-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Finally, a court that has not been intimidated by this administration.
- Thread starter SRBooe
- Start date
This is still an open case. It will finally be decided by the Supreme Court.
The judge's job is no in danger. He is there for life unless he commits a crime and I doubt that will happen. His decision may be overturned. Time will tell.
Coming from you, that is a compliment.
His nickname "Hang Em Harry" is a rather telling name. Also, it really does not seem that fairness or facts enter into, at least some of his decisions.
No apology implies, IMHO, no regrets that he sent an innocent man to jail.
No apology implies, IMHO, no regrets that he sent an innocent man to jail.
You are absoutely right - I think Michael Vick should have his conviction taken off the books, as Hudson was the the judge...
I find it hilarous that billwald and Crabby feel qualified to judge the judicial career and qualifications of Henry Hudson...
...on no more than a wikipedia article. :laugh:
As Michael Scott of "The Office" fame pointed out...
"Wikipedia is a website where anyone in the world can write anything that they want on any subject. And you just can't get better information than that."
No doubt Crabby and billwald believe that too. :laugh:
...on no more than a wikipedia article. :laugh:
As Michael Scott of "The Office" fame pointed out...
"Wikipedia is a website where anyone in the world can write anything that they want on any subject. And you just can't get better information than that."
No doubt Crabby and billwald believe that too. :laugh:
Tainted Judge Henry Hudson
Tar ... how do you like this quote:
Tar ... how do you like this quote:
Key phrase is "where Congress has the authority"
and Congress does NOT have the authority to mandate health care - along with hundreds of others programs they have enacted. Up until now, most folks have just rolled over and played dead with the philosophy that you cant beat City Hall. Looks like folks are beginning to wake up now.
and Congress does NOT have the authority to mandate health care - along with hundreds of others programs they have enacted. Up until now, most folks have just rolled over and played dead with the philosophy that you cant beat City Hall. Looks like folks are beginning to wake up now.
Using that line of reasoning - Congress could bring back slavery if they thought that it was necessary to make a regulation effective.
Do you agree that Congress has that power?
There you go again, trying to derail the thread. What is your opinion of "Hang Em Harry". Would you trust a judge who says his goal in life is putting people in prison? And, one who obviously ignored evidence in putting an innocent person in jail?
Do you really believe he is concerned with the Constitution or his own political philosophy?
The topic is the court decision that forcing citizens to buy insurance is uncontitutional.
Clean your glasses, Mr. Magoo.
Poor example as that was specifically refered to in the constitution. But I do get your point. Here is a better example: Suppose Congress passed a law that in addition to your state or Commonwealth vehicle registeration' you also had to have a national registration of your vehicles so in event of a national emergency, the govt would know which vehicles they could confiscate to meet federal needs.
Why would a guy named "Henry Hudson" be called "Hang em Harry" ?
And you tried to led it down another path. It is your modus operandi.
I stand by my first post. This is an open case and will finally be decided by the Supreme Court. The more I read about Hudson the more inclined I am to believe he will be overturned.
Actually I made a mistake. It was not/is not Hang Em Harry," it was/is "Hang Em High Harry." Now to your question, why would he be called that?
Would you trust a judge who made such a statement? And who sent an innocent man to jail even though there was strong evidence he was innocent?
And did he have a conflict of interest whereby he should have removed himself from the case?
Last edited by a moderator:
His name is HENRY.
It makes no sense to call him "Hang Em High Harry"
His name is not HARRY.
Clean those glasses !
Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
Actually I made a mistake. It was not/is not Hang Em Harry," it was/is "Hang Em High Harry." Now to your question, why would he be called that?
Actually, I was more pointing out that in your rush to condemn the man, playing along with Bill Wald's hijacking of the thread (something you dishonestly blame on other people), you overlooked an obvious fact. Your modus operandi. The truth is, he was approved for his post on the federal bench, after the episode you describe, so it seems the accusation is impotent.
Kinda like the sources you cite.
Actually I made a mistake. It was not/is not Hang Em Harry," it was/is "Hang Em High Harry." Now to your question, why would he be called that?
Actually, I was more pointing out that in your rush to condemn the man, playing along with Bill Wald's hijacking of the thread (something you dishonestly blame on other people), you overlooked an obvious fact. Your modus operandi. The truth is, he was approved for his post on the federal bench, after the episode you describe, so it seems the accusation is impotent.
Kinda like the sources you cite.
Last edited by a moderator:
So prove what is said wrong ... or are yu simply trying to derail the thread again, seeing as how you are not appearing rational in this thread.
Would you trust a judge with his track record, nickname, and appearance of disregarding evidence?