Scott v Sandford (1857) google it, you might find it interesting.

Did you know that despite all the rulings of the day including this precedent setting case that there are still people who think that Negroes deserve equal rights to us white people? Simply mind boggling.

Keep up the good fight Mr. Morelaw, hopefully people full of sanity like yourself can keep the mud people from taking over our country.

See you on Saturday in the parade in Skokie! There’s nothing more fun that goose stepping and sieg heiling in a town full of tattooed, numbered Jews, wouldn’t you agree?

0  0

0  0

The writing is elementary, at best; the arguments legally flawed and self-serving. How self-serving? Mr. Johnston is not only a lieutenant in the prosecutor’s office, he heads up the forfeiture division, so it is even more offensive that he sees absolutely no “unfair advantage” to the police with the use of these dogs, no abridgment of 4th amendment rights; in fact, the more “drug dealers” that can be arrested, the more property available for the government to seize. I will personally think of Mr. Johnston each time a state trooper pulls me over in an “unmarked” car that is more expensive than the one I’m driving.

Mr. Johnston is so arrogant that he actually called attention to this scathing rant on a social networking site in order to get his brothers in blue to support him and soothe his bruised ego. Without ever once questioning the legitimacy of the arguments posed against him, he just kept repeating that the author of this blog accused him of blowing a judge! People with much smaller egos than this would have been keeping their fingers crossed that none of their friends, let alone their legal peers, would ever view this site, let alone be directed to his article. I think that the comments above soundly berated him concerning his use of the word “inherent” but that error alone should have kept this drivel out of any self-respecting law journal.

0  0

You offer no arguments, only an ad hominem attack on (apparently) Pete. Ad hominem attacks don’t lend themselves to a reasoned discussion by adults.

It’s Patty Cake, not Paddy Cake.

It’s You’re (the contraction for “you are”), not Your (the possessive form of you). Even small mistakes like this really subtract from anything worthwhile that might be said. With a rant such as yours, it makes me wonder at what level your education ceased.

You need to take a Quaalude and get laid (if any woman would have you) because your rant makes little sense.

First you rant about drug dealers but then say it’s ok by you to give them carte blanche. Do you even know what the term means? “If you want to give carte blance to the degenerates who sell drugs for a living be my guest.” Your words.

You then state that “We use dogs for just about every conceivable thing under the sun but not find drugs” Gee, that is what the debate is about, the use of “drug finding” dogs. One premise of the argument against using dogs to search for drugs is that dogs are unreliable and prone to errors.

An aside … did you know that the majority of our paper currency is contaminated with detectable levels of cocaine?

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0

The irony with that knife law is that it’s our current conservative government’s attempt to become more reliant on punitive measures just like the USA.

Our former prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, struck up a personal friendship with George W. Bush. Probably because they both don’t touch alcohol. I remember one election where he actually toasted his campaigners in orange juice

Just like you I think the differences between Europeans and Americans are much smaller than our similarities. All that “oh, but we can’t compare ourselves to the ____ians because we’re soooo different” are just trying to dismiss some reality based observation.

0  0

0  0