#Appeals court: Arizona abortion ban is flatly unconstitutional

[Zepp]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/appeals-court-arizona-abortion-ban-
is-flatly-unconstitutional/

Appeals court: Arizona abortion ban is flatly unconstitutional
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 14:43 EDT


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Arizona’s ban on
all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is flatly unconstitutional,
striking it down without additional comment.

The state’s Republican majority passed the law last April, making Arizona
one of the most restrictive states in the union for reproductive rights.
Experts said that the law was so broadly written and carried with it so
little medical expertise that it actually applied to women after their
18th week of pregnancy — meaning that, for a time, the state classified
women as pregnant up to two weeks before they even had sex.

“The challenged Arizona statute’s medical emergency exception does not
transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of
abortion procedure,” Clinton-appointed judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote in
the court’s majority opinion (PDF). “Allowing a physician to decide if
abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to
decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term.”

“Moreover, regulations involve limitations as to the mode and manner of
abortion, not preclusion of the choice to terminate a pregnancy
altogether,” she added. “Arizona’s twenty-week law is a preclusion prior
to fetal viability and is thus invalid under binding Supreme Court
precedent.”

That Supreme Court precedent is the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade,
which prohibits states from banning abortion outright but allows some
regulation of the procedure.

“We’re glad the court has reaffirmed that states cannot place unlawful
burdens on a woman’s right to access safe reproductive health care,”
Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project,
said in an advisory. “Politicians do not have the right to interfere in
serious and personal decisions that should only be made by a woman with
the help of her family and her doctor.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) was similarly pleased with
Tuesday’s ruling. “Last year, Arizona led the nation in the number of
legislative attacks against women’s health care,” Nancy Northup, CRR
president, wrote in a statement. “With today’s defeat in federal court,
we call on the governor and legislature to stop wasting Arizona
taxpayers’ time and money on these cruel and extremely harmful efforts to
chip away at women’s constitutionally protected rights.”

--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

[David Hartung]

You are aware that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in
the nation? The fact that this court has declared this law
unconstitutional, is possible the best evidence there is that the law is
not only constitutional, but also a good law.

[Zepp]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:47:45 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> The appeals court is the step prior to the USSC
>
> The USSC has upheld lower courts and their defense of Roe v Wade as a
> RIGHT that can't be taken away.
>
> IDIOT

He's not even correct in his assertion about the Ninth.

[Enraged Apostate, World Citizen]

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote on Tue 21 May 2013 02:24:46p

The 9th is effectively ruling on case law established by SCOTUS. SCOTUS
would be overruling itself in overruling the Ninth.

The part about the court finding that Arizona was ludicrous in even
outlawing abortion before a woman had sex was the topper.



--
The Enraged Apostate

Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.

[Steve]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:54:36 +0000 (UTC), "Enraged Apostate, World
Citizen" <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:

>David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote on Tue 21 May 2013 02:24:46p
>
>> On 05/21/2013 01:59 PM, Zepp wrote:
>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/appeals-court-arizona-abortion-ban
>>> - is-flatly-unconstitutional/
>>>
>>> Appeals court: Arizona abortion ban is flatly unconstitutional
>>> By Stephen C. Webster
>>> Tuesday, May 21, 2013 14:43 EDT
>>>
>>>
>>> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Arizona’s ban
>>> on all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is flatly
>>> unconstitutional, striking it down without additional comment.
>>>
>>> The state’s Republican majority passed the law last April, making
>>> Arizona one of the most restrictive states in the union for
>>> reproductive rights. Experts said that the law was so broadly written
>>> and carried with it so little medical expertise that it actually
>>> applied to women after their 18th week of pregnancy — meaning that,
>>> for a time, the state classified women as pregnant up to two weeks
>>> before they even had sex.
>>>
>>> “The challenged Arizona statute’s medical emergency exception does
>>> not transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation

>>> of abortion procedure,�€? Clinton-appointed judge Marsha S. Berzon

>>> wrote in the court’s majority opinion (PDF). “Allowing a physician
>>> to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as
>>> allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to

>>> term.�€?

>>>
>>> “Moreover, regulations involve limitations as to the mode and manner
>>> of abortion, not preclusion of the choice to terminate a pregnancy

>>> altogether,�€? she added. “Arizona’s twenty-week law is a

>>> preclusion prior to fetal viability and is thus invalid under binding

>>> Supreme Court precedent.�€?

>>>
>>> That Supreme Court precedent is the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade,
>>> which prohibits states from banning abortion outright but allows some
>>> regulation of the procedure.
>>>
>>> “We’re glad the court has reaffirmed that states cannot place
>>> unlawful burdens on a woman’s right to access safe reproductive

>>> health care,�€? Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive

>>> Freedom Project, said in an advisory. “Politicians do not have the
>>> right to interfere in serious and personal decisions that should only

>>> be made by a woman with the help of her family and her doctor.�€?

>>>
>>> The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) was similarly pleased with
>>> Tuesday’s ruling. “Last year, Arizona led the nation in the number

>>> of legislative attacks against women’s health care,�€? Nancy Northup,

>>> CRR president, wrote in a statement. “With today’s defeat in
>>> federal court, we call on the governor and legislature to stop wasting
>>> Arizona taxpayers’ time and money on these cruel and extremely
>>> harmful efforts to chip away at women’s constitutionally protected

>>> rights.�€?

>>
>> You are aware that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in
>> the nation? The fact that this court has declared this law
>> unconstitutional, is possible the best evidence there is that the law is
>> not only constitutional, but also a good law.
>
>The 9th is effectively ruling on case law established by SCOTUS. SCOTUS
>would be overruling itself in overruling the Ninth.

That's nonsense. The 9th's ruling was simply an interpretation of the
law..

although do I think it's likely that this ruling will stand.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:47:45 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:24:46 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 05/21/2013 01:59 PM, Zepp wrote:
>>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/appeals-court-arizona-abortion-
>ban-
>>>> is-flatly-unconstitutional/
>>>>
>>>> Appeals court: Arizona abortion ban is flatly unconstitutional By
>>>> Stephen C. Webster Tuesday, May 21, 2013 14:43 EDT
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Arizona?s ban

>on
>>>> all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is flatly unconstitutional,
>>>> striking it down without additional comment.
>>>>

>>>> The state?s Republican majority passed the law last April, making

>>>> Arizona one of the most restrictive states in the union for
>>>> reproductive rights. Experts said that the law was so broadly written
>>>> and carried with it so little medical expertise that it actually

>>>> applied to women after their 18th week of pregnancy ? meaning that,

>>>> for a time, the state classified women as pregnant up to two weeks
>>>> before they even had sex.
>>>>

>>>> ?The challenged Arizona statute?s medical emergency exception does

>not
>>>> transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of

>>>> abortion procedure,? Clinton-appointed judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote
>in
>>>> the court?s majority opinion (PDF). ?Allowing a physician to decide

>if
>>>> abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to

>>>> decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term.?
>>>>
>>>> ?Moreover, regulations involve limitations as to the mode and manner

>>>> of abortion, not preclusion of the choice to terminate a pregnancy

>>>> altogether,? she added. ?Arizona?s twenty-week law is a preclusion

>>>> prior to fetal viability and is thus invalid under binding Supreme

>>>> Court precedent.?

>>>>
>>>> That Supreme Court precedent is the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade,
>>>> which prohibits states from banning abortion outright but allows some
>>>> regulation of the procedure.
>>>>

>>>> ?We?re glad the court has reaffirmed that states cannot place
>unlawful
>>>> burdens on a woman?s right to access safe reproductive health care,?

>>>> Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom

>>>> Project, said in an advisory. ?Politicians do not have the right to

>>>> interfere in serious and personal decisions that should only be made

>>>> by a woman with the help of her family and her doctor.?

>>>>
>>>> The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) was similarly pleased with

>>>> Tuesday?s ruling. ?Last year, Arizona led the nation in the number
>of
>>>> legislative attacks against women?s health care,? Nancy Northup, CRR
>>>> president, wrote in a statement. ?With today?s defeat in federal

>>>> court, we call on the governor and legislature to stop wasting Arizona

>>>> taxpayers? time and money on these cruel and extremely harmful
>efforts
>>>> to chip away at women?s constitutionally protected rights.?

>>>
>>>You are aware that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in
>>>the nation?
>>
>> The appeals court is the step prior to the USSC
>>
>> The USSC has upheld lower courts and their defense of Roe v Wade as a
>> RIGHT that can't be taken away.
>>
>> IDIOT
>
>He's not even correct in his assertion about the Ninth.

What did he need to correct?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718
And as 2012, they were a close second.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/

[NoBody]

And Zippo has fled.

[Zepp]

You just made my point for me. Second is not first.

[David Hartung]

From the LA Times story above:
[...]
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75% of the cases it reviews
each year, having selected them because they raise important questions
of law or to resolve the internal contradictions created when circuits
come to different conclusions about the same legal question. The 9th
Circuit's track record tends to be above average most years: two years
ago, 94% of the circuit's cases were reversed.
[...]

>>> And as 2012, they were a close second.
>>>
>>> http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/
> a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/

From the ABA journal story above:
[...]
For some time, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has suffered a
reputation as being the circuit most at odds with the U.S. Supreme
Court. The San Francisco-based court has frequently been the most
reversed among the circuit courts, with one term in the mid-1990s seeing
27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the high court.
[...]
But more recently, another federal circuit has reigned as the most
reversed. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, has had a particularly
dismal record before the high court. In the seven Supreme Court terms
completed since the fall of 2005, the 6th Circuit has been reversed 31
out of 38 times, for an 81.6 percent reversal rate, based on figures
compiled by two Philadelphia lawyers. That leads all the federal
circuits for that time period, with the 9th Circuit coming in as the
second most reversed—100 out of 128 cases, or 78.1 percent.
[...]

>> And Zippo has fled.
>
> You just made my point for me. Second is not first.

I may have missed the exact details, but however you wish to cut it, the
Ninth Circuit has a dismal record before the Supreme Court.

One thing I did fond to be curious however. The Times article pointed
out that the Supreme Court overturns an average of 75% of the appeals it
hears. This actually makes sense because they choose to hear those cases
which raise questions. This caused me to wonder about the percentage of
9th cases that are appealed, and that the Supreme Court actually hears.
I went looking and found this:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/9th_circuit_cases_make_up_staggering_percentage_of_supreme_court_docket/
[...]


The U.S. Supreme Court has 48 cases on the docket so far this term, and
20 of them hail from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.

SCOTUSblog says the number amounts to a “staggering” 42 percent of the
court’s docket. The 9th Circuit has always supplied a plurality of the
Supreme Court’s docket, but the increase this year is dramatic, the blog
says.

The court is likely to accept about 20 more cert petitions between now
and early January, according to University of California at Irvine law
dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who wrote a Supreme Court preview for
ABAJournal.com.

Since 2003, the percentage of 9th Circuit cases on the Supreme Court
docket ranged from a low of 14 percent in the October 2007 term to a
high of 32 percent last term, SCOTUSblog says. The court reversed the
9th Circuit last term in 19 and out 26 cases, a 79 percent reversal rate.
[...]

All in all, the Ninth Circuit has a dismal record at the Supreme Court.

[wy]

On 23 May, 11:04, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 09:13 AM, Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:35:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

> > a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal­/

> http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/9th_circuit_cases_make_up_stag...

> [...]
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court has 48 cases on the docket so far this term, and
> 20 of them hail from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
> Appeals.
>
> SCOTUSblog says the number amounts to a “staggering” 42 percent of the
> court’s docket. The 9th Circuit has always supplied a plurality of the
> Supreme Court’s docket, but the increase this year is dramatic, the blog
> says.
>
> The court is likely to accept about 20 more cert petitions between now
> and early January, according to University of California at Irvine law
> dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who wrote a Supreme Court preview for
> ABAJournal.com.
>
> Since 2003, the percentage of 9th Circuit cases on the Supreme Court
> docket ranged from a low of 14 percent in the October 2007 term to a
> high of 32 percent last term, SCOTUSblog says. The court reversed the
> 9th Circuit last term in 19 and out 26 cases, a 79 percent reversal rate.
> [...]
>
> All in all, the Ninth Circuit has a dismal record at the Supreme Court.

If it's dismal, it's because the SC is a right wingnut-dominated court
deciding on a liberal court's judgments. So guess who's going to win,
and not on any basis of objective reasoning. All the more reason why
the SC needs to find a new formula in how to choose judges that will
strive to be impartial and not always keep relying on partisanship.

[Zepp]

So your original claim, "[The] Ninth Circuit is the most overturned
circuit in the nation?" is untrue. Thank you. You may step down now.

If the Court doesn't simply deny cert on this case (which is what they do
with 95% of all Appeals) then they will have to either reverse themselves
on Roe v. Wade to strike down the 9th's finding, or uphold it.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 9:12 AM, wy wrote:
> If it's dismal, it's because

Some brokeback canuckelhead has a man-crush on Hartung...

[David Hartung]

Yes I was mistaken.

There are eleven Circuit Courts of Appeal in the USA. All other things
being equal, Supreme Court cases from the Ninth Circuit should comprise
between 8 and 11 percent. The fact that between 14 and 32 percent of
cases heard by the Supremes, are from the ninth Circuit, is a huge sign
that there is something wrong in that circuit.

> If the Court doesn't simply deny cert on this case (which is what they do
> with 95% of all Appeals) then they will have to either reverse themselves
> on Roe v. Wade to strike down the 9th's finding, or uphold it.

So say you. When did you pass the Bar?

[Zepp]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:57:22 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:22 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I may have missed the exact details, but however you wish to cut it, the
>>Ninth Circuit has a dismal record before the Supreme Court.
>>
>>One thing I did fond to be curious however. The Times article pointed
>>out that the Supreme Court overturns an average of 75% of the appeals it
>>hears. T
>

> Mostly based on error
>
> Roe v Wade is NOT "error", it is the long accepted law

David mistakes religious doctrinal 'error' for American law.

>
>
>
>>All in all, the Ninth Circuit has a dismal record at the Supreme Court.
>>
>>

> IN order to argue ANY cogent, credible application of "most overturned",
> you must cite each category or decision and explain what how, or why it
> was.
>
> Roe v Wade is a USSC decision THEY have upheld for decades.

[Zepp]

No, it just means they take on a disproportionate share of
Constitutionally important cases. Despite being first in number of cases
taken up by the court--apparently by a large margin--they are only second
in cases struck down, which tells me they are upheld more than any of the
other courts. And enjoy a better ratio of unheld to struck down than any
of the other courts.

Would I be incorrect in so assuming?

>
>> If the Court doesn't simply deny cert on this case (which is what they
>> do with 95% of all Appeals) then they will have to either reverse
>> themselves on Roe v. Wade to strike down the 9th's finding, or uphold
>> it.
>
> So say you. When did you pass the Bar?

Don't need to pass the bar to figure that out. Requires no legal
training at all. Even you could do it.

[wy]

On 23 May, 12:49, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:11:11 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> > On 05/23/2013 10:50 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>> On 05/23/2013 09:13 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:35:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>

> >>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com>

> a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal­/

> article/9th_circuit_cases_make_up_staggering_percentage_of_supreme_court_do­cket/

Hartung has never been good at math.

> >> If the Court doesn't simply deny cert on this case (which is what they
> >> do with 95% of all Appeals) then they will have to either reverse
> >> themselves on Roe v. Wade to strike down the 9th's finding, or uphold
> >> it.
>
> > So say you. When did you pass the Bar?
>
> Don't need to pass the bar to figure that out.  Requires no legal
> training at all.  Even you could do it.

You give him much too much credit. The fact that he even asked the
question of you proves that he'd be incapable of figuring it out
himself, so daunted he appears by that even being a possibility
without passing a Bar exam.

[David Hartung]

Yet courts hand down decisions all the time that fly in the face of
Logic. Roe itself is one such case.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 11:02 AM, wy wrote:
> Hartung has never been good at math.

Dang it brokeback, you're just missing him real bad, aren't ya?

[Zepp]

It's a bit like saying you have to be a baseball player to know who is
leading in the National League West.

[Steve]

I see Zepp and wy are getting pretty chummy. That's not unexpected,
an obese guy, Zepp, who has shown to have an attraction to strange
women who pretend to be a male, and a strange obese woman, wy, who
pretends to be a male.

[Lee]

Funny that Roe has survived 40 years of
Supreme Court reviews, and by Courts (like
the current one) dominated by Republican
appointees.

[David Hartung]

Your point?

How many years did "separate but equal survive? That was another such
illogical decision.

[Zepp]

Did 'separate but equal' uphold any rights? No, it denied them.

[Lee]

Roe is settled law, even Republican Justices
support it. Get used to it, it will be here for
a long time to come.

PS: You are aware that Roe was written by
a Republican appointee, no?

[David Hartung]

My statement is that the courts are not always logical in their rulings.

[David Hartung]

Maybe, maybe not.

> PS: You are aware that Roe was written by
> a Republican appointee, no?

How is that relevant?

[wy]

On 23 May, 16:03, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 01:53 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:23:13 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 05/23/2013 01:16 PM, Lee wrote:
> >>> David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>> On 05/23/2013 11:49 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:11:11 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 05/23/2013 10:50 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 05/23/2013 09:13 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:35:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com>

And Hartung would know what logic is. After all, aren't the courts
supposed to be manned by those who have passed a Bar exam, something
you've never done yourself and which can only invalidate your opinion
of what's legally logical as a result?

[Zepp]

Well, it doesn't follow that if Decision A is illogical that Decision B
must be, especially when they have nothing in common.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, wy wrote:
> And Hartung would know what logic is.

Good grief brokeback, this is the sickest man-crush you've ever had...

[NoBody]

Re-read the cites.. Until 2012 they were the most overtuned. Now they
are second. In general, they are the most overturned. Do you always
grasp at staws in such a manner?

[NoBody]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:55:10 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/
>>
>>And Zippo has fled.
>
>Roe v Wade is law

So was Separate But Equal.

>
>Attacking a long accepted law is rather stupid

So then Separate But Equal should still be the law of the land?

[Zepp]

Turns out they are also the LEAST overturned: they have more cases taken
up by the SC by a large margin.

So what's your point, besides the empty-headed talking point Rush so
lovingly taught you?

[David Hartung]

Passer that is because the Ninth Circuit hands down the most flagrantly
unconstitutional decisions?

[Liberal Here]

On May 23, 11:55 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_...

>
> >And Zippo has fled.
>
> Roe v Wade is law
>

> Attacking a long accepted law is rather stupid

Unfortunately, the "bit by bit" approach seems to be working. And that
approach includes "stacking the courts" during republican
maladministrations.

I suspect the Roberts "Court" is waiting for the proper case in which
to overturn Roe.

[Liberal Here]

On May 23, 1:33 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 11:49 AM, Zepp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:11:11 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 05/23/2013 10:50 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>> On 05/23/2013 09:13 AM, Zepp wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:14 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:35:14 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <d...@gone.com>

> > a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal­/

> > article/9th_circuit_cases_make_up_staggering_percentage_of_supreme_court_do­cket/

Show your logic.

[mr_antone]

The rightards had their chance under the Shrub's watch.
They could've passed legislation banning all abortions, forcing it
into the SC.

Not one hot button issue rightards love to whine and squeal about was
addressed when they controlled all branches of government.
It's just a way of getting GOP suckers to send in their money.

Overturning Roe v Wade would be a money loser for the rightards.


mr_antone

[David Hartung]

On what, that the courts will often hand down illogical decisions? Look
at history

[David Hartung]

To recognize that the unborn child is a human life is logical, therefore
to overturn Roe would not only be logical, but the morally right thing
to do.

[Zepp]

Right, and an acorn is an oak tree, and an egg is a chicken. I had
scrambled chicken for breakfast.

[wy]

Once more Hartung exhibits his utter disdain and revulsion of women by
completely ignoring them as actual living entities in favor of
blubbery things submerged in amniotic fluid. To Hartung, women are
little more than baby machines who should be unthinkingly churning out
one pop tart after another as slaves to their biology whether they
like it or not.

[Mitchell Holman]

wy <w...@myself.com> wrote in
news:0b06a453-4122-424c...@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:

Hartung is a Lutheran, and carries all the
hatred toward women that he did.


"Even though they grow weary and wear themselves
out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let
them go on bearing children till they die, that
is what they are there for."
Martin Luther, Works 20.84

[NoBody]

Your inability to dispute the cites presented is so noted.

[NoBody]

And Yorgort the coward has fled again.

[NoBody]

And Zippo has fled yet again...

[Zepp]

Hey, dummy! Can't you do basic arithmetic, Stevie? Let's see: the 9th
has the highest number of cases taken up by the SC: a third of them, or
double any of the other courts. Yet they are only second in number of
cases struck down.

Show how this affects the number of cases upheld. Be sure to show your
work.

[NoBody]

You're avoidance of established cites is so noted as well as your
deperate need to pretend that I am someone else. If you have an issue
with the cites provided, perhaps you should contacdt the La Times and
Abajournal. Maybe if you call them Steve as well they will take you
seriously....

[Zepp]

I was using the data that David himself provided. If you have an issue
with it, take it up with him.

[NoBody]

And Zippy ducks the established citations fromm the La Times and the
Aba Journal...

[David Hartung]

He was also using the data incorrectly.

[Zepp]

No I wasn't, Davie; it's simple arithmetic. Are there any right wingers
who can do simple aritmetic, or are you all as dumb as you sound?

[David Hartung]

Since the scoring is on the percentage of cases heard that are
overturned, it matters not the total number of upheld cases. As I
understand, a higher percentage of ninth circuit cases are heard which
would further indicate a problem in that circuit.

[Zepp]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:09:50 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And Zippy ducks the established citations fromm the La Times and the
>>>> Aba Journal...
>>>
>>> He was also using the data incorrectly.
>>
>>No I wasn't, Davie; it's simple arithmetic. Are there any right wingers
>>who can do simple aritmetic, or are you all as dumb as you sound?
>

> Remember, that NOWUSSY disregards "cites" when (more often than not) the
> cites shoot his BELIEFS down.
>
> Hartung merely attaches himself to someone without any idea of his own.

Stevie is too busy trolling to be bothered with my response. Half the
time he'll disregard any response given and claim I've "fled the
discussion." So I don't waste a lot of time on him.

As for David, he's in a bit of quandary. He loves to say that the 9th
gets overturned more than any other District Court, and generally, that's
true. (Second most times last year). But they have a much higher
percentage of case taken up by the SC, so by an even bigger margin, they
are upheld more than any of the other courts.

[Zepp]

What do you think the percentage is OF?

The Ninth is the genesis for 33% of the SC's decisions, and amounts to
22% of the times the SC overturns a ruling.

The rest of the courts provide 67% of the cases, and result in 78% of
overturns.

Given that a higher percentage of cases from the Ninth are upheld than
any other court, I would suggest the SC is more attentive, not because
there's a problem, but because the 9th handles more relevant cases.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:09:50 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And Zippy ducks the established citations fromm the La Times and the
>>>>> Aba Journal...
>>>>
>>>> He was also using the data incorrectly.
>>>
>>>No I wasn't, Davie; it's simple arithmetic. Are there any right wingers
>>>who can do simple aritmetic, or are you all as dumb as you sound?
>>
>> Remember, that NOWUSSY disregards "cites" when (more often than not) the
>> cites shoot his BELIEFS down.
>>
>> Hartung merely attaches himself to someone without any idea of his own.
>
>Stevie is too busy trolling to be bothered with my response.

I just assume that if Zepp posted something, it's nonsense.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:09:50 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And Zippy ducks the established citations fromm the La Times and the
>>>> Aba Journal...
>>>
>>> He was also using the data incorrectly.
>>
>>No I wasn't, Davie; it's simple arithmetic. Are there any right wingers
>>who can do simple aritmetic, or are you all as dumb as you sound?
>

>Remember, that NOWUSSY disregards "cites" when (more often than not)
>the cites shoot his BELIEFS down.

Being that you don't seem to ever provide much in the way of
citations, you don't have any room to judge.

>
>Hartung merely attaches himself to someone without any idea of his
>own.

BWWWAAAHAAA! Irony anyone?

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:48:49 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

And poor Zippo the moron doesn't realize that two people who disagree
with him aren't in any way related. His tiny mind can't fathom that
two people know he's wrong and he has vanished from endless threads
when his propaganda runs out.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:08:11 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 2013 06:22:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And Zippy ducks the established citations fromm the La Times and the
>>Aba Journal...
>

>Citations?
>

Yes citations. They are used to support claims. You should try it
some time.

>I cited the Debt accrual under republicans and you denied it over and
>over.....
>

I've not denied anything despite your fantasies to the contrary. I
simply hold that if both parties were involved, they both share equal
guilt.

>So "citations" are merely something you "accept" if they agree with
>your silly views

Speaking of citations, you NEVER supported your claim about the
percentage of debt belonging solely to Republicans.

[Zepp]

In what way is one cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker different from
another cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker?

[Steve]

Zepp really hates having his propaganda kicked back in his face.

and when I demonstrate that were Thomas Jefferson alive today, he'd be
a libertarian, not a liberal, Zepp goes completely berserk.

[NoBody]

Not sure - how *do* you differ from Wy? You guys sound the same and
have virtually identical viewpoints. Using your "logic" you must be
the same person.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:57:07 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:01:23 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 May 2013 06:32:05 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
>
>>> And poor Zippo the moron doesn't realize that two people who disagree
>>> with him aren't in any way related.
>

>Except that canyonloon and Nowussy are attached by nose-to-ass

Oh stop Zippo. We know it's you here too...

[NoBody]

And the lying coward has fled again...

[NoBody]

[Zepp]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:18:36 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:37:15 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> And poor Zippo the moron doesn't realize that two people who
>>>>> disagree with him aren't in any way related.
>>>
>>>Except that canyonloon and Nowussy are attached by nose-to-ass
>>
>>Oh stop Zippo. We know it's you here too...

Didn't you know? I'm secretly Knickers, here to lead you and make you
look like a fool?

[NoBody]

Ironically, the only fool here seems to be you....

[NoBody]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:17:54 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:36:22 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>In what way is one cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker different from
>>>another cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker?
>>
>>Not sure - how *do* you differ from Wy?
>

>Probably true
>
>Both kick your ass

And that's why the both flee virtually every thread I've engaged them
both in....IDIOT.

[NoBody]

And Zippo has fled again...

[Zepp]

Oh, I also post as "Nobody" just to confuse people...

[NoBody]

Can't be because I actually make sense and usually claims with
credible cites.

[NoBody]

And this thread as well....

[David Hartung]

One of the quickest ways to kill a Usenet thread is to post factual,
indisputable information.

[wy]

On 1 June, 10:43, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 09:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:52:44 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:17:54 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:36:22 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In what way is one cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker different from
> >>>>> another cowardly and anonymous troll/stalker?
>
> >>>> Not sure - how *do* you differ from Wy?
>
> >>> Probably true
>
> >>> Both kick your ass
>
> >> And that's why the both flee virtually every thread I've engaged them
> >> both in....IDIOT.
>
> > And this thread as well....
>
> One of the quickest ways to kill a Usenet thread is to post factual,
> indisputable information.

Yeah, we know that works when you finally stop responding with your
inanities.

[Man of Mind]

On 6/1/2013 9:43 AM, David Hartung wrote:

> One of the quickest ways to kill a Usenet thread is to post factual,
> indisputable information.

Yup, that's been my experience, too..

--
"The Republicans are the party that says
government doesn't work and then they get
elected and prove it." --P. J. O'Rourke

[Zepp]

Yeah. We do that when we decided we've had enough of your inanities and
figure it's time to run you off.

[Steve]

Here's an example of Zepp's actual indisputable information.


Here's another stupid claim from Zepp about the
Constitution.

"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution
specifies that people have right to vote in a
presidential election pretty much takes the choice of
having [a presidential election] out of the hands of
the states."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&

...

>Canyon note> Today, Electors are chosen by popular
election, but the Constitution does not mandate a
popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention the
choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when
Electors are elected by popular vote. There is
similar mention in the 24th Amendment. In other
words, Electors could be appointed by a state's
legislature, or the legislature could empower the
governor to choose electors. In some cases, state
law allows for such appointments if the popular
vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such
as if election results are contested up to
federally-mandated deadlines.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

[Zepp]

Only when I'm posting as "Nobody". Or as Zepp, of course.

[Steve]

"No plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t know what did"
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&


"The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
perhaps a SAM."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson on what hit the Pentagon
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7473934a15900249?hl=en&

Canyon note: Sam stands for "surface to air missile." it's a little rocket
fired from the ground to hit aircraft.

[Zepp]

What do YOU think hit the Pentagon, Nobody?

[Steve]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:22:00 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:20:13 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:07:31 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 10:18:56 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 14:36:04 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:51:35 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:26:25 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:18:36 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 06:37:15 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And poor Zippo the moron doesn't realize that two people who
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with him aren't in any way related.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Except that canyonloon and Nowussy are attached by nose-to-ass
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh stop Zippo. We know it's you here too...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Didn't you know? I'm secretly Knickers, here to lead you and make
>>>>>>>you look like a fool?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ironically, the only fool here seems to be you....
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I also post as "Nobody" just to confuse people...
>>>>
>>>> Can't be because I actually make sense and usually claims with
>>>> credible cites.
>>>
>>>Only when I'm posting as "Nobody". Or as Zepp, of course.
>>
>>

>> "No plane hit the Pentagon. I don?t know what did"

>> --David B.(Zepp) Jamieson
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/
>msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&
>
>What do YOU think hit the Pentagon, Nobody?

'Nobody' can speak for himself...

I'm Steve, and I not only think, I'm pretty damned sure that Flight
77, a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Only a half-wit would think that the bad guys would use anything else
but the hijacked plane and go through all the trouble to try keep it
secret and to make it look like a plane, especially when the bad guys
had hijacked three other planes and targeted buildings that same day.

But then you are a halfwit, Wordsong.

[Zepp]

Sure, "Steve". I'm sure "he" can. Ha ha ha. Play your silly little
games, Stevie.

>
> I'm Steve, and I not only think, I'm pretty damned sure that Flight 77,
> a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Are you, now. Were you piloting it?

[Steve]

<GRIN>

>> I'm Steve, and I not only think, I'm pretty damned sure that Flight 77,
>> a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
>
>Are you, now. Were you piloting it?

I've seen the evidence, you moron, and there is no logic in any other
scenario.

>> Only a half-wit would think that the bad guys would use anything else
>> but the hijacked plane and go through all the trouble to try keep it
>> secret and to make it look like a plane, especially when the bad guys
>> had hijacked three other planes and targeted buildings that same day.
>>
>> But then you are a halfwit, Wordsong.

So Porky Jamieson cannot explain why, whoever it was that targeted the
Pentagon, would go to all the trouble to use something other than a
plane, try keep it secret, then make it look like a plane, keep all
the people required to make it happen quiet, do away with Flight 77
and its passengers... when all they had to do was fly the hijacked
plane into the Pentagon just like they did with the two planes that
hit the towers...

Jamieson is a moron.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:50:54 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

Zippo thinks he's being clever when he is merely looking more foolish.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:50:24 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

Ask him to provide one credible spec of evidence to support his
contention and he will sputter, stomp, and run away.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:27:28 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 10:18:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Ironically, the only fool here seems to be you....
>>>
>>>Oh, I also post as "Nobody" just to confuse people...
>>
>>Can't be because I actually make sense
>

>No, the gist of your claim is false

Oh Zippo, stop it...

>
>You haven't got the brains to understand that you can't deny what the
>public record CLEARLY proves----and denying it just makes you look as
>stupid as everyone claims you are.

Public record = Yorgort / Zippo is lying.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:29:42 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 10:19:28 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>Not sure - how *do* you differ from Wy?
>>>>
>>>>Probably true
>>>>
>>>>Both kick your ass
>>>
>>>And that's why the both flee virtually every thread I've engaged them
>>>both in....IDIOT.
>

>No one has to give a dingbat's false claims credibilty---then argue as
>if they contained truth

Then perhaps you should stop posting since you are describing yourself
right now.