Any feedback on this before I submit it for the clark?
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 10:09:47 PM
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.
Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
I'm "going on" about it? Please. You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa. I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.
In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument. Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.
-- John R
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:29:54 PMQuote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.
Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.
Quote from: Lüc on January 16, 2020, 03:15:41 AMQuote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 15, 2020, 10:15:23 PMNo it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.
More from the peanut gallery:Quote from: @agbdavisSo in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?
If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on December 05, 2019, 07:15:29 PM
No, not really. But I couldn't stare at this empty page any longer.
How much does a one bedroom apartment rent for around here? I'm looking for a weekend escape destination and this place seems like a good place to relax.