| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 6/30/11 1:01 PM, jps 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. 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. Scalia and Thomas should have been tossed from the Court years ago. The current reports about Thomas' bribes and financial shenanigans ought to result in some sort of formal inquiry, at least. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:14:14 -0400, Harryk
wrote: On 6/30/11 1:01 PM, jps 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. 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. Scalia and Thomas should have been tossed from the Court years ago. The current reports about Thomas' bribes and financial shenanigans ought to result in some sort of formal inquiry, at least. All the more reason the Dems need to take back the house, since any inquiry into the justices is initiated there. Although the dems have exhibited no taste for righting wrongs or having the balls to stand up to the sort of bullying that comes naturally to thugs. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:01:15 -0700, jps 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:49:21 -0400, wf3h wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:01:15 -0700, jps 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 30/06/2011 1:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:14:14 -0400, wrote: On 6/30/11 1:01 PM, jps 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. 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. Scalia and Thomas should have been tossed from the Court years ago. The current reports about Thomas' bribes and financial shenanigans ought to result in some sort of formal inquiry, at least. All the more reason the Dems need to take back the house, since any inquiry into the justices is initiated there. Although the dems have exhibited no taste for righting wrongs or having the balls to stand up to the sort of bullying that comes naturally to thugs. Hey fleabagger, dimwits are not going to control Congress any time soon. In fact, Obama will be long gone when that happens. Lame duck idiot president accusing Republicans of screwing up the budget, when the budget Obama operates on is Obama and Debtorcrats. Obama seems to think he has a right to arbitrarily in-debt your grand kids. Which for you selfish fleabaggers does not seem to mater but for decent people it does. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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? -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:53:43 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 30/06/2011 1:25 PM, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:14:14 -0400, wrote: On 6/30/11 1:01 PM, jps 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. 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. Scalia and Thomas should have been tossed from the Court years ago. The current reports about Thomas' bribes and financial shenanigans ought to result in some sort of formal inquiry, at least. All the more reason the Dems need to take back the house, since any inquiry into the justices is initiated there. Although the dems have exhibited no taste for righting wrongs or having the balls to stand up to the sort of bullying that comes naturally to thugs. Hey fleabagger, dimwits are not going to control Congress any time soon. In fact, Obama will be long gone when that happens. Lame duck idiot president accusing Republicans of screwing up the budget, when the budget Obama operates on is Obama and Debtorcrats. Obama seems to think he has a right to arbitrarily in-debt your grand kids. Which for you selfish fleabaggers does not seem to mater but for decent people it does. You don't really understand the concept "Lame Duck" do you. You're incredibly stupid. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:00:56 -0600, Canuck57
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 7/1/11 12:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:53:43 -0600, wrote: On 30/06/2011 1:25 PM, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:14:14 -0400, wrote: On 6/30/11 1:01 PM, jps 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. 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. Scalia and Thomas should have been tossed from the Court years ago. The current reports about Thomas' bribes and financial shenanigans ought to result in some sort of formal inquiry, at least. All the more reason the Dems need to take back the house, since any inquiry into the justices is initiated there. Although the dems have exhibited no taste for righting wrongs or having the balls to stand up to the sort of bullying that comes naturally to thugs. Hey fleabagger, dimwits are not going to control Congress any time soon. In fact, Obama will be long gone when that happens. Lame duck idiot president accusing Republicans of screwing up the budget, when the budget Obama operates on is Obama and Debtorcrats. Obama seems to think he has a right to arbitrarily in-debt your grand kids. Which for you selfish fleabaggers does not seem to mater but for decent people it does. You don't really understand the concept "Lame Duck" do you. You're incredibly stupid. It's just amazing how many terms Canuck uses that he just doesn't understand. Makes you wonder if he got past the 6th grade. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 01/07/2011 6:04 AM, Jay wrote:
On 7/1/2011 1:15 AM, Canuck57 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. I wonder if her daddy bought her house for her outright or just put enough equity into it to make a mortgage affordable for her. My guess, a trailer park or low-income dump. In the past defumer said she had lots of debt, probably done bankruptcy by now. Being a fleabagger, excessive debt is considered a right thing to do. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 7/1/11 1:23 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
er. My guess, a trailer park or low-income dump. You typically have all of your facts wrong, so your guesses have to be even less accurate. You really shouldn't post on political or financial issues. Every time you post, you demonstrate you know nothing about either. You're no smarter than Ingersoll, the other political moron here. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 7/1/11 1:32 PM, Canuck57 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. Solvent...yet another word whose meaning is unknown to you. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:32:33 -0600, Canuck57
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:55:45 -0600, Canuck57
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
"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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
|
Scanklia gets stuffed
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 |
Scanklia gets stuffed
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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 04/07/2011 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It sure is, leads to economic freedom too. Because your worthless, you should get a job to improve your profit. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It's disgusting. They can't legally market to kids here anymore, so they ooze their way into third-world countries where there are few or no rule, and hook really young children on their poisonous products. As a results, generations of third-world kids will develop lung cancer. The right-wing assholes, of course, see nothing wrong with this. Profit is all that matters. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
In article ,
says... 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? His point is that you are a liar... Joe Camel has been dead for over a decade for one. The rest of your deflections are not worth addressing. -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 7/4/11 8:22 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... 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? His point is that you are a liar... Joe Camel has been dead for over a decade for one. The rest of your deflections are not worth addressing. You dumb ****, the tobacco companies have merely shifted their direct marketing to children out of the united states. Maybe you can get a tobacco company sponsor for your little non-winning motorbike racing team. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:39:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 04/07/2011 3:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It sure is, leads to economic freedom too. Because your worthless, you should get a job to improve your profit. No, not necessarily. You're an ignorant little man, with no understanding of history. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 04/07/2011 4:08 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It's disgusting. They can't legally market to kids here anymore, so they ooze their way into third-world countries where there are few or no rule, and hook really young children on their poisonous products. As a results, generations of third-world kids will develop lung cancer. The right-wing assholes, of course, see nothing wrong with this. Profit is all that matters. Going to work is profit from labour. You never worked? -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:01:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 04/07/2011 4:08 PM, Harryk wrote: On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It's disgusting. They can't legally market to kids here anymore, so they ooze their way into third-world countries where there are few or no rule, and hook really young children on their poisonous products. As a results, generations of third-world kids will develop lung cancer. The right-wing assholes, of course, see nothing wrong with this. Profit is all that matters. Going to work is profit from labour. You never worked? Going to work is profit from labor if you end up with a profit. Many middle class and all poor people don't. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Jul 5, 8:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:01:27 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 04/07/2011 4:08 PM, Harryk wrote: On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, wrote: On 7/4/11 5:08 PM, wrote: On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:47:40 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in .... On 03/07/2011 11:14 AM, wrote: On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:49:26 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "jps" wrote in message news:4tap0714virhl3pc5giu1eohkg2brt1ssl@4a x.com... 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On 05/07/2011 7:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:01:27 -0600, wrote: On 04/07/2011 4:08 PM, Harryk wrote: On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It's disgusting. They can't legally market to kids here anymore, so they ooze their way into third-world countries where there are few or no rule, and hook really young children on their poisonous products. As a results, generations of third-world kids will develop lung cancer. The right-wing assholes, of course, see nothing wrong with this. Profit is all that matters. Going to work is profit from labour. You never worked? Going to work is profit from labor if you end up with a profit. Many middle class and all poor people don't. Yep, because big fat over sized government steals it. Because idiots like you vote for it. -- 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. |
Scanklia gets stuffed
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:39:34 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 05/07/2011 7:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:01:27 -0600, wrote: On 04/07/2011 4:08 PM, Harryk wrote: On 7/4/11 5:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0400, 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. It's disgusting. They can't legally market to kids here anymore, so they ooze their way into third-world countries where there are few or no rule, and hook really young children on their poisonous products. As a results, generations of third-world kids will develop lung cancer. The right-wing assholes, of course, see nothing wrong with this. Profit is all that matters. Going to work is profit from labour. You never worked? Going to work is profit from labor if you end up with a profit. Many middle class and all poor people don't. Yep, because big fat over sized government steals it. Because idiots like you vote for it. Really? I thought 46% don't pay taxes. So, if that's the case which gov't are you talking about? You're incredibly stupid. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com