Child Support Payback

[Fearandloathing]

Thank you for your opinion. You have presented no evidence to support your opinion so it is dismissed

ah....


Neither have you.

I don't see any 'case law' cited, meaning the cases that actually changed the law into what it is today. You're cherry picking cases that support your argument.

 

[Removable Mind]

Thank you for your opinion. You have presented no evidence to support your opinion so it is dismissed

I will not be your legal researcher. And there’s no use in wasting my time posting citations that you won’t understand the legal significance. You will do what you always do and claim the courts are wrong and civil rights are being violated. And you’ll post irrelevant opinions and citations.

So good luck on your quest.

 

[vegas giants]

ah....


Neither have you.

I don't see any 'case law' cited, meaning the cases that actually changed the law into what it is today. You're cherry picking cases that support your argument.

I’m not sure what you mean. I cited the Dubray case as a model based on the 14th amendment that should go to scotus

 

[Bodi]

I believe I listed several examples of the court making the WRONG decision on civil rights cases. I'm sure of you were Dred Scott's attorney you would have advised him he has no case. And he didn't at the time. Yet that changed....just like lots of civil rights cases. But the constitutional merits of a male opt out are crystal clear to me.

What is hilarious is that the Judge literally insulted Dubay then slapped him with all legal/court fees as a punishment. Take that man who challenges rights!!

 

[Removable Mind]

ah....


Neither have you.

I don't see any 'case law' cited, meaning the cases that actually changed the law into what it is today. You're cherry picking cases that support your argument.

His citations are only used to illustrate that courts have erred in past civil rights decisions so therefore (in his opinion) men’s lacking the right to opt out of financial obligation (child support) is also an error on the part of the courts to recognize equality for men. Consequently, men’s civil rights are being violated.

The citations that VG has cherry picked isn’t relevant to the issue that VG claims to validate his arguments.

 

[vegas giants]

His citations are only used to illustrate that courts have erred in past civil rights decisions so therefore (in his opinion) men’s lacking the right to opt out of financial obligation (child support) is also an error on the part of the courts to recognize equality for men. Consequently, men’s civil rights are being violated.

The citations that VG has cherry picked isn’t relevant to the issue that VG claims to valid his arguments.

Your claims are again dismissed for lack of evidence

 

[Removable Mind]

What is hilarious is that the Judge literally insulted Dubay then slapped him with all legal/court fees as a punishment. Take that man who challenges rights!!

Duybay had consulting legal help from a national men’s rights group that assisted his attorney in creating the argument presented to The District Court. It was an old Constitutional argument that had repeatedly failed. That was a bad decision on his legal teams part.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s summary judgment.

Do you understand “Formal Equality”?

 

[Removable Mind]

Your claims are again dismissed for lack of evidence

:lol: Ask me if I care. Sorry, I’m not going to be your legal researcher and provide you with citations that you won’t understand.

 

[Fearandloathing]

His citations are only used to illustrate that courts have erred in past civil rights decisions so therefore (in his opinion) men’s lacking the right to opt out of financial obligation (child support) is also an error on the part of the courts to recognize equality for men. Consequently, men’s civil rights are being violated.

The citations that VG has cherry picked isn’t relevant to the issue that VG claims to valid his arguments.

It appears to be weirdness day at DP; the week end come early.

I should have known, yesterday a guy actually tried to tell me Trump never mocked a disabled reporter.

Right, and the pope doesn't wear women's clothes

 

[Bodi]

Do you understand “Formal Equality”?

Yes. The idea that we are all treated fairly before the law but that this really isn't possible either.

 

[Bodi]

Duybay had consulting legal help from a national men’s rights group that assisted his attorney in creating the argument presented to The District Court. It was an old Constitutional argument that had repeatedly failed. That was a bad decision on his legal teams part.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s summary judgment.

That is irrelevant and anybody that knows about the courts know that a judge can whip out precedents all day long to support their bias.

 

[vegas giants]

:lol: Ask me if I care. Sorry, I’m not going to be your legal researcher and provide you with citations that you won’t understand.

Do you care? LOL

I accept your concession graciously.

 

[vegas giants]

Duybay had consulting legal help from a national men’s rights group that assisted his attorney in creating the argument presented to The District Court. It was an old Constitutional argument that had repeatedly failed. That was a bad decision on his legal teams part.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s summary judgment.

Do you understand “Formal Equality”?

I again see no evidence for this claim.

 

[Lursa]

I understand. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using that argument agaist a man...

There's no such hypocrisy.

Equality as a concept is based on morality.

And there is no morality in allowing men to opt-out before birth because they, as individuals, knowlingly took a risk and should accept the consequences of that risk. By no means is there any higher morality in forcing that burden onto taxpayers and leading to less for children.

So it's a non-starter that your argument is not based on morality.

The morality of the responsible people paying for the kid they knowingly risked creating is outweighed by the injustice it forces on others innocent of that creation.

 

[vegas giants]

There's no such hypocrisy.

Equality as a concept is based on morality.

And there is no morality in allowing men to opt-out before birth because they, as individuals, knowlingly took a risk and should accept the consequences of that risk. By no means is there any higher morality in forcing that burden onto taxpayers and leading to less for children.

So it's a non-starter that your argument is not based on morality.

The morality of the responsible people paying for the kid they knowingly risked creating is outweighed by the injustice it forces on others innocent of that creation.

It is absolutley immoral for a woamn to bring a child into this world she can not afford and then just steal monthly wages from the man who will have no part in that kids life. That is horrible for the kid, the mother, the man and society. She is making a completely immoral choice and wants to be incentized for it.

 

[Lursa]

I hear ya.

So what argument can you create to reverse or remedy those hypocrisies...that the powers that are will make serious consideration?

You’ve journeyed into a REPAY remedy. I’d like to see that idea developed. I threw in my 2 cents worth to get that idea rolling. So you and others can use my thoughts as a spring board to develop a specific solution that might have enough merit to be heard by Congress and the S.C. Or take the premise in a totally different direction???

Minors arent equal under the law.

For the betterment/protection of society, those that break the law are not treated equally. For example, criminals may be jailed (lose the right to liberty) or be fined.

Pretty much everyone here has acknowledged that what's best for the child is in the best interests of society as well.

Affirmative Action enables minorities to be considered MORE than whites for some jobs. Those laws are intentionally not equal, for the betterment of society.

Equality is not THE priority of every law.

 

[vegas giants]

Minors arent equal under the law.

For the betterment/protection of society, those that break the law are not treated equally. For example, criminals may be jailed (lose the right to liberty) or be fined.

Pretty much everyone here has acknowledged that what's best for the child is in the best interests of society as well.

Affirmative Action enables minorities to be considered MORE than whites for some jobs. Those laws are intentionally not equal, for the betterment of society.

Equality is not THE priority of every law.

The goal is to level the playing field. To make opportunities as equal as possible. It is not to allow women to be incentivized for making an immoral choice that is bad for kids

 

[Bodi]

There's no such hypocrisy.

Equality as a concept is based on morality.

And there is no morality in allowing men to opt-out before birth because they, as individuals, knowlingly took a risk and should accept the consequences of that risk. By no means is there any higher morality in forcing that burden onto taxpayers and leading to less for children.

So it's a non-starter that your argument is not based on morality.

The morality of the responsible people paying for the kid they knowingly risked creating is outweighed by the injustice it forces on others innocent of that creation.

This:

It is absolutley immoral for a woamn to bring a child into this world she can not afford and then just steal monthly wages from the man who will have no part in that kids life. That is horrible for the kid, the mother, the man and society. She is making a completely immoral choice and wants to be incentized for it.

 

[Lursa]

Yes. The idea that we are all treated fairly before the law but that this really isn't possible either.

You had continually written this was not about morality. Fairness is about morality.

But I'll go with it. How do you justify not treating the children or taxpayers fairly if there were to be a male opt-out before birth?

 

[vegas giants]

You had continually written this was not about morality. Fairness is about morality.

But I'll go with it. How do you justify not treating the children or taxpayers fairly if there were to be a male opt-out before birth?

How is it treating the taxpayers and children fairly by incentivizing a woamn to bring a child into the world she can not afford?

 

[Lursa]

This:

I dont like that women can do that without regarding the man. (I also dont believe that is the case in the majority of cases)

But you dont double-down on immoral to fix it.

Like I wrote previously, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

 

[Lursa]

How is it treating the taxpayers and children fairly by incentivizing a woamn to bring a child into the world she can not afford?

LOLOLOL

The opt-out for men would do the exact opposite of what you just described! It would encourage men to continue to have sex with no regard for the consequences!


Muchas muchas gracias!

 

[Bodi]

You had continually written this was not about morality. Fairness is about morality.

But I'll go with it. How do you justify not treating the children or taxpayers fairly if there were to be a male opt-out before birth?

Do you oppose Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and food and nutrition programs (SNAP), Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, and Medicare??

 

[vegas giants]

LOLOLOL

The opt-out for men would do the exact opposite of what you just described! It would encourage men to continue to have sex with no regard for the consequences!


Muchas muchas gracias!

RIGHT NOW we incentivize a woman bringing a child into the world she can not afford. How is this fair to the taxpayers?

 

[Bodi]

LOLOLOL

The opt-out for men would do the exact opposite of what you just described! It would encourage men to continue to have sex with no regard for the consequences!


Muchas muchas gracias!

Women are stupid enough to go along with being treated like that?