- 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: City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:49 pm to cwill
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:49 pm to cwill
I could buy the argument about the petition drive IF the subpoena was narrowly tailored to only cover the petition drive and the law in question.
The mayor's office, instead, included a number of other subjects such as the mayor herself, homosexuals, etc, which indicates that this is a fishing expedition instead.
The mayor's office, instead, included a number of other subjects such as the mayor herself, homosexuals, etc, which indicates that this is a fishing expedition instead.
3
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:50 pm to genro
quote:
I'm an engineer with a keen interest in history and the constitution. I hate lawyers. Most of them wouldn't understand the actual meaning of the Constitution if it hit them on the head.
You just have to laugh. I was taught Con Law by a judge on the US Federal Court of Appeals. I passed two of the four most difficult bars in the county (1st and 4th). But I don't know the actual meaning of the Constitution and an engineer with a keen interest who hates lawyers does.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:50 pm to darkhorse
quote:
re they wrong?
They're arguing their position. I'd expect no less.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:51 pm to FalseProphet
quote:What if it's not? Is your free speech violated?
And guess what, asshat, if I the conversation I had with my girlfriend (you were so clever by saying boyfirend though) is relevant to pending litigation, and I get a subpoena, I'm going to have to tell them what was said, because it enjoys no privilege.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:51 pm to cwill
quote:
I didn't bail. I owned my mistake. And it's pretty lame of you to get sorta boxed in and lash out like a bitch. But I've seen you do it before so I'm not surprised.
I'm not boxed in. I'm not claiming the city has a reasonable right to subpoena the sermons of multiple pastors because one of the pastors appeared in a video concerning the collection of signatures which is now subject to a lawsuit to which none of the pastors are a party.
That's you.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:52 pm to teke184
quote:
I could buy the argument about the petition drive IF the subpoena was narrowly tailored to only cover the petition drive and the law in question.
Way too reasonable for this thread. Start your own.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:53 pm to genro
quote:
What if it's not? Is your free speech violated?
Nope. I still ahd the right to say whatever I said, I'm just not protected from ever having to tell someone what I said. No one is restricting or impeding my speech, and it's not barring me from further communications.
You have no absolute right to protect what you said unless it's to a doctor, lawyer, your spouse, or the confessional. And even those can be penetrated in some circumstances.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:53 pm to genro
quote:
What if it's not? Is your free speech violated?
This seems to be a salient question.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:54 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Yes, lawyers have fricked this country through unconstitutional legal precedent based on their own tenuous ideology. The original intent is gone, vanished. The 10th amendment is completely dead, yet not repealed oddly. The commerce clause can justify literally anything, and lawyers figured that out a long time ago and just created whatever they wanted. That's how I feel. Law school was my safety like a lot of smart kids, thank God I was able to do something else.
But I don't know the actual meaning of the Constitution and an engineer with a keen interest who hates lawyers does.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:54 pm to teke184
quote:
I could buy the argument about the petition drive IF the subpoena was narrowly tailored to only cover the petition drive and the law in question.
The mayor's office, instead, included a number of other subjects such as the mayor herself, homosexuals, etc, which indicates that this is a fishing expedition instead.
So the judge can narrow the scope of the subpoena or quash it or do an in camera inspection. That's what happens when you file a motion to quash.
I think these novices think when you issue a subpoena, it's the end all be all and you must comply with no recourse. Or at least that's how they're acting.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:57 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
I think these novices think when you issue a subpoena, it's the end all be all and you must comply with no recourse. Or at least that's how they're acting.
And those who are quasi-defending the subpoena are pretending like there's no difference between a subpoena filed by government and a subpoena filed by John Smith.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:58 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
They're arguing their position. I'd expect no less.
That wasn't my question. Are they wrong?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:59 pm to genro
quote:
Yes, lawyers have fricked this country through unconstitutional legal precedent based on their own tenuous ideology. The original intent is gone, vanished. The 10th amendment is completely dead, yet not repealed oddly. The commerce clause can justify literally anything, and lawyers figured that out a long time ago and just created whatever they wanted. That's how I feel.
The Constitution was written by a lawyer, has been interpreted by lawyers, it's the law. That's what lawyers do. It's like saying "I hate doctors, they mess up medicine, I have a keen interest in medicine and medicine should be practiced as I say."
quote:Had you chosen that avenue, you wouldn't now be so ignorant of the law.
That's how I feel. Law school was my safety like a lot of smart kids, thank God I was able to do something else.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
And those who are quasi-defending the subpoena are pretending like there's no difference between a subpoena filed by government and a subpoena filed by John Smith.
When the government is a defendant in litigation and not bringing its resources to bear on the general public, they aren't much different than John Smith.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:01 pm to teke184
quote:
I could buy the argument about the petition drive IF the subpoena was narrowly tailored to only cover the petition drive and the law in question.
I think the subpoena is most likely to be extensively narrowed in scope...and there's a chance it gets quashed. The least likely outcome is that the subpoena is granted as is. That's what will be determined at the hearing on the motion filed by the Revs.
quote:
The mayor's office, instead, included a number of other subjects such as the mayor herself, homosexuals, etc, which indicates that this is a fishing expedition instead.
Nearly all civil discovery is a "fishing expedition". That being said, whoever drafted the subpoena was an idiot...they could have asked for the evidence they wanted in a less incendiary way.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:02 pm to FalseProphet
The only difference is, get a judgment against a government entity and try to make them pay. Who will make them? Them?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:02 pm to the808bass
quote:
quote:
I could buy the argument about the petition drive IF the subpoena was narrowly tailored to only cover the petition drive and the law in question.
Way too reasonable for this thread.
You should take note.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:04 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
The only difference is, get a judgment against a government entity and try to make them pay. Who will make them? Them?
True story. When I worked in the Governor's office, people still called trying to get their money from a judgment resulting from a flood in 1983. To my knowledge, the state still hasn't paid them.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:04 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Doctors are a lot better than lawyers. You're a worm who deals in debate and theory to change the framework of our country. A doctor deals in hard science to save human lives.
That's what lawyers do. It's like saying "I hate doctors, they mess up medicine, I have a keen interest in medicine and medicine should be practiced as I say."
quote:I'd be absolutely miserable living my life mired in that bullshite. Like most lawyers are.
Had you chosen that avenue, you wouldn't now be so ignorant of the law.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:08 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
FalseProphet
You have not answered if they are right. So I will take it one step forward and see if you are willing to answer this...
If you own something, is it private or public?
Page 16 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News