Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[giblets]

Again, why should anyone take your opinion seriously? You are completely unqualified and completely biased.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does it require a lawyer to gage the opinion of the supreme court? I'm relying on the history of the court, which in a more liberal court voted against Philly council back in 2000. That's a precedent.

Solomwi's only argument is that the 'issue is different now', presumably because settled precedent doesn't matter when it restricts liberal activist causes. What's next, overturning Roe? Doubtful.

[giblets]

Why does this require a lawyer? Because it's a legal issue. Why does it matter what a fundamentalist Christian with no legal expertise thinks? If this case didn't somehow involve people you are predisposed to hate you wouldn't even participate in this thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why does this require a lawyer? Because it's a legal issue.

[MikeH]

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's an argument from silence.

You do, btw, realize that the courts can't just rule on a case based on whatever legal claim they'd like, right? If a claim isn't asserted by the plaintiffs the court cannot rule upon it (and many SCOTUS decisions say that an analysis may be different under another claim, but since it wasn't asserted they can't address it).

So the fact that it wasn't raised is... significant. But what would I know, being a lawyer and all while talking on legal issues.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does it matter what a fundamentalist Christian with no legal expertise thinks? If this case didn't somehow involve people you are predisposed to hate you wouldn't even participate in this thread.

It obviously matters because you are here commenting. If you didn't care you wouldn't bother to comment.

Why does this require a lawyer? Because it's a legal issue.

So predicting how the supreme court will rule requires a lawyer?

I'd swear a historian who can gage by prior rulings and overall judicial philosophy is useless. Or perhaps that is our job...

[Ben Kenobi]

You do, btw, realize that the courts can't just rule on a case based on whatever legal claim they'd like, right?

Where did I say otherwise. That they chose not to file on that basis is significant. The question we are arguing over is what that significance is. Solomwi seems to think that not filing a claim means that any legal basis for the claim disappears. I'm arguing the opposite. I'm saying that even though the claim was not filed has nothing to do with whether or not a breach of contract exists. The breach is still there.

If a claim isn't asserted by the plaintiffs the court cannot rule upon it (and many SCOTUS decisions say that an analysis may be different under another claim, but since it wasn't asserted they can't address it).

Of course. But speculating as to whether a breach of contract exists, which is the topic we are discussing, doesn't rely on the plaintiff filing for breach of contract.

[Ming]

Why does this require a lawyer? Because it's a legal issue.

Why does it matter what a fundamentalist Christian with no legal expertise thinks?

While he is welcome to his opinion, it is obviously a wrong one since he has no real knowledge in the area of law, but thinks he knows more than real lawyers...

If this case didn't somehow involve people you are predisposed to hate you wouldn't even participate in this thread.

Soooooo true. Just another chance to continue his hate campaign... Jesus would be so ashamed of Ben.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course. But speculating as to whether a breach of contract exists, which is the topic we are discussing, doesn't rely on the plaintiff filing for breach of contract.

The fact they didn't claim it seems to be good evidence that there likely wasn't a valid breach of contract claim. Or that the lawyers just suck.

Either way, the Scouts are in trouble.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact they didn't claim it seems to be good evidence that there likely wasn't a valid breach of contract claim. Or that the lawyers just suck

That's all I'm saying. That piece of evidence in and of itself is insufficient to draw a logical conclusion on the merits of a breach of contract claim.

[Ming]

Or that the lawyers just suck.

Maybe they learned all they know about law from Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

I hope not. I'm not a lawyer, and I've made no pretensions to be one.

[giblets]

It obviously matters because you are here commenting. If you didn't care you wouldn't bother to comment.

No, I'm merely pointing out your complete lack of credibility because I'm amazed that a legal illiterate would spend six pages arguing with a lawyer about the law. But I'm not really surprised because it's sadly very common for fundamentalist Christians to delude themselves into thinking they know better than the experts in a field.

So predicting how the supreme court will rule requires a lawyer?

Yep, all you are capable of is pointing out that five of the justices lean right giving the boy scouts an advantage.

I'd swear a historian who can gage by prior rulings and overall judicial philosophy is useless. Or perhaps that is our job...

Stop calling yourself a historian. All you have is a bachelor's degree. If you want to make historians as a whole look bad you should at least earn it.

[Patroklos]

Apparently most people in this thread don't know what subsidize means. Its not happening here. Philly being taken for a sucker deal and whining about it is what is happening here.

Taking on the Boy Scouts is a loser deal anyway. Unless its an abuse case, most of the city officials prosecuting this are losing votes every day it goes on.