| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Question's still pending, igotthisguitar. It won't go away. Did you serve or are you a hypocrite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Just this week, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of two Army deserters who sought refugee status to avoid the war in Iraq. The ruling left them without a legal basis to stay in Canada and dealt a blow to other Americans in similar circumstances.
The court, as is usual, did not provide a reason for the decision.
My question: How does your Supreme Court function? It appears from this article that it is different from the American system, so I'm curious. (This could just be the result of this particular kind of case.)
|
I know the SCC issues opinions when they actually bring down a verdict. But the case under discussion involves their refusing to hear the case to begin with.
Does the SCOTUS usually issue opinions when they're simply refusing to hear a case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, OTOH. I guess I kind of skipped over the part about this being just a refusal to hear a case.
But I'm still curious. Does the Canadian Supreme Court play a role in government similar to the USSC--declare laws unconstitutional? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
According to this page of the Supreme Court of Canada:
| Quote: |
| In addition to being Canada's court of final appeal, the Supreme Court performs a unique function. It can be asked by the Governor in Council to hear references, that is, to consider important questions of law such as the constitutionality or interpretation of federal or provincial legislation, or the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels of government. |
So, yes, one of its functions is to address the constitutionality of laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
Question's still pending, igotthisguitar. It won't go away.
Did you serve .... OR are you a hypocrite? |
What's your question? Sorry i missed it.
Hypocrite? Huh? How do you reason this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Major criminal forces have for years now been working hard at promoting the conflict in the middle east.
Likely the same network of psycho-paths who helped orchestrate 9/11. |
Dude, you've just completely jumped off the rails of reality. If you're in Korea, relax. The mental health treatment you obviously need is covered by the National Health Insurance. |
Say it like it is. You're committed to supporting the offical cover stories.
It's part of the job description, isn't it? What was the price of your soul? Not too cheap i hope.
When all else fails launch cheap personal attacks?
Real class Kali  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since you're either too stupid or too lazy (or possibly both) to scroll back through the thread, I'll repeat the question for you:
You've made a big to-do about Romney not having served in the military although he didn't dodge the draft. He served as a missionary for his church for 30 months in France. Upon completing his mission there, he returned to college and ultimately earned a JD/MBA. While he was still in college, the United States of America ceased military conscription.
Now, if it's so important to you that the man should have served in the military, then it must be equally important that you serve in the military. Whining that you are not subject to military conscription won't work as an answer for two reasons: (1) Romney was not subject to the draft as the law exempted members of the clergy (which he is; LDS wards and branches designated a small number of male members in the US to be exempt for that reason provided they served a mission) and (2) the fact that there is no military conscription does not prevent you from volunteering for military service.
So, answer the question with either Yes or No. Did you serve in your country's military?
My soul has no price. I am not committed to any cover stories nor is that part of the job description. I made no personal attack. You, on the other hand, have made a ludicrous attack on Romney absent facts and an even more ridiculous attack on me.
Again, in case you missed it, the question pending is: Did you serve in your country's military or are you a hypocrite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Romney is a man who wants to "double Guantanamo" and expand the use of torture. This "religious" man who supports the two wars America is in and expanding it to Iran. You Mormons should be proud to be represented on the world stage by such a meek man of peace.
If he served in the military is totally unrelated to the fact that he is Dick Cheney with better hair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Just this week, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of two Army deserters who sought refugee status to avoid the war in Iraq. The ruling left them without a legal basis to stay in Canada and dealt a blow to other Americans in similar circumstances.
The court, as is usual, did not provide a reason for the decision.
My question: How does your Supreme Court function? It appears from this article that it is different from the American system, so I'm curious. (This could just be the result of this particular kind of case.)
|
I know the SCC issues opinions when they actually bring down a verdict. But the case under discussion involves their refusing to hear the case to begin with.
Does the SCOTUS usually issue opinions when they're simply refusing to hear a case? |
SCOTUS must issue a writ of certiori before hearing an opinion. But SCOTUS has decided after issuing such a writ that it has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
For example, Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley. 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42 (1908).
Notice that the court brought the issue up on its own, IOW, sui spontae. Also notice that it was a unanimous decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar: What is your answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| why don't they just quit the army? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the United States, one cannot "just quit" from the Armed Forces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cat got your tongue, igotthisguitar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why should Canada be the refuge for criminals?
I have no sympathy for these guys. They joined the army of their own free choice. They knew what it meant to join the army and they knew what the consequences of disserting the army are. Soldiers are not asked to pass moral judgement on the decisions their superiors make. Thats not their place. Their job is to listen and follow orders. They should be sent back to the US post haste and court martialled there. They should be executed for their crimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The court, as is usual, did not provide a reason for the decision.
My question: How does your Supreme Court function? It appears from this article that it is different from the American system, so I'm curious. (This could just be the result of this particular kind of case.) |
Doesn't the american surpreme court decline to hear appeals and doesn't give reasons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
