Silly me. I'm going to assume you read an article which provided you 2 or 3 selected quotes designed to give you a specific impression and *shazam!* you adopted that perception of the lawyers.

Are you aware that the attorney you are mocking was named one of the top 10 litigators in Washington by the National Law Journal, has over 25 years experience, and has tried several Supreme Court cases? Not quite the country bumpkin you probably perceive him to be. He's considered an expert in the field. He's certainly one of the "good lawyers" out there.

So yeah. When you make the sorts of assumption you're making about his handling of the case, I'm going to assume that perception was created by the media portrayal of the case, and not by any objective standard.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#1198 Aug 18 2010 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

I'm talking about the perception/assumption by some that the defense is made up of "bad lawyers"

gbaji wrote:

Someone said something like "All of the good lawyers are on the side opposing prop8".

"The perception/assumption that the defense was made up of 'bad lawyers' was something I completely made up and am trying to attribute to others in this thread."

gbaji wrote:

this was several pages ago, so I'm not going to go looking for it

"I'm using this original statement to make myself a martyr for the cause, but I'm not sure what was said, so I won't go look for it, in case it's embarrassing. In the mean time, I will continue to make sh*t up. Feel bad for me!!! Mainstream bias!!! No one appreciates me!!!"

gbaji wrote:

The clear implication was that qualified lawyers wouldn't defend prop8 out of some kind of ethical reasons. Which further kinda implies that the ones defending it *aren't* "good lawyers".

For sh*ts and giggles, I went back and reread the page that started this lawyer conversation (around page 20, in case you're interested). Here's the post that started this lawyer conversation.

catwho wrote:

However, if the Prop 8 YES side cannot prove the merits of the case and their legal standing to file the appeal in this first round, then the appeals court will uphold Judge Walker's decision and the court will decline to review the case at all. The anti-gay-marriage crowd needs to hire some better lawyers for this round. (Unfortunately, the best in the business were already hired by the pro-gay-marriage crowd, and they're not available as they're itching to go for round 2.)

You'll note two things:

1. catwho only says anti-gay-marriage proponents need BETTER lawyers, not that the ones they had were bad, like you're trying to claim.
2. catwho says that the "best in the business" were hired by pro-gay-marriage proponents, and makes it very obvious that she's saying they're good lawyers beyond their role in this case.

You know who the first person to use the word "good" was? Alma, in his naive realization that "good" lawyers could argue both sides in a case, regardless of their personal opinion.

gbaji wrote:

If the name calling and vitriol in this thread are any indication, is this really surprising? Seriously? You guys call anyone who defends prop8 a bigot, homophobe, stupid, immoral, and every other name in the book, and then think that a claim that people are afraid to testify in defense of prop8 is unlikely to be true?

Gosh, you're right. The real world does run like an internet forum.

Actually, these people are more than happy to make their opinions publicly known - obvious by the fact that there were even asked to testify. God almighty didn't appear in a dream and tell the lawyers what names to call. They just tucked their tail between their legs and ran when it came to actually having to defend their statements in a court of law, and gave the excuse they felt would get them the most sympathy. And hey! It worked, judging by what you're saying.

Of course, they must be right. You hear about us gays spray-painting "homophobe" and "bigot" on people's houses all the time, like we think they're some common ****** or something.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not sure you're able to look past your own bias to see that of those who agree with you, but I keep being hopeful...

What the hell does their bias have to do with how I feel about the situation? Are you trying to say that because people who agree with me are biased, I must be as well? Cause that's just downright stupid.

gbaji wrote:

it's kinda hard for me to assume you arrived at that conclusion because you actually read the entire transcript of the testimony, opening and closing remarks, and witness statements and examination. Silly me. I'm going to assume you read an article which provided you 2 or 3 selected quotes designed to give you a specific impression and *shazam!* you adopted that perception of the lawyers.

"I'm just going to assume you did what I want you to have done in order to prove my point."

gbaji wrote:

Are you aware that the attorney you are mocking was named one of the top 10 litigators in Washington by the National Law Journal, has over 25 years experience, and has tried several Supreme Court cases? Not quite the country bumpkin you probably perceive him to be. He's considered an expert in the field. He's certainly one of the "good lawyers" out there.

"Look! The lawyer for the defendants is a good lawyer too! See! I gotcha! Haha don't you feel dumb now!"

No, actually, I don't. I never said he was bad. Your reading comprehension skill continues to plummet at an alarming rate.

Mocking and country bumpkin? Please. No such words ever passed these fingers. Please though, make it more obvious that you have to fabricate everything to feed your tears.

gbaji wrote:

So yeah. When you make the sorts of assumption you're making about his handling of the case, I'm going to assume that perception was created by the media portrayal of the case, and not by any objective standard.

"It doesn't really matter what you say to reply to this, because I'm just going to stomp up and down and insist you're biased and can't form an opinion for yourself. I'm the only one who can do that! ME ME ME. I am a beacon of light in this forum of morons!"

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 11:21pm by CBD

#1199 Aug 18 2010 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

Actually, I was going by the judge's own description of the incompetence of the counsel and their witnesses.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 11:32pm by catwho

#1200 Aug 18 2010 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

catwho wrote:

Actually, I was going by the judge's own description of the incompetence of the council and their witnesses.

There you go again, exposing that well-known liberal bias of reality...

#1201 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 18 2010 at 9:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Don't worry, it wasn't much to think about.

« Previous 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 104 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (70)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC