Comments on: Gee, freedom of speech and victims’ rights sure are frivolous http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/ Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:48:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: wellie http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1548 wellie Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:24:29 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1548 absurd is the perfect word for this cara. i mean, how DARE this victim be persecuted by a judge and want to fight back? shame on her. in other news, senator chambers is a prick. absurd is the perfect word for this cara. i mean, how DARE this victim be persecuted by a judge and want to fight back? shame on her. in other news, senator chambers is a prick.

]]> By: Roy http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1522 Roy Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:22:47 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1522 <b>What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case?</b> I thought they just make gentle suggestions and hope that the states feel like complying. It's not like the Supreme Court is a major part of the three branches or anything. What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case?

I thought they just make gentle suggestions and hope that the states feel like complying. It’s not like the Supreme Court is a major part of the three branches or anything.

]]> By: evil_fizz http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1521 evil_fizz Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:45:46 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/2007/09/26/gee-freedom-of-speech-and-victims-rights-sure-are-frivolous/#comment-1521 In most states, the rules of civil procedure require the party filing papers with the court to state that their legal claims are warranted by existing law or that they're arguing for a non-frivolous extension of the law. I'm a little confused as to why the judge wants a showing on this point. She's raising a first amendment issue which (if a bit novel) doesn't seem outside the bounds of what I know about 1st Amendment law. Also, I find this comment: "there is something profoundly disturbing about the notion that a federal judge has the power to tell a state judge how to do his job," to be hilarious. What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case? In most states, the rules of civil procedure require the party filing papers with the court to state that their legal claims are warranted by existing law or that they’re arguing for a non-frivolous extension of the law.

I’m a little confused as to why the judge wants a showing on this point. She’s raising a first amendment issue which (if a bit novel) doesn’t seem outside the bounds of what I know about 1st Amendment law.

Also, I find this comment: “there is something profoundly disturbing about the notion that a federal judge has the power to tell a state judge how to do his job,” to be hilarious.

What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case?

]]>