Supreme Court justices do botch the truth, even in cases of great importance

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    • #24544 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall

      By Ryan Gabrielson . . . In 2007, a group of California Institute of Technology scientists working at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory filed suit agai
      [See the full post at: Supreme Court justices do botch the truth, even in cases of great importance]

    • #24580 Reply
      Darrel Hoffman

      There are many decisions the Supreme Court got wrong-abortion, homosexual marriage, sex offender registry. None of this should surprise anyone that the nine old fools in blacks robes there rely on misinformation to support their heinous rulings.

    • #24581 Reply

      This is our chance to gain audience with intelligent thinkers. Go comment on PROPUBLICA’s article about the flaw used in Smith V Doe….and remind the other commentators that the U.S. Constitution is not being applied to Registered Citizens. This is the opportunity we have been waiting for.

    • #24573 Reply
      Tim L

      Well I know canine officers use weed balm in ChapStick containers and smear a bit on vehicles they want the dog to alert on. Sure not every canine cop does but some do. The problem is the dog are always rewarded when they do what the handlers desire.

      Just to be balanced the cartel use the same trick on border crossers from Mexico. They mark every car with weed balm causing dogs to alert on unsuspecting innocents.

    • #24574 Reply
      Stay outraged

      Megan’s Law is based entirely on a false premise – that knowing where someone that committed a sex crime will prevent the same thing the Kankas’ went through. This is patently false. I even dare say the entire registry is not the will of the people. It’s actually taxpayer fraud in that the efficacy of community notification amounts to little more than a false sense of relief.

    • #24576 Reply

      Put a checks & ballances agency in place when can’t be bought off.

    • #24601 Reply

      When it is found out that a case had false information in it that played a part in the decision then they must go back and rehear the case. Doing anything else is simple an abortion of justice.

    • #24623 Reply

      I was offered a plea bargain not to have to register I went to trial because I was also being sued now I have to register and probation and treatment today I left feeling its me against them I have been denied employment housing church travel plans and I have cancer.

    • #24620 Reply
      Tony From Long Island

      They still haven’t corrected their “frightening and high” mistake . . . .

    • #24642 Reply

      You know sometimes we all need a bit of push and I’m sure NARSOL could use a bit of a push also. In some of these internet sex sting ordeals even some of these having sex with someone that was consensual or slightly younger than one thought, I’m sure it would be safe to say a lot of them just amount toamount to Sexual misconduct. If these law enforcment people ask you to bring condoms than you find out that they are the law on the other end of the computer by going down their than one know’s it was pre-planned in advance. No citizen to my knowledge plans to get into an automobile accident do they?
      I believe the court systems need to look at this justice theory that they have came up with to induce these diobolic sex schemes and than revamp the rights and liberitys of Citizens of America. Aside from the sex schemes why do you think people protest about police coruption in America. I’m sure with this sex scheme we all can learn that police are just as undermided when it comes to true Justice. Billy Joel once said “Were only human” so get your second wind.
      One cannot protect someone that is imaginary as one cannot have faith in God if God is imaginary can one? You know I may talk about the bible on here at times but who’s doing wrong and who’s doing right in these ordeals. When police protect and serve they protect the person that they are called to protect or should they trump up some fictitous person to protect or are they going on a canvassing spree or prediction. Sure one can protrol but presenting an opportunity is out of character for one to protect and service. Man wants to hold things against a person the rest of their life. Would a true person of God do that so what God are they serving? If you read the bible two wrongs don’t make a right. Lawyers sometimes I have to wonder about them. I think Billy Joel was right, were only human.

    • #24941 Reply
      Wes gray

      They don’t just botch, it’s deliberate. They are liars and scammers. How many of us have been lied to and about by prosecutors, police, even our own attorneys, judges, probation officers, treatment providers, in court and lies in our documents. 40 years of witch hunt, won’t stop until we stop it. Do not fear, fight back now, get angry. Join a support group, start one, advocate, offenders and families, and the rest must unite now to stop this abuse. Even our children are killing themselves over the stigma and fear.

      • #24949 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall

        Don’t despair so terribly. I don’t believe it’s correct–and certainly not reasonable–to call each and every justice on the Supreme Court a liar. That’s exactly the sort of blanket application of smear and tarnish that we, as registered citizens, are fighting against. While it is true that there are liars and scammers who are cloaked with power (after all, humans ARE liars, generally speaking, and SOME have power), it’s also true that there are a lot of good and decent people striving to do the right thing. Those individuals have a right to expect the appreciation they deserve, and we all, as citizens, need to put our Trump-sized, broad-stroking, felt-tipped markers back into the drawer.

    • #24972 Reply

      Key master
      I would like to say as far as the PA SUPREME COURT goes they could have very well stated that Muniz is constitutional and non punitive and said PA has done nothing wrong by enforcing retroactive postexfacto laws. I would like to add not all are crooked liars but yes they are out there. Buuuuuut they said oh wait this is illegal why in the first place was this law passesd to began? Incorrect statistics made up from 30 year old information form phsycoligest or therapist or wherever they got these statistics from and I think these judges are seeing through this bs that the AHOLES want to keep throwing at us. Politicians are scaring the public saying oh SO’s are a danger to the public. I honestly say me personally have never seen an honest politician not that they aren’t out there and no one is going to kill there own career to help and SO I believe the SUPREME COURT doesn’t have to worry to much about that because no one can touch them without being truly screwed big time.

    • #26900 Reply
      Tim L

      I too believe SCOTUS opinions are sometimes based on common sense rather than facts. In this case in the beginning there was little proof of the “dispositive intent” behind SORNA.

      Kids DO get murdered by deviants AND their parent sometimes too. It happens! What parent or society can look itself in the mirror knowing they had done little to protect their family. Surely a nation who failed in this important endeavour could not survive? NOT ONE!

      So our Federal government undertook the endeavour utilizing the power of the electronic database to set forth protecting our vulnerable. Keep in mind it was a top down approach. Fed law first then states followed via law under the threat of loss of Byrne grants. IF AN IDEA SO GOOD WHY THE NEED FOR COERCION?

      From what I see NARSOL does not dispute the idea of protecting the vulnerable, it merely demands A RATIONAL APPCH. Preferably a social policy that works! So while electronic notification massages the peoples desire for the right to “know.” Such notification IS justifiable given that the information is accurate. IN THIS LIES THE RUB for me at least.

      SORNA says something but little of importance. SORNA made online notice of conviction and not actual behavior. In other words, it tells what the STATE
      DID and NOT what wrongful behavior actually committed – or exactly what behavior was done. Instead it leaves too much unsaid, leaving the facts to the imaginations of the public. Personally knowing what an know, I would prefer the trial transcript be open to the public via the database. In my eyes such an approach, would alleviate the unjustified stereotypical obfuscation used to impose affirmative disability and constraint. It would also prevent the cops
      local, county and fed from coming to my door demanding unreasonable search when a kid comes up missing near me. IT CANNOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE those not involved. This is the same as saying the collection of METADATA wholesale is unconstitutional, because it presumes too much.

Viewing 12 reply threads
Reply To: Supreme Court justices do botch the truth, even in cases of great importance
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">