Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

anti-pregnancy medication

---

There you go again speaking the language of the damned. It’s an abortion drug. Call it what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Your lack of understanding is epic. Did you bother reading the judge's opinion or are you just assuming it's acceptable because you're pro-life and thus just agree that anything that removes an embryo is just?

The statute of limits has ran, the judge opines that the six year statute of limitations is inconsequential.

The FDA deemed the drug regime in safe. The judge here opines that pro-life advocates here have standing to request the judge overturn that decision because some doctors they represent may be harmed because their theoretical patients might not take their medication properly. So we've got a two-layer hypothetical masquerading as direct harm jurisdiction.

Lastly our pro-life judge has determined that because /some/ states have passed anti abortion legislation, that it has standing to overturn the rights of other state's without such legislation. This is a clear violation of true Supremecy Clause of the Constitution which favors their federal decision to make mifepristone available cannot be superceded by individual states trying to restrict usage for all.

---

There isn’t a statute of limitations when a new case hits his court. That is like saying the statute of limitations on Jim Criw was up in the 60s because they’d been around for a hundred years. He didn’t ban them, he put a stay in them until further info us gathered. A higher court can review, when it is appealed to, and keep it it drop it. Again, this is how the court system works for everything.

Tell me, do you have any formal education at the college level covering the judicial system of the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

There isn’t a statute of limitations when a new case hits his court. That is like saying the statute of limitations on Jim Criw was up in the 60s because they’d been around for a hundred years. He didn’t ban them, he put a stay in them until further info us gathered. A higher court can review, when it is appealed to, and keep it it drop it. Again, this is how the court system works for everything.

Tell me, do you have any formal education at the college level covering the judicial system of the US?

---

Wow, your ignorance is pretty amazing. You really think judges have an unlimited power to call up any right, product, process or case regardless of circumstances and rule them illegal or unauthorized? No they do not have autocratic power to rule without checks and balances. Judges may only rule without the scope of the law, or interpretation of existing law. They may not legislate or make executive decisions. Yet this conservative judge, dudge? cudge? Said irrespective of the law, science, passage of time, or lack of injured complainant that he would instate a nationwide ban on a rigorously tested, time proven and federally authorized medication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Wow, your ignorance is pretty amazing. You really think judges have an unlimited power to call up any right, product, process or case regardless of circumstances and rule them illegal or unauthorized? No they do not have autocratic power to rule without checks and balances. Judges may only rule without the scope of the law, or interpretation of existing law. They may not legislate or make executive decisions. Yet this conservative judge, dudge? cudge? Said irrespective of the law, science, passage of time, or lack of injured complainant that he would instate a nationwide ban on a rigorously tested, time proven and federally authorized medication.

---

No, they don’t have unlimited power to call up things. He has a case before him on that specific drug. That is what his current ruling is based on. You seem to be constantly ignoring that fact.

Again, do you have any collegiate level education in the US Judicual system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, they don’t have unlimited power to call up things. He has a case before him on that specific drug. That is what his current ruling is based on. You seem to be constantly ignoring that fact.

Again, do you have any collegiate level education in the US Judicual system?

---

What part of lacking jurisdiction is hard to parse with that sentence? 22 year old drug, 7 years since a ruling was made on the plaintiff's objection to the drug. Those two items alone should have been an instant dismissal. Tack on the lack of an injured party, no federal rule or law which supports an unlimited barring of medication by judicial officer, lastly the lack of proper venue as the FDA is based out of Washington DC. All grounds for entry of judgment against the plaintiff.

Instead, Judge Fundamentalist applied his logic that because someone might be said to lose a baby they wanted to abort, he's got unlimited jurisdiction to institute a nationwide injunction. Lawl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

What part of lacking jurisdiction is hard to parse with that sentence? 22 year old drug, 7 years since a ruling was made on the plaintiff's objection to the drug. Those two items alone should have been an instant dismissal. Tack on the lack of an injured party, no federal rule or law which supports an unlimited barring of medication by judicial officer, lastly the lack of proper venue as the FDA is based out of Washington DC. All grounds for entry of judgment against the plaintiff.

Instead, Judge Fundamentalist applied his logic that because someone might be said to lose a baby they wanted to abort, he's got unlimited jurisdiction to institute a nationwide injunction. Lawl.

---

There is no such thing as statute of limitations when the suit is directly infront of him. Imagine if a judge couldn’t put a pause on something because new info comes up. Lead pipes were great for thousands of years but I guess we better keep using them because Seran doesn’t know wtf statute of limitations means or how it applies to things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

There is no such thing as statute of limitations when the suit is directly infront of him. Imagine if a judge couldn’t put a pause on something because new info comes up. Lead pipes were great for thousands of years but I guess we better keep using them because Seran doesn’t know wtf statute of limitations means or how it applies to things.

---

You didn't read the ruling that much is obvious, because he noted they exceeded their six year statute of limitations. Then subsequently ruled it didn't matter, because public interest. Seems like you and the Judge have similar tendencies to ignore key details as it suits your political rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

There is no such thing as statute of limitations when the suit is directly infront of him. Imagine if a judge couldn’t put a pause on something because new info comes up. Lead pipes were great for thousands of years but I guess we better keep using them because Seran doesn’t know wtf statute of limitations means or how it applies to things.

---

You know Seran still uses lead pipes, right?

SYMPTOMS INCLUDE: Developmental: learning disability or slow growth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

You didn't read the ruling that much is obvious, because he noted they exceeded their six year statute of limitations. Then subsequently ruled it didn't matter, because public interest. Seems like you and the Judge have similar tendencies to ignore key details as it suits your political rhetoric.

---

So, you think public interest shouldn’t override “statute of limitations” even if an approved drug is found to be dangerous?

Fat women need access to Fen-Phen! -Seran 2023