Supreme Court Rulings

[streicher187]

the big Gun battle comes soon but they did make 2 rulings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...bWk5yJfBZvzwcF

What a suprise oil wins again getting their 5 billion dollar judgement cut down to 500 million

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/...TZUjLTN0FvzwcF

Not sure on this one I could go both ways (but I guess hundreds of priests are breathing easier today)

The handgun ruling could open a whole new round of challanges either way

[gatorboymike]

I can't understand why there was a question over gun ownership in the first place. You would think the Constitution answered that question 200 years ago.

[slate187]

the big Gun battle comes soon but they did make 2 rulings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...bWk5yJfBZvzwcF

What a suprise oil wins again getting their 5 billion dollar judgement cut down to 500 million

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/...TZUjLTN0FvzwcF

Not sure on this one I could go both ways (but I guess hundreds of priests are breathing easier today)

The handgun ruling could open a whole new round of challanges either way

That Exxon Ruling is exactly why I will Boycot Exxon/moble gas the rest of my life. Those cheap ™™™™™™™s say they dont have that kind of money right now

I saw one justice was not allowed to vote due to owning exxon stock, so it would have been 9-0 instead of 8-0 (big whoop)

I just wonder how much money/stock exxon had lying around for the other 8


As for raping children, Hell yes that should be punishable by death. A person that does that is one sick F*&K. In fact I would be in favor of it for any child molestation (none of this release, notify neighbors, busnesses etc...).

I just wish when a person was found guilty for death. They would just put a bullet in their brain matter, not after 15 years of appeals.

[streicher187]

I can't understand why there was a question over gun ownership in the first place. You would think the Constitution answered that question 200 years ago.

Because of the way it was written, it is/was disputed that the right only applied to a well armed militia.. They debated the Militia part..

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



The fuss should be about the 4th amendment being broken

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."