8 Supreme Court cases the justices have yet to rule on

JFC. Ignorance is bliss with you

Have a nice day

 

For the last time. BANKS are FEDERALLY REGULATED !!!!!!

FEDERALLY REGULATED AND INSURED !!!!!!

 

why don’t you provide the federal code then please

 

But the counterpoint to that, is that the larger the pools are, the higher the costs to the insurance companies. That's generally why insurance companies for instance had been reluctant to take on pre-existing conditions and elderly age. In my proposed reforms, you isolate those with pre-existing conditions and elderly age and give them their own pool. All of a sudden, they should be relatively covered without the costs of the lower group.

Likewise, for those of us who aren't elderly and/or with costly conditions, our health insurance has just gotten cheaper. Family plans for example are more expensive than individual plans. If we really want to cover everyone, the best way to go about it is to create more group pockets, so that everyone has their own space.

 

cool. what’s your point? that doesn’t mean they don’t apprise the values of property that people or businesses are using as collateral for a loan

 

So?

What is the prediction on the Trump Financial Records Decision?

5-4 (with Roberts joining the Conservatives)?

 

Sounds like a win for religious freedom.

 

As stated earlier, there's an overarching amendment that provides clear precedence: The fourth Amendment of the constitution. We citizens are allowed our private documents and property that can't be searched or seized without a warrant. The precedence in law is on the President's side on this issue. So I think it's a 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 or 6-3 decision. The law is just simply what it is.

 

yes the court took some major shots at the leftwings war on people of faith

 

Even if your legal opinion is correct, you still can’t lie about what the money was used for....like claiming it’s a retainer when it’s repaying a loan.

 

So you think scotus will rule that grand juries no longer have subpoena power?? Lmao
And that congress no longer does also??

 

Take a look at this site. It is a company that provides assessment of properties for both lenders and real estate investors. Lenders generally include banks since they do loans.

LINK: Property Condition Assessments

So, if the two parties involved (in this case Trump and a Bank) have their property assessed by two different assessors then it is going to come up with two different values. Just depends on what each assessor looks at. Once the two parties present their assessment to each other from their respective assessors then they come to an agreement on the value. This happens all the time. Banks DO have a company assess property value.

 

retainers include covering expenses for representation

 

Or maybe its both?

 

Then quit using health insurance and pay your own medical bills

You won't be paying foranyone else then

 

LOL, so you don't agree that increased use of birth control leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies !!! LOL....Typical righty reasoning...

 

I made no comment on that matter. I was simply stating the fact that Guttmacher is a deeply-biased organization. To try to use them in a debate with one's political opponents is inviting skepticism and disbelief. Pick a more credible source if you want to be taken seriously. That's all I'm saying.

If we were discussing the #BLM riots, and I referred to the police union's take on things, you'd be justified in treating their claims with considerable skepticism. Citing Guttmacher in an abortion debate is like that.

 

LOL!!!
So, as I posted :
FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL, so you don't agree that increased use of birth control leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies !!! LOL....Typical righty ""reasoning""..


You claim Guttmacher is wrong but can't say why or present any evidence to the contrary...

Do you believe using less birth control would not increase the number of unwanted pregnancies ?

 

No, I didn't claim they were "wrong". That seems to be the part you aren't grasping. I claimed they were very biased. And they are. That's a fact.

 

Grand juries can subponea witnesses and documents relative to the case(IE: There must be a case docket, and then it must be relative to said case) anything that's not relevant falls under a fourth amendment protection where it will lose.

I'm fully expecting the court to rule that these illegal attempts to seize private property of person Donald Trump are illegal. It'd be illegal to seize your documents or mine in the same manner.

 

One case is a grand jury subpoena....how is that illegal?

 

Again, the key is that the information has to be relevant to the case docket in question. If it isn't relevant, then it flies in the face of the fourth amendment of the constitution. Let's take warrants as another example, warrants(typically) specify the place and thing searched, not the whole house(again, unless otherwise specified). If a warrant said look in AmericanNationalist's room, and instead they looked inside a vehicle I owned, they violated the warrant and anything they'd obtain from that would be null and void.

Same thing here, the fourth amendment is clear.

 

How is it not relevant? What do you think the case is about?

 

That STILL does NOT make what they wrote wrong....how TF is it biased???

 

YES they hire their own appraiser. The value is SUBJECTIVE. If they submitted fake books that's a different matter than his tax returns.