On 01/07/2011 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:55:45 -0600,
wrote:

On 01/07/2011 11:48 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:32:33 -0600,
wrote:

On 01/07/2011 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:15:50 -0600,
wrote:

On 30/06/2011 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:00:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 30/06/2011 7:03 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:01:15 -0700, wrote:


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.


the right has a myth that if the rich are powerful they'll take care
of everyone and no one needs any rights at all.

Benevolent dictators sometimes work but there's no such thing as a
benevolent ruling class.

Tend to agree with that. Because some group, be they lazy, corrupt or
whatever will have resentment towards the leader. It is impossible to
please all the people all the time.

If a leadr tries to please all the pople all the time, it results in
bankrupcy and collapse of the system. Hey, if Obama paid my mortgage,
gas, food etc. I might do like everyone else and sit on my ass. In
which case who would produce stuff?

Give us a break. You can't qualify for a mortgage.

Might take me a few hours more than some, but I could. See, I haven't
owed anybody money since the very early 90's.

You can't get rich by owing others for your money.

So, the answer is no, you can't get one.

Something you will never understand, some people don't need credit
because they are solvent.

Yes, some people don't need credit. Some people do. Other people, like
yourself, need credit, aren't solvent, and can't get credit.

"Might take me a few hours more than some...." Uh huh.

Hey, if you haven't borrowed money for 20 years, and if you have more
cash in an account than you want to borrow...there might be some questions.

But I would bet $100K I could borrow more than you. Just put the cash
in escrow first, I will follow. Winner takes both $100k lots.

Yes, I'm sure they would question you. Mostly, they would question
your sanity if you applied for a mortgage. The banker would have a
good laugh I'm sure.

Feel free to try. After you. When it's confirmed, I'll put in $200K
with winner take all.

Funny, your already welshing. No one here believes you have $100k. Ok,
maybe $100k of DEBT.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.
------
In Debt We Trust!
-- Obama and the democrats, world record in debt incursion.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:52:51 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 01/07/2011 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:55:45 -0600,
wrote:

On 01/07/2011 11:48 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:32:33 -0600,
wrote:

On 01/07/2011 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:15:50 -0600,
wrote:

On 30/06/2011 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:00:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 30/06/2011 7:03 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:01:15 -0700, wrote:


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.


the right has a myth that if the rich are powerful they'll take care
of everyone and no one needs any rights at all.

Benevolent dictators sometimes work but there's no such thing as a
benevolent ruling class.

Tend to agree with that. Because some group, be they lazy, corrupt or
whatever will have resentment towards the leader. It is impossible to
please all the people all the time.

If a leadr tries to please all the pople all the time, it results in
bankrupcy and collapse of the system. Hey, if Obama paid my mortgage,
gas, food etc. I might do like everyone else and sit on my ass. In
which case who would produce stuff?

Give us a break. You can't qualify for a mortgage.

Might take me a few hours more than some, but I could. See, I haven't
owed anybody money since the very early 90's.

You can't get rich by owing others for your money.

So, the answer is no, you can't get one.

Something you will never understand, some people don't need credit
because they are solvent.

Yes, some people don't need credit. Some people do. Other people, like
yourself, need credit, aren't solvent, and can't get credit.

"Might take me a few hours more than some...." Uh huh.

Hey, if you haven't borrowed money for 20 years, and if you have more
cash in an account than you want to borrow...there might be some questions.

But I would bet $100K I could borrow more than you. Just put the cash
in escrow first, I will follow. Winner takes both $100k lots.

Yes, I'm sure they would question you. Mostly, they would question
your sanity if you applied for a mortgage. The banker would have a
good laugh I'm sure.

Feel free to try. After you. When it's confirmed, I'll put in $200K
with winner take all.

Funny, your already welshing. No one here believes you have $100k. Ok,
maybe $100k of DEBT.

I just doubled your return moron. If you're unwilling to proceed,
you'd be the one welshing.

"jps" wrote in message ...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country. Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit. But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during WW2.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country. Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit. But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country. Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit. But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.
------
In Debt We Trust!
-- Obama and the democrats, world record in debt incursion.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:16:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country. Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit. But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?

What about them? Booze is legal for adults with certain restrictions,
and illegal for children. Pot is legal in some places for adults with
certain restrictions and illegal for children.

Tobacco companies try to get people hooked on a product that causes
cancer. Feel free to defend the tobacco industry.

"Canuck57" wrote in message ...

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country.
Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco
companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all
and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim
that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit.
But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during
WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.
------
In Debt We Trust!
-- Obama and the democrats, world record in debt incursion.


Reply:
Legalize pot. Tax Pot. That would do a couple great things. Reduce prison
populations enormously and along with large needed spending cuts by the Feds
and states, the tax revenues might go along ways towards balancing the
budget. As to targeting kids. I do not see any adverts targeted at kids
for a long time now. Most are targeted at horny Gen X and Y. smoke and the
girls will fall in love with you seems to be the message in the ads I see.
As well as being able to drive a car fast. supposed to be a free country.
Alcohol prohibition cause the growth of major crime syndicates. Same thing
has happened with Pot and drugs. Both criminals and cops love the money and
power drugs bring them.

On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:47:40 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message ...

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country.
Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco
companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all
and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim
that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit.
But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during
WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?
Reply:
Legalize pot. Tax Pot. That would do a couple great things. Reduce prison
populations enormously and along with large needed spending cuts by the Feds
and states, the tax revenues might go along ways towards balancing the
budget. As to targeting kids. I do not see any adverts targeted at kids
for a long time now. Most are targeted at horny Gen X and Y. smoke and the
girls will fall in love with you seems to be the message in the ads I see.
As well as being able to drive a car fast. supposed to be a free country.
Alcohol prohibition cause the growth of major crime syndicates. Same thing
has happened with Pot and drugs. Both criminals and cops love the money and
power drugs bring them.

Tax pot? That's not very Republican of you. You're advocating a
revenue enhancement.

As to targeting kids, they've been doing it for years. I guess you
don't remember Joe Camel.

What does driving a car fast have to do with anything? It's illegal to
drive over the speed limit.

Alcohol prohibition was reversed, but it's still illegal to drink and
drive and to sell to minors. So, what the heck is your point?

On 7/4/11 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:47:40 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message ...

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country.
Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco
companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all
and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim
that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit.
But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during
WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?
Reply:
Legalize pot. Tax Pot. That would do a couple great things. Reduce prison
populations enormously and along with large needed spending cuts by the Feds
and states, the tax revenues might go along ways towards balancing the
budget. As to targeting kids. I do not see any adverts targeted at kids
for a long time now. Most are targeted at horny Gen X and Y. smoke and the
girls will fall in love with you seems to be the message in the ads I see.
As well as being able to drive a car fast. supposed to be a free country.
Alcohol prohibition cause the growth of major crime syndicates. Same thing
has happened with Pot and drugs. Both criminals and cops love the money and
power drugs bring them.

Tax pot? That's not very Republican of you. You're advocating a
revenue enhancement.

As to targeting kids, they've been doing it for years. I guess you
don't remember Joe Camel.

What does driving a car fast have to do with anything? It's illegal to
drive over the speed limit.

Alcohol prohibition was reversed, but it's still illegal to drink and
drive and to sell to minors. So, what the heck is your point?

The U.S. tobacco companies are very busy overseas in third world
countries recruiting very young smokers in places where there are no
restrictions against doing it.

--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

On 7/4/11 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:47:40 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message ...

On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


Beautiful...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power
last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco
companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to
help people quit smoking.

Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by
predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way
and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably
strike down the expensive judgment against the companies.

This week, the court said he was wrong about that.

On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly
blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay
$270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The
payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana
smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago.

Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to
justify the Supreme Court's intervention.

"I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant
certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the
court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that
the judgment below will be reversed."

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court
order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies'
full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Scalia said through a court spokeswoman that he also had no comment on
the matter.

Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana
smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made
unwarranted assumptions about the case.

"I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay," Peck said of
Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect.

The case went to Scalia because he oversees the 5th Circuit, which
includes Louisiana.

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that
blocks another court's decision from taking effect, often in cases
that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice
acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony
Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public
park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross
case still is working its way through the courts.

Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court,
said: "This was a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single
justice. The later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the
court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved."

In issuing his order, Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of
class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the
companies' legal rights.

He said that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able
to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme
Court. The other companies in the case are Brown and Williamson
Holdings Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of
delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant
rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.


Reply:
The tobacco companies should refuse to make anymore payments! If people
want to smoke, they should be allowed to if it is a free country.
Besides,
the payments were an agreement between government and the tobacco
companies,
that they would not increase taxes excessively or make even more laws
regarding tobacco. NYC is now $13.50 a pack, and complaining about
cigarette smugglers. :) The government took the money, spent it all
and
borrowed against future payments and then they did what ever they wanted
without regards to the agreement. No one who should be able to claim
that
they did not know smoking was dangerous. My mom, who died last year just
short of 96 years old, said they called them cancer sticks in the early
1930's. She did not smoke and thought it was a bad / stupid habit.
But
she knew cigarettes were bad and was very happy when my dad quit during
WW2.

Yeah! To hell with the law and their practices of targeting kids.
That's fine with you.

What about booze, pot?
Reply:
Legalize pot. Tax Pot. That would do a couple great things. Reduce prison
populations enormously and along with large needed spending cuts by the Feds
and states, the tax revenues might go along ways towards balancing the
budget. As to targeting kids. I do not see any adverts targeted at kids
for a long time now. Most are targeted at horny Gen X and Y. smoke and the
girls will fall in love with you seems to be the message in the ads I see.
As well as being able to drive a car fast. supposed to be a free country.
Alcohol prohibition cause the growth of major crime syndicates. Same thing
has happened with Pot and drugs. Both criminals and cops love the money and
power drugs bring them.

Tax pot? That's not very Republican of you. You're advocating a
revenue enhancement.

As to targeting kids, they've been doing it for years. I guess you
don't remember Joe Camel.

What does driving a car fast have to do with anything? It's illegal to
drive over the speed limit.

Alcohol prohibition was reversed, but it's still illegal to drink and
drive and to sell to minors. So, what the heck is your point?

The U.S. tobacco companies are very busy overseas in third world
countries recruiting very young smokers in places where there are no
restrictions against doing it.

It doesn't matter. Profit is king.