Bad Precedent (#106995)This one writes like TxBluesMan, of Coram Non Judice. When there is a Police Sgt. at the University of North Texas and a Wiki editor by the name of GregJackP who posts seemingly from UNT and "TxBluesMan" who has precisely the same background and interests as GregJackP, you wonder. Is there another Greg J. with a last name starting with P at UNT or is Sgt. Prickett the same person as TxBluesMan. At least, one of the people behind the persona.
by Gregory J Prickett on March 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM
According to Spitzer, we must always adhere to precedent, even if terrible and clearly out of line with the Constitution.
If this were the case, then Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) stating that "seperate but equal" was constitutional would still be the law of the land. Obviously this is not the case, due to Brown v. Board of Education overturning that decision.
In a like manner, in Betts v. Brady (1943), the Supreme Court held that Betts did not have a right to appointed counsel in his robbery trial. Thankfully this was overturned by Gideon v. Wainright (1963) and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964).
Bad precedent is just that - bad - and can easily be overturned.
As a side note, Spitzer ignores the facts that the cases he claims are clear and decisive are anything but that.
Presser v. Illinois does not address the question of an individual right to keep and bear arms, stating "Whether a State may not prohibit its citizens from keeping or bearing arms for other than militia purposes is a question which need not be considered..." If it doesn't address the question Mr. Spitzer, then there is no precedent established.
In a like manner, Mr. Spitzer misconstrues the other decisions, but I won't list all the details.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Blues has of course closed his blog, making it hard for us to compare writing styles.
Inquiring minds dare him to open it up again.
Sphere: Related Content
6 comments:
Hugh another dragnet??? You seem to have a faulty investigator, a serial accusation scheme and please stop forwarding your half baked scenarios to William James Medvecky(he posts them as factual).
Too. too funny!
Jam. Say hi to Peacing. If YOU bothered to look deeper, you'd find out this is a Wiki User investigation. As you know, I am banned there. I plead "bystander."
Hugh I'll be sure to say, "Hi to Peacing", as soon as I figure out who that person is?
Say, what ever became of your gay Colorado Springs PD dragnet?
I never went looking for homosexuals Jam.
Perhaps I should have said "Peaching."
Sorry, Hugh don't know any Peaching, either?
Be sure to keep up on your Prickett dragnet and don't let it fizzle out on another snipe hunt.
What part of "this is a WIKI USER INVESTIGATION" didn't you understand moron? Did you CONSIDER using an online dictionary for "peaching?"
Use the not so rude definition. Now, get lost.
Post a Comment