Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum Lounge European British Aussie MMA Classic Training
Go Back   East Side Boxing Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

 
  


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2012, 11:57 AM   #76
Hermit
BUM
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bumfuck, Egypt
Posts: 22,744
vCash: 1098
Default Re: Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishny View Post
Government should be involved with as little as is humanly possible.
The point is you have 51 government commissions now. Some, like Texas, setting the lowest standards possible to attract dollars with NO concern for the fighters. How does a legitimate commission even sanction something like Pavlik against Jacko?
Hermit is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-30-2012, 11:57 AM   #77
Juiceboxbiotch
One Ton Project
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,823
vCash: 372
Default Re: Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishny View Post
Government should be involved with as little as is humanly possible.
I'm sick of Boxing being the wild west of sports.
Juiceboxbiotch is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 12:00 PM   #78
Slothrop
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Zone
Posts: 10,689
vCash: 1195
Default Re: Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama View Post
If the Supreme Court held itself to Stare Decisis it wouldn't have decided Citizens the way it did. If stare decisis is the goal then there would be no overturning of precedent and the Court has routinely engaged in that action.

So your claim is wrong on its face sloth, especially when you look at the Robert's court.

My look at the court is a realist position, grounded in being informed of the history of the court and its actions. You clearly are ignoring reality to take the stance you are now taking.

Roberts breakdown of Romney care, which he ruled as a tax instead of a mandate, which it is shows clearly that the man cowered in the face of a political decision and took the easy way out. That said, he didn't make the decision based on stare decisis or established precedent, he dodged the issue presented to the court entirely.
You're wrong here. Again. Roberts' decision was based upon institutional, rather than political concerns. Your "look at the court" is not a realist position; it's vulgar, common, layman, half-learned cynicism. Again, you don't know nearly as much about this stuff as you claim. That much is patently obvious.

As I said, I could pull case after case after case showing the more "activist" justices on the current Court binding themselves to stare decisis. I could eventually cure you of your ignorance, but there is no curing idiocy.
Slothrop is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

East Side Boxing Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump








All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
East Side Boxing Forum 2001-2013