- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas Atty Gen and U of Houston law professor agree: City of Houston overreached
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:17 am to L.A.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:17 am to L.A.
So how did a city in the heart of Texas not called Austin end up with a "left-leaning, openly gay mayor"? That is the most confusing part to me. I did not know that was the case before this subpoena ordeal.
2
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:32 am to LeonPhelps
quote:
So how did a city in the heart of Texas not called Austin end up with a "left-leaning, openly gay mayor"?
I've had the same question. My guess is that the city of Houston lines include the gay montrose district.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 1:59 am to LeonPhelps
quote:Houston proper is not unlike any major city in the US.....heavily democrat.
So how did a city in the heart of Texas not called Austin end up with a "left-leaning, openly gay mayor"? That is the most confusing part to me.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 2:03 am to Tim
quote:It's been the yuppie montrose district for about 10 years now, just fyi
the gay montrose district.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 7:33 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
The pervert should be recalled.
Is she the one who declared war on soup kitchens and homeless shelters a couple of years ago?
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:43 am to the808bass
quote:
Roger, cwill and one other lawyer cat.
No. You couldn't understand then and you still don't
Let's review...
What we said is that a party can subpoena whatever they damn well please. The person subpoenaed can then file a Motion to Quash. It's then left up to the judge to allow it, restrict it, quash it or have an in camera inspection an then decide.
It's really simple but you just have a problem understanding.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:47 am to Vegas Bengal
I don't have a problem understanding at all. Why did they revise the subpoena before it got to the judge? If your argument is so awesome, why didn't they let the subpoena run its course in court?
Answer: your argument blows.
Answer: your argument blows.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:01 pm to Vegas Bengal
Vegas Bengal is correct in how he describes the legal process. No getting around it. Period.
However, just because something is legal does not mean it is moral or ethical. This was an attempt at political intimidation by the mayor's office, plain and simple. The fact that 1) she withdrew the subpeona and 2) threw a pro bono attorney under the bus tells me all I need to know about her.
However, just because something is legal does not mean it is moral or ethical. This was an attempt at political intimidation by the mayor's office, plain and simple. The fact that 1) she withdrew the subpeona and 2) threw a pro bono attorney under the bus tells me all I need to know about her.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
I don't have a problem understanding at all. Why did they revise the subpoena before it got to the judge? If your argument is so awesome, why didn't they let the subpoena run its course in court? Answer: your argument blows.
Because they reviewed the Motion to Quash and thought they'd lose. My guess us they made a decision to ask for less for fear of losing everything.
You can push the envelope or you can try to appear reasonable. If they thought the judge would be pissed, then a good call would be to amend.
Bottom line is there are checks and balances in the judicial system in rules of civil procedure, rules of evidence, local rules etc. if Houston crossed the line in their request, there are remedies. It's not for Houston or any party to decide. It's the judge to decide. And you base your move on how much you think you can get away with.
It's like football and officiating.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:08 pm to Wolfhound45
I just used football as an example and in a way it's a good one. There are some teams (like Auburn cough cough) who push the envelope more than others. If the officials let them, then it's legal. If they go overboard, the officials will be harder on them.
Simplistic but kind of what I'm talking about.
I just finished a Pretrial Order and couldn't believe the crap my opponent is trying to pull. I don't understand the logic. Maybe he thinks if he asks for the moon, he'll get what he actually wants. IMO you lose credibility
Simplistic but kind of what I'm talking about.
I just finished a Pretrial Order and couldn't believe the crap my opponent is trying to pull. I don't understand the logic. Maybe he thinks if he asks for the moon, he'll get what he actually wants. IMO you lose credibility
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:28 pm to L.A.
Greg Abbott is the political and intellectual equivalent of Revelator and a politician running for office.
The overreach wasn't ssking for the sermons, it was the broadness of the related content...as provided by the non-politician law professor:
From your link...which was what most of the board lawyers said.
The hysterical morons believe that sermons shouldn't be discoverable period.
The overreach wasn't ssking for the sermons, it was the broadness of the related content...as provided by the non-politician law professor:
quote:
However, Linzer says it wouldn't impinge on the pastors' First Amendment rights if the city only asked only for sermons or speeches related to the signature drive. "Let's assume they gave instructions to cheat," Linzer says. "That would be relevant speech and I don't see how they would have any First Amendment protection for that."
From your link...which was what most of the board lawyers said.
The hysterical morons believe that sermons shouldn't be discoverable period.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:29 pm to the808bass
quote:
I don't have a problem understanding at all. Why did they revise the subpoena before it got to the judge? If your argument is so awesome, why didn't they let the subpoena run its course in court? Answer: your argument blows.
Local political sentiment, genius.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:41 pm to cwill
Local political sentiment based on what? You can do it! You're almost there.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:44 pm to the808bass
Hysterical morons like you. Why don't you try treading the original thread, the volokh article then what I quoted above from the other law professor. Sermons are discoverable.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 12:50 pm to cwill
I read all of that, moron. For some reason, you can't abandon your idiotic position. Must be ego.
They didn't withdraw because of hysterical morons, unless you categorize Volokh as a moron. Or the Houston law professor. Or the Texas AG.
They didn't withdraw because of hysterical morons, unless you categorize Volokh as a moron. Or the Houston law professor. Or the Texas AG.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 1:36 pm to cwill
quote:I saw that and thought it an odd thing to say, and an odd thing for the mayor to do.
However, Linzer says it wouldn't impinge on the pastors' First Amendment rights if the city only asked only for sermons or speeches related to the signature drive. "Let's assume they gave instructions to cheat," Linzer says. "That would be relevant speech and I don't see how they would have any First Amendment protection for that."
Based on a supposition that the pastors MAY have given instructions to "cheat" (not even sure what cheating would be in this context), let's subpoena their sermons and see what's in there?
This was, IMO, an attempt by the mayor to intimidate the opposition and the outcry from the public made her realize what a colossally stupid, politically tone-deaf idea it was.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 4:28 pm to L.A.
quote:
Based on a supposition that the pastors MAY have given instructions to "cheat" (not even sure what cheating would be in this context), let's subpoena their sermons and see what's in there?
Gathering signatures from out of the city, forging signatures, etc. They might have provided instruction during services, in their sermon. The subpoena should have been narrowed to relevant sermons.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 4:29 pm to the808bass
quote:
I read all of that, moron. For some reason, you can't abandon your idiotic position. Must be ego.
They didn't withdraw because of hysterical morons, unless you categorize Volokh as a moron. Or the Houston law professor. Or the Texas AG.
You must be an illiterate. The Texas AG is a moron, like you.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 4:30 pm to cwill
Pussy.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News