State Senate Votes For 10 Commandments Monument

Full story: News on 6 Tulsa

The Oklahoma Senate has voted overwhelmingly for a bill to allow a Ten Commandments monument to be placed on the Capitol grounds.
Comments
401 - 420 of 428 Comments Last updated Sep 6, 2011
Esquire

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#413
May 14, 2009
 
Precedent is anything BUT subjective:

precedent 1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis (star-ay dee-sigh-sis). 2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

"From your posts, you must have already noticed that times are changing" ...

That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.

Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written.

NObama will likely appoint a socialist/marxist/liberal "living constitutionalist" that DOES NOT follow established precedent but is moved by the "changing winds of the populace" which is BS.

Why?

How are we supposed to conduct ourselves as a society based upon laws when the meaning of such laws change depending upon which judge it is before?

That is just plain ludicrous & idiotic.

The founders of our country realized that. That is exactly why they put the constitution in such definite language, giving Congress the role of limiting the judiciary - to act as a check & balance - to keep judges from "legislating from the bench". Article 1 section 8 & Article 3, et al.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

ALSO:"I just re-read Jefferson's letter you linked in one of your earlier posts. The wording is so ambiguous that judges can read almost anything into it."

No, it is very definite if you understand the "legal language" and the CONTEXT, which you may not have taken the time to investigate, or so it seems. I am not trying to abrasive or mean, only proving a point of LAW.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#414
May 14, 2009
 
RE:Above - Once again, at the courthouse. Should verified what name was used before I posted.
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#415
May 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Esquire wrote:
Precedent is anything BUT subjective:
precedent 1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis (star-ay dee-sigh-sis). 2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
"From your posts, you must have already noticed that times are changing" ...
That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.
Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written.
NObama will likely appoint a socialist/marxist/liberal "living constitutionalist" that DOES NOT follow established precedent but is moved by the "changing winds of the populace" which is BS.
Why?
How are we supposed to conduct ourselves as a society based upon laws when the meaning of such laws change depending upon which judge it is before?
That is just plain ludicrous & idiotic.
The founders of our country realized that. That is exactly why they put the constitution in such definite language, giving Congress the role of limiting the judiciary - to act as a check & balance - to keep judges from "legislating from the bench". Article 1 section 8 & Article 3, et al.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
ALSO:"I just re-read Jefferson's letter you linked in one of your earlier posts. The wording is so ambiguous that judges can read almost anything into it."
No, it is very definite if you understand the "legal language" and the CONTEXT, which you may not have taken the time to investigate, or so it seems. I am not trying to abrasive or mean, only proving a point of LAW.
Precedent is very subjective. Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case. On that we seem to agree.

However, everything becomes subjective in court because the only thing that matters is what you can prove to a judge or jury. Almost any argument can find "precedent" in the law. If you can prove (in the mind of a judge) that it has merit, you win.

Again, it's all very subjective.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#416
May 14, 2009
 
"On that we seem to agree."

NOT SO.

"Again, it's all very subjective." LOL LOL What a NUT!

"Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case." LOL LOL LOL

Precedent is DEFINITE; something that is subjective IS NOT DEFINITE.

Can't you read??

Try reading post #413 s l o w e r this time.

You appear to know almost nothing regarding the law except what you see on Law & Order. Too bad.

You are free to have & express an opinion on NObama; as am I. You have your "right to be wrong"!
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#417
May 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
"On that we seem to agree."
NOT SO.
"Again, it's all very subjective." LOL LOL What a NUT!
"Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case." LOL LOL LOL
Precedent is DEFINITE; something that is subjective IS NOT DEFINITE.
Can't you read??
Try reading post #413 s l o w e r this time.
You appear to know almost nothing regarding the law except what you see on Law & Order. Too bad.
You are free to have & express an opinion on NObama; as am I. You have your "right to be wrong"!
So the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade is definite. It cannot be subjective?

If I am wrong, then why is Obama president? Why are abortions-on-demand legal? Why is there no prayer in school? You're simply frightened and angry by what you see happening.

I'm not wrong. A lot of people believe as I do.
Ben Franklin

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#418
May 14, 2009
 
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
Precedent is very subjective. Legal precedents can justify an opinion about a case. On that we seem to agree.
However, everything becomes subjective in court because the only thing that matters is what you can prove to a judge or jury. Almost any argument can find "precedent" in the law. If you can prove (in the mind of a judge) that it has merit, you win.
Again, it's all very subjective.
Note: if something is subjective it takes place (by definition) within one's own mind; therefore an actual court decision that is precedent is not open to interpretation but is definite.
Ben Franklin

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#419
May 14, 2009
 
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
So the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade is definite. It cannot be subjective?
If I am wrong, then why is Obama president? Why are abortions-on-demand legal? Why is there no prayer in school? You're simply frightened and angry by what you see happening.
I'm not wrong. A lot of people believe as I do.
You are as wrong as the sun is bright.

Again;

"That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.

Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written."

Roe is precedent until the law is changed the way it should be; not by a judge as Blackmun did in Roe - but by AMENDMENT.

Liberals/socialists/marxists & their friends at "not ACLUe" have taken to the courts to change laws that they disagree with because they can't get amendments passed (E.R.A. for one, gay marriage for another!) because the vast majority of people disagree with them!!

Utilizing the courts to change laws is NOT what the framers intended! Read the Constitution (Art. 1 Sect. 8 & Art. 3)! That is NOT SUBJECTIVE !!

In this country majority rules! Hence, gay marriage FAILS when it comes to a vote of the people!

Are you REALLY that naive to think that a judge is supposed to "rule as they please"?? LOL LOL

Class DISMISSED!
Nathan Bedford Forrest

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420
May 14, 2009
 
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
So the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade is definite. It cannot be subjective?
If I am wrong, then why is Obama president? Why are abortions-on-demand legal? Why is there no prayer in school? You're simply frightened and angry by what you see happening.
I'm not wrong. A lot of people believe as I do.
Let me get this straight; according to what you say a stop sign is subjective?
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421
May 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Ben Franklin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are as wrong as the sun is bright.
Again;
"That's exactly why we have precedent & it is to be followed to the letter until & ONLY if the LAW IS CHANGED/AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE or amended by the public. PERIOD.
Read the Constitution (or better yet, Marbury v. Madison 1801); Judges are NOT supposed to "make law" as Justice Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade; but are to apply the law as written."
Roe is precedent until the law is changed the way it should be; not by a judge as Blackmun did in Roe - but by AMENDMENT.
Liberals/socialists/marxists & their friends at "not ACLUe" have taken to the courts to change laws that they disagree with because they can't get amendments passed (E.R.A. for one, gay marriage for another!) because the vast majority of people disagree with them!!
Utilizing the courts to change laws is NOT what the framers intended! Read the Constitution (Art. 1 Sect. 8 & Art. 3)! That is NOT SUBJECTIVE !!
In this country majority rules! Hence, gay marriage FAILS when it comes to a vote of the people!
Are you REALLY that naive to think that a judge is supposed to "rule as they please"?? LOL LOL
Class DISMISSED!
I'm obviously not making myself clear. The actual writing of a court's opinion sets a legal precedent. The meaning, or application, of the precedent is subjective to the court in which the precedent is being argued.

An attorney can attempt to use any precedent they wish to defend their argument. It is up to the court (Judge) to decide if the precedent is binding.

Again, it is all subjective. All aspects of the law are subjective and open to various interpretations. That is why there are winners and losers in court. Often, people disagree with the court's decision because it seems wrong or they believe it could have been argued differently.

Teasly wins again!
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422
May 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nathan Bedford Forrest wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight; according to what you say a stop sign is subjective?
Yes, Nathan. That is what I am saying. BTW...why did you feel the need to start the KKK?

Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#423
May 15, 2009
 
BTW: Since the law is subjective, when does a stop sign NOT mean stop? Thought so, dullard.

Is this enough "precedent" for you?

Gov. Brad Henry has until midnight on Monday, May 18th to decide the fate of HB 1330, a bill which would allow the installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.

The bill by Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, would not be an official government endorsement of religion, as the bill itself says, but, rather, would simply acknowledge the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of the laws and the legal systems of both the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma.

The legislation's purpose is not religious, but historical and educational. The bill says the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law in order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government.

If signed into law by Gov. Henry, the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument will use the same words used on the monument at issue in Von Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, the 2005 Texas case that the U.S. Supreme Court (and key Associate Justice Stephen Breyer) ruled as constitutional. The monument would be designed, constructed, and placed on the Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma. Rep. Ritze has indicated that his family will pay the costs of the monument.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#424
May 15, 2009
 
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Nathan. That is what I am saying. BTW...why did you feel the need to start the KKK?
Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that.
"Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that."

What an ignorant statement. You're trying to rationalize to make a point!

Conservatives argue issues w/FACTS; liberals argue issue w/emotion. Guess who wins in court?

(hint) The one who accepts precedent as rule, not "subjective".

LOL
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#425
May 15, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
"Seriously, if you can convince a court (which would be unlikely) that you should not have stopped at a stop sign, you win. It's as simple as that."
What an ignorant statement. You're trying to rationalize to make a point!
Conservatives argue issues w/FACTS; liberals argue issue w/emotion. Guess who wins in court?
(hint) The one who accepts precedent as rule, not "subjective".
LOL
If you really are an attorney (which I doubt), you must seldom win a case. You have preconceived notions about what "should" be.

In court, all that matters is what can be proven, subjectively, in the mind of a jury or judge. That is reality. I know you don't LIKE reality very much, but it is what it is.

For example: A defendant might argue in court that he was somehow under duress and it was not possible or safe to obey a stop sign. Some courts would dismiss the argument. Some would not. Judges (courts) can be subjective, Mr. Attorney. LOL.

I bet I could argue a case better than you could. I feel sorry for any poor sap that actually retains an attorney like you. You fool.
Teasly McBagger

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#426
May 15, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
BTW: Since the law is subjective, when does a stop sign NOT mean stop? Thought so, dullard.
Is this enough "precedent" for you?
Gov. Brad Henry has until midnight on Monday, May 18th to decide the fate of HB 1330, a bill which would allow the installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
The bill by Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, would not be an official government endorsement of religion, as the bill itself says, but, rather, would simply acknowledge the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of the laws and the legal systems of both the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma.
The legislation's purpose is not religious, but historical and educational. The bill says the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law in order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government.
If signed into law by Gov. Henry, the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument will use the same words used on the monument at issue in Von Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, the 2005 Texas case that the U.S. Supreme Court (and key Associate Justice Stephen Breyer) ruled as constitutional. The monument would be designed, constructed, and placed on the Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma. Rep. Ritze has indicated that his family will pay the costs of the monument.
Don't worry, Nathan. He will sign it. Like I told you before, it would be political suicide if he doesn't.

As you already know, it's placement is set to be immediately challenged in court. It will likely be removed in a few years after a long legal battle.

Enjoy the moral victory. LoL.
Above it ALL

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#430
May 18, 2009
 
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
FIRST BOOK of DEMOCRAT
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES..
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE, I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY.
OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE. BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG AND OBAMA WAS A TREE.
Today's Quote:
"Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
LOL LOL LOL
HA HA HA

I Like this post!
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#431
May 19, 2009
 
HENRY SIGNED IT!

We welcome ALL challengers - so bring it on "not ACLUe"!!!!!
Bonnie H Oakley

Claremore, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#432
May 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
HENRY SIGNED IT!
We welcome ALL challengers - so bring it on "not ACLUe"!!!!!
I'm so happy for you and all your fellow Christians that you got your way it just get's me all choked up. I know your all so happy and it makes me smile. I understand it will paid for with private funding so that's OK by me. Now I feel safe and happy and I'm sure the citizens of OKC are feeling pretty secure too. Now I'm going to go consider that adultry part. Sounds tempting.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#433
May 19, 2009
 
Bonnie H Oakley wrote:
<quoted text>I'm so happy for you and all your fellow Christians that you got your way it just get's me all choked up. I know your all so happy and it makes me smile. I understand it will paid for with private funding so that's OK by me. Now I feel safe and happy and I'm sure the citizens of OKC are feeling pretty secure too. Now I'm going to go consider that adultry part. Sounds tempting.
Hope you enjoy yourself!

BTW: Adultery IS grounds for divorce; hence it is a violation of the law - the Ten & the State's.
Teasly McBagger

Coweta, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#434
May 20, 2009
 
Reasonable Legal Mind wrote:
HENRY SIGNED IT!
We welcome ALL challengers - so bring it on "not ACLUe"!!!!!
Of course he signed it. I would have done the same. A politician has to protect his image.

It is already set to be challenged in court. It will be removed in a few years after the Supreme Court (with a new, liberal justice) overturns their previous ruling and disallows it. I give it about 5 years.
Reasonable Legal Mind

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#435
May 20, 2009
 
Teasly McBagger wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he signed it. I would have done the same. A politician has to protect his image.
It is already set to be challenged in court. It will be removed in a few years after the Supreme Court (with a new, liberal justice) overturns their previous ruling and disallows it. I give it about 5 years.
You posted:"(with a new, liberal justice)" LOL LOL

HINT: Justice Souter voted against it last time; his vote & therefore his replacement is moot to the situation.

Educate your blissfully ignorant self.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Owasso Discussions

Search the Owasso Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
OK OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 2 min DoesntMatter 72,063
Claremore Balloon Festival Gets Ready For Lift Off (Aug '10) Wed K2 is Dangerous 4
Tulsa Police ID Two Weekend Homicide Victims (Nov '09) Wed terrysqueen 76
The News On 6 Investigates: Renter Beware (Feb '09) Tue S Forman 41
Caravan of Corvettes coming to Oklahoma in August Tue Packing Heat 3
Beating Suspect's Trial Begins (Oct '08) Jul 29 Dont care 104
Amanda walker Jul 28 Tara 4
•••
•••
•••
•••

Owasso Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Owasso People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Owasso News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Owasso
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••