DispositionMatrix
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
California Supreme Court rules against NSSF in microstamping suit
- Thread starter DispositionMatrix
- Start date
Al458
NES Member
"The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible."
That's gota be the best line I've seen in a pretty long time. With reasoning like that from the highest court in cali really what can you do about trying to stop these nuts?
That's gota be the best line I've seen in a pretty long time. With reasoning like that from the highest court in cali really what can you do about trying to stop these nuts?
And so people are clear, this ruling was NOT about whether microstamping is impossible or not. They assumed it was. It was purely based on whether or not the civil code that says
“ the law never requires impossibilities.”
can invalidate a statute enacted later that requires an impossibility.
They said it doesn’t.
Wow.
“ the law never requires impossibilities.”
can invalidate a statute enacted later that requires an impossibility.
They said it doesn’t.
Wow.
xtry51
NES Member
I second this. That ruling shows how irrelevant the court system is in America.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Whiskeywon
NES Member
While this is actually relevant all your picture did was make me think of that guy that argued with the judge (who stupidly played into it) and ends with all kinds of awful lines including kangaroo court though it wasn't true there.
amm5061
NES Member
I can't even wrap my mind around the twisted logic used to come to that conclusion. I'm pretty sure if I tried, blood vessels would burst in my brain and I would die of a massive aneurysm.
it's not that it's impossible it's just that it can't be done.
snax
NES Member
Makes total sense. Think everything that has happened since 2008 leading up until what we saw yesterday at the hearings....
Elected officials, swap creatures, politicians dems, rinos, repubs, etc...
...are mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and legal vs. illegal.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to actually follow any rules or laws..
Thusly, according to the CASC, they [will] "lead courts to excuse a failure to comply with a law."
In conclusion... why bother prosecuting any of them (Hillary, Comey, McCabe, etc) since their failure to comply is actually a impossibility.
Elected officials, swap creatures, politicians dems, rinos, repubs, etc...
...are mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and legal vs. illegal.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to actually follow any rules or laws..
Thusly, according to the CASC, they [will] "lead courts to excuse a failure to comply with a law."
In conclusion... why bother prosecuting any of them (Hillary, Comey, McCabe, etc) since their failure to comply is actually a impossibility.
bfm
NES Member
I would be willing to pay extra for that.
Even the judge who concurred was aware of the majorities utter failure in logic and distortion of facts, and wrote 7 pages pointing them out.
“Thus, although the majority concedes that impossibility can sometimes provide a basis for recognizing a statutory exception (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 4–7, 9), the majority precludes courts from recognizing any such exception to section 31910(b)(7)(A), implying that the question was one that should have been adjudicated at the administrative level and that the only recourse is writ review of the Department of Justice’s certification or a constitutional challenge. The implication that the Department of Justice’s certification proceeding could have adjudicated the question of exceptions to section 31910(b)(7)(A) based on impossibility is simply wrong as a factual matter, and it is not an argument that the Attorney General makes in his briefs in this court.”
“Thus, although the majority concedes that impossibility can sometimes provide a basis for recognizing a statutory exception (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 4–7, 9), the majority precludes courts from recognizing any such exception to section 31910(b)(7)(A), implying that the question was one that should have been adjudicated at the administrative level and that the only recourse is writ review of the Department of Justice’s certification or a constitutional challenge. The implication that the Department of Justice’s certification proceeding could have adjudicated the question of exceptions to section 31910(b)(7)(A) based on impossibility is simply wrong as a factual matter, and it is not an argument that the Attorney General makes in his briefs in this court.”
MachineHead
NES Member
Pretty sure the 9th circuit comes before SCOTUS.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,384
- Likes
- 109,342
the 9th circus will put their own intellectually bankrupt microstamp on the ruling too.
hopefully scotus will take it...in 2020
I think you are correct actually.
They won’t be ever hearing it.
"The court said impossibility can sometimes lead courts to excuse a failure to comply with a law. But it said it can't be the basis for invalidating a law"
Aren't these the same people that said it would be impossible to round up all the illegal aliens in the US?
Aren't these the same people that said it would be impossible to round up all the illegal aliens in the US?
Similar threads
