ThinkFast: December 26, 2006
ThinkFast: December 26, 2006
“President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.”
“Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth.” Some uninhabited islands have been covered in recent years, but disappearance of Lohachara, an island off the coast of India that was “once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.”
British and Iraqi soldiers raided a police station in Basra on Monday, uncovering “appalling” detainee conditions. “More than 100 men were crowded into a single cell, 30 feet by 40 feet, he said, with two open toilets… A significant number showed signs of torture. Some had crushed hands and feet…, while others had cigarette and electrical burns and a significant number had gunshot wounds to their legs and knees.”
“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.” Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County “soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years.”
Sitting Missouri Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. has published a book claiming to “expose the liberal judicial assault.” The first chapter, which has circulated online, “frequently uses the term ‘femifascists.’” Lawyers and judges believe “Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit.” Dierker’s book roll-out begins with a Bill O’Reilly interview next week.
“Ethiopian warplanes attacked the airport in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, on Monday in another major escalation of fighting between the Ethiopian-backed Somali government and the Islamic Courts movement that in recent months has taken over much of the country.”
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, “a vocal abortion opponent, charged a well-known abortion provider with illegally performing late-term abortions, but a Sedgwick County judge yesterday threw out the charges after less than a day.” Kline lost his reelection bid and leaves office in three weeks.
“The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded without little competition.”
“The pouty Bratz dolls so popular as Christmas presents are made at a factory in southern China where workers are obliged to toil up to 94 hours a week, among other violations,” a new report finds. “Calls to the China-based spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a main distributor of the dolls, went unanswered Friday.”
And finally: “It’s come to this,” writes Kevin Drum Steve Benen. “Expectations for the president have fallen so low, the New York Times devoted an entire piece to Bush’s recent claim that he read a newspaper article.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If Bush and his cadre of lawyers believe that they will stall investigations and requests for documents illustrating the "truth" to the american people, he's got another thought coming! The people will be out in the streets for him to resign immediately as well as his complicit attorneys to be pitched into jail.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am“President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.â€
I remember Bush was advised to "laywer up" a while ago. Should Congress use their valuable time to do all of this? I think much of it is necessary, to let future Administrations know where the lines are.
And finally, goodbye James Brown, you made a huge impression on me.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:54 amHow can one have any expections of someone psychiatrically compromised who refuses to be diagnosed and take meds for it? How can one have any expectations of one whose reading material is topped by My Pet Goat - while thousands of americans were driven to their death? (by the way, he didn't even raise an eyebrow from his reading when the secret service whispered in his ear about the second attack - he knew about the first attach before he decided to go in to do his remedial reading....
Sadly, the people of this country cannot even expect the truth from a president who has lied repeatedly to the american people. This democracy is now built on lies - it will not survive unless/until the truth is brought to the light of day so the people can heal from the damage which has been done and move forward.
The first rung on the ladder of healing for the american people is the impeachment of a president who is totally out of touch with any sense of moral responsibility to the people he represents (fiscal responsibility, truth, and all the rest nonwithstanding)....
January is the "time of renewal" and this country is badly in need of repair, resurrection and renewal....Let's all make it our New Year's resolution to rid this country of the "enemy within" in as swift and as respectable way we know possible which is "impeachment". It's been done before and for much, much lower stakes and lesser crimes and misdemeanors.
We've got "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the truckload here and it's "time for Bush to go".
December 26th, 2006 at 11:56 am"Lawyer Up, big boy" - you're going to need all the help you can get; unfortunately, you're looking for it in all the wrong places....AA and a good shrink is really what you need these days.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:57 amSitting Missouri Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. has published a book claiming to “expose the liberal judicial assault.†The first chapter, which has circulated online, “frequently uses the term ‘femifascists.’†Lawyers and judges believe “Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit.†Dierker’s book roll-out begins with a Bill O’Reilly interview next week.
From the Carpetbagger article: In a disclaimer at the end of the book, Dierker writes that the views in the book are “personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me.â€
Uh huh.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:58 amI sense an avalanche of appeals of Judge Dierker's decisions...
“President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.â€
GWB bracing himself -- works for me.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:59 amKansas Attorney General Phill Kline, “a vocal abortion opponent, charged a well-known abortion provider with illegally performing late-term abortions, but a Sedgwick County judge yesterday threw out the charges after less than a day.†Kline lost his reelection bid and leaves office in three weeks.
From the article: [The abortions] "were performed on patients 22 years old or younger, including a 10-year-old, according to the criminal complaint unsealed yesterday in Sedgwick County District Court."
And those private medical records were obtained how? Idiot.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pmTime to throw out the trash. Bye Kline.
“It’s come to this,†writes Kevin Drum. “Expectations for the president have fallen so low, the New York Times devoted an entire piece to Bush’s recent claim that he read a newspaper article.â€
TP, where is the thread on this? It's exptremely important!
December 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pmGWB READ A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE!!
Let's see how all of this affect's Dubya's all-important legacy - how many deaths is his administration responsible for? Tally up 9/11 and the Iraq deaths to date, along with the deaths of the innocent Iraqis and I'll bet he has Herod, The Great, Napoleon, Nero, and all of the tyrants and dictators ever to have lived beat!! How can the people tolerate this to continue?
And now he's asking for more of our children and family members to kill? I don't think so!
December 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pm“President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.â€
The one time when I will be happy to hear that a Democratic Reprsentative has lied to the people will be if Nancy Pelosi pursues Impeachment (which she said she wouldn't do).
If anything in our history of Presidents actually warrants this - it is George Bush's plethora of illegal actions - including the violation of international law that prevents invasion of a soverign nation simply for the purposes of instilling a regime change.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI sense an avalanche of appeals of Judge Dierker’s decisions…
Comment by Zooey
And an administrative noogie.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pmKline's obvious one of those hypocritical "pro lifers" who will break laws, kill doctors and medical personnel and still spew bullshit from their mouths about how "pro-life" they really are! Hah! Kline's nothing more than a common hypocrite, liar and cheat. Good think he's being run out office. Now he needs to be run "into" the nearest prison.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:08 pmYesterday, the number of Americans killed in Iraq surpassed the number of those killed on 9/11. How bitterly ironic...
Bush is officially worse for America than Osama bin Laden.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:08 pmAnd finally, goodbye James Brown, you made a huge impression on me.
Comment by ForTruth — December 26, 2006 @ 11:54 am
Amen
December 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pm[. . .]including a 10-year-old,[. . .]
Giving birth would be more potentially damaging to a ten year old than a partial birth abortion!
December 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pmAnd an administrative noogie.
Comment by barfly
You better believe it, since the court administrator is going to have to figure out which judges will hear the appeals, without being conflicted out -- a nightmare.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pmGiving birth would be more potentially damaging to a ten year old than a partial birth abortion!
Comment by barfly
Anyone who would allow a pregnancy in a 10 year old to progress to the point of needing a late term abortion should be put in prison, along with the criminal who impregnated the child. Even going halfway through a pregnancy would be damaging to that child, I would think.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis is sad. You guys really think Democrats are going to try to impeach Bush. Keep dreaming. Even if they investigate they will find nothing wrong because all of Bush's crimes have been dreamed up by people like you.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pmPrediction: Investigations will happen. They will find nothing. Hippies on this web site will complain about how Democrats should be thrown out of office for covering up for Bush. You will still vote for Democrats in '08 anyway.
The first chapter, which has circulated online, “frequently uses the term ‘femifascists.’â€
Let's examine this coining of yet another ridiculous conservative oxymoron...
Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Sounds like opposites to me. Feminism seeks to make women equal. Fascism seeks to make women servants. Can't combine them...
December 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm“The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded without little competition.â€
Is it just me, or did the Associated Press fail to proofread this article before people started quoting it?
Shouldn't that last line read "awarded with little competition."?
Sorry, but when a typo changes the meaning to the opposite of what you were trying to say, then it shouldn't be allowed to slip through. And this wasn't TP's error; the original article was written like this.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:22 pmGiving birth would be more potentially damaging to a ten year old than a partial birth abortion!
Comment by barfly — December 26, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Who the hell has sex with a ten year old? That's disgusting.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:22 pmSounds like opposites to me. Feminism seeks to make women equal. Fascism seeks to make women servants. Can’t combine them…
Comment by unbelievable
But I think it's SO special that he did. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#10. I honestly do not think that the Democratic leadership is going to overtly pursue impeachment of the president and or Vice President. I think that they willl use the investigative/oversight process to expose the wrong doings and to build public support. Once the public support is there they will go for it and take the route the people have demanded. If not that they may hold it over GDub'shead like his own damoclese sword and thhreaten to cut the hair holding up impeachment in order for the president to cooperate.
Either way these impending invvestigations are going to be interesting. The republicans set up some nice precidents and ground rules when they investigated every aspect of Clinton's life. Now the very rules they established are going to bite them in the ass. Ov course the loyal 30% know that a blow job is a far worse offense than governing incompetantly or robbing the treasury or illegal wars etc...
December 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThe lists are too long to include. Here's some links:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002175.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001918.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000517.php
Nothing to hide? What about this guy?
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm
Be prepared to read that every Congressional investigation, indeed every question, will be met with a "National Security/State Secret" argument. The media will play up the argument, going on the offensive against the Democrats for "helping the terrorists" with the investigations.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pm“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.†Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County “soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years.â€
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for GHW Bush and his CIA-protected Heroine flights.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmbecause all of Bush’s crimes have been dreamed up by people like you.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
We dreamed the Invasion of Iraq? Whew! Good to know...
Because otherwise, it's illegal to invade a sovereign nation for pre-emptive attacks or regime change. It's also illegal to wiretap American citizens without court approval. And he didn't stop there... oh no, that one has violated over 70 different national and international laws. Read some books and turn off the FAUX "News" Channel.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pm“The pouty Bratz dolls so popular as Christmas presents are made at a factory in southern China where workers are obliged to toil up to 94 hours a week, among other violations,†a new report finds.
Stories like this always make me wonder just what the heck the average Chinese worker thinks of Americans as they toil day and night for peanuts to make this crap and useless junk for the American consumer. I am sure they resent the Chinese corporations but if you look at the heroin story and this one....we are the consumers of the products that these people make and both products are useless and/or harmful to us. Makes you wonder.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#18 mandolin,
I hate to have to disagree with your comments, but I believe that among the many things you will likely hear about today (if you can come back and check), there's the $700,000,000 which Congress authorized for use in fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan (2002) which President Bush had diverted to begin planning the incvasion of Iraq (something for which Congress did NOT authorize money being spent.) This alone is one impeachable offense. There are many more.
It's not a question of whether or not grounds could be found for a successful impeachment. It's just a question of whether or not Speaker-Elect Pelosi has the courage to stand up for what the Constitution stands for, let the investigations begin, and see where they take us. If the result of the investigations justify impeachment, then they have an obligation to proceed with it. Just because the Republicans abandoned principle and common sense to pointlessly impeach the former president does not mean that we think ALL impeachments are a bad idea. And if Republicans really do believe that lying under oath about a personal affair is grounds for impeachment, then lying to the Congress and the nation to begin a war of choice should be grounds for capital punishment (except that the founders wisely took this option away from impeachment.)
December 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pmIf there was a way to make femifascism work, I'd like to see it.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIt’s just a question of whether or not Speaker-Elect Pelosi has the courage to stand up for what the Constitution stands for, let the investigations begin, and see where they take us
Am I to believe that Democrats know anything about the Constitution? Your track records on supporting the constitution are a bit lacking(dare I say non-existant) Stop putting Breyers on the Supreme court and we can talk about the Constitution.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pmBut I think it’s SO special that he did. :)
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Specials as in Special Ed perhaps...
December 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pmWhat do you guys have to say about the advance of the Ethiopian army against Islamists in Somolia. Your buddies are getting their asses handed to them. Why the silence on this here?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:38 pmHmmm?
This, from a person who had an oil supertanker named after her….
December 26th, 2006 at 12:38 pmIf there was a way to make femifascism work, I’d like to see it.
Comment by ForTruth
It think it might involve some black leather and whips....but I am not sure.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:38 pmWhat if the same thing happens to Florida?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:39 pmwe are the consumers of the products that these people make and both products are useless and/or harmful to us. Makes you wonder.
Comment by dlet — December 26, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Another thing I gave up :) It hurt to know that I was contributing to that system.
It's amazing how true liberty seems to come most from rejecting everything the American Dream tells you that you should want...
The largest manmade structure in the world is in America. It is the "Fresh Kills" landfill in Staten Island, New York - and it ironically and mockingly dwarfs its neighbor - the Statue of Liberty.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pmI'm bummed my Islamic bretheren are getting thier stinky-hairy asses handed to them.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:42 pmBriseadh na Faire ,
December 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pmYour Islamic buddies are getting their asses handed to them by Ethiopia. Any comments on that?
Comment by dlet
That's where my twisted mind was going.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pmApparently, this judge has imbided too much of the Faux News crap, and it has resulted his brain death. Too bad. That is what happens with too much exposure to fake news and exposure to Hannity, O'Lielly and the rest of that bunch of wingnuts.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pmBriseadh: "What if the same thing happens to Florida?"
The people of south Florida can capture Rush Limbaugh, secure him with ropes and pontoons, and float north to the coast of Georgia.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pmThis, from a person who had an oil supertanker named after her….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I hope that empty vessel sinks -- and the supertanker, too.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pmHomework assignment
Who has the power to prosecute a war?
What is the Legislative branch for?
What is the Judicial branch for?
I want all of you to read the Fedaralist Papers tonight and at least 3 of Scalia's Opinions. Then we can START to talk about the Constitution.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:45 pmBritish and Iraqi soldiers raided a police station in Basra on Monday, uncovering “appalling†detainee conditions. “More than 100 men were crowded into a single cell, 30 feet by 40 feet, he said, with two open toilets… A significant number showed signs of torture. Some had crushed hands and feet…, while others had cigarette and electrical burns and a significant number had gunshot wounds to their legs and knees.â€
Were these the police supported and trained by BushCo to provide security for the Iraqis?...the guys who are supposed to stand up so we can stand down? Is this how life is better than it was under Saddam's rule?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pmIf not that they may hold it over GDub’shead like his own damoclese sword and thhreaten to cut the hair holding up impeachment in order for the president to cooperate.
That did seem to be the inferences of their pre-election strategy. That they could manipulate him to accomplish things.
Unfortunately, his ego is so immense that I think he will cut his own throat before cave in...
Now the very rules they established are going to bite them in the ass.
Don't you just love karma... (Not in a literal sense)
Ov course the loyal 30% know that a blow job is a far worse offense than governing incompetantly or robbing the treasury or illegal wars etc…
Comment by Mark — December 26, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
LOL
December 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI want all of you to read the Fedaralist Papers tonight and at least 3 of Scalia’s Opinions. Then we can START to talk about the Constitution.
Comment by mandolin
F*ck you.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pmGo Ethiopia. Unlike this country, Europe or Israel they know how to take on the Islamo-Fascists! I wonder when you Lefty clowns will organize protests ate the Ethiopian embassy. Will the Council on American Islamic Relations make a statement on Ethiopian agression?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pmGo Ethiopia kick some Muslim butt and make the Lefties upset!
Dr. Dre, maybe the reason nobody is responding is that you are referring to Islamists as "our buddies." Just a thought. Why don't you try a different, less moronic approach.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pmAm I to believe that Democrats know anything about the Constitution? Your track records on supporting the constitution are a bit lacking(dare I say non-existant) Stop putting Breyers on the Supreme court and we can talk about the Constitution.
Comment by mandolin
Okay, perhaps you should have some facts at your disposal. Not all liberals are Democrats, and not all us support everything the Democratic Party does. I am a liberal, but I am not a Democrat. I am registered to vote as an independent.
Secondly, could you kindly explain what putting Justice Breyers on the court has to do with the fact that there are a number of impeachable offenses (of which I gave one example) for which this president can be tried? That struck me as a non sequitor.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:49 pmComment by Banjo
1. The Executive
2.Passing laws
3. Interpreting laws
Did I miss something?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:49 pmBluedog49,
December 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pmThe reason no one saying anything is because you guys are waiting marching orders from C.A.I.R, NY Times and George Soros on what to say.
The New Republic offers a window into the soul of Kansas Republican Senator and 2008 White House hopeful Sam Brownback.
The most illuminating nugget in Noam Scheiber's piece may be the themes of victimization and inferiority that underlay the rage and seething of red state crusaders Brownback represents. As Scheiber details, Brownback offers up a 21st century version of the elite blue state bogeyman sneering at his slack-jawed brethren in America's heartland...
For the details, see:
December 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pm"Brownback on the Red-Blue Divide."
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 11:58 am
And the groups most likely to appeal, be they plaintiffs or defendants are:
"[L]awyers in St. Louis have already noted that they could cite the book in demanding recusals on issues involving women, liberals, or the ACLU, because he’s made clear that he’s not impartial and has already made up his mind about these Americans he perceives as enemies."
December 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pmBluedog49,
I wasn't responding to Dr Dre because he seems like a pretty f*cking stupid troll.
But that's just me, maybe the other commenters have better reasons.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pmWho the hell has sex with a ten year old? That’s disgusting.
Comment by unbelievable
In the poorest areas of Buenos Aires there are bum neighborhoods called villas like villages. These are houses made of newspaper, aluminium plates and bricks. It is a common practice that parents abuse sexually their children including, yeah, 10 y/o victims.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:51 pmIs this how life is better than it was under Saddam’s rule?
Comment by Mr Diddy Wah Diddy
Democracy is useless in a country made of ignorant masses of people...or unwilling to change.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:53 pmIf there was a way to make femifascism work, I’d like to see it.
Comment by ForTruth — December 26, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
To quote Hugh Grant "I bet you would you dirty bitch"... :D
Think Dominatrix - but with a testosteronely brutish manly woman (since women by nature are generally more pacifistic than men due to 1/20th the amount of testosterone).
Sorry you went there yet? :)
December 26th, 2006 at 12:54 pmIt is a common practice that parents abuse sexually their children including, yeah, 10 y/o victims.
Comment by Juan C
You don't have to be in a villa in Buenos Aires to find that sort of thing. Just sayin'
December 26th, 2006 at 12:57 pm“Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth.â€
December 26th, 2006 at 12:59 pmMichael Crichton will say that the island sank. Due to the weight of the dinosaurs.
But that’s just me, maybe the other commenters have better reasons.
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Nope, you pretty much covered it.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pmMichael Crichton will say that the island sank. Due to the weight of the dinosaurs.
Comment by Juan C
Heh.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pmJust sayin’
Comment by Zooey
I know but I was refering to the common practice. No denounces no police investigation no nothing.
How are you? Anxious about college? :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pmGo Ethiopia kick some Muslim butt and make the Lefties upset!
Comment by Dr. Dre
This is, another reason, why we dont answer, Bluedog.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:03 pmMichael Crichton will say that the island sank. Due to the weight of the dinosaurs.
Comment by Juan C — December 26, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Your are hilarious Juan... That was great!
December 26th, 2006 at 1:03 pmHey Mandolin, here's a homework assignment for you. 1. Please find in our constitution or on any page of the Federalist Papers a cogent argument defending the concept of "the Unitary Executive" and 2. Explain why the founders enumerated the Legislative Branch FIRST in the Constitution.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:03 pmZooey and Unbelievable: I like to at least take a stab at it. Otherwise, they just think we're too dumbfounded by their astounding intellect. Once or twice, though, that's it. I promise.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI know but I was refering to the common practice. No denounces no police investigation no nothing.
Isn't that disgusting? I was involved in a case whick was dismissed because the 3 year old was incompetent to testify. Freebie!! Ugh.
How are you? Anxious about college? :)
Comment by Juan C
I am well. The rain has dissolved the snow, so that's upsetting. :)
I'm not anxious about college at all! It's still 2 weeks away, so maybe it will kick in -- probably about the time I realize I'm older than my Anthropology professor. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pm“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.â€
Ahhh, it seems like it was yesterday when CIA filled with cocaine the US poor black neighborhoods to finance Contras...now its heroine. These guys are creative.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:07 pmOk Manndolin, so tell me who exacly have we declared war on lately? If the executive branch runs wars, who have we declared war on?
Why don't you pick three Scalia opinions for me to read? You can choose concurances and dissenting opinions too if you like. While you are at it, why not expound on Scalia's judicial views, his view of the constitution and exactly how the Gore/Bush case in 2000 fell into line with his view points? Also I thinka short essay on how Scalia's view that the constitution is static iis in sync with guys like say, Hamilton who viewd the document he helped create as being a document that can change with the times? Or how Scalia's viewpoint jibes with the founders viewpoint that new rights not expicitly stated in the original constitution may be discovered in the future?
Whhy not lay out your position rather than throw idle dumb comments around like you are an instructor on the paper chase?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:11 pmFrom the Federalist papers:
And so it continues, even to this day.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pmprobably about the time I realize I’m older than my Anthropology professor. :)
Comment by Zooey
My mother started her psychology Bachelor program when she was 38 and with my little brother in arms. That was like 20 years ago. So dont worry about that. You will blast the class Im sure of that.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:15 pm(since women by nature are generally more pacifistic than men due to 1/20th the amount of testosterone).
Comment by unbelievable
You've apparently never met a woman whose child is being threatened. No need to wait for the testosterone to get pumped up, it's pure adreneline.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI started law school at 47...so, yes, I was older than some of my professors. But unless you're planning on dating your Anthropology professor, age shouldn't be a problem.
;-)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pmYou will blast the class Im sure of that.
Comment by Juan C
Thanks Juan, you're a sweetie. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pmYour mom sounds like a great lady.
“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.†Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County “soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years.â€
December 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pmCIA BONUSES HAVE TRIPLED THEN
Impeachment is useless, there simply aren't enough votes in the Senate to convict. Tying him up in hearing after hearing while in the process getting all the dirt on the record is a much more productive use of Congressional authority.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:27 pmPresident Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts
This is good . . .
Considering who he's appointed / hired in the past and how well they have performed, these lawyers probably have plenty of experience at . . . . . I don't know . . . . fishing maybe ?
It is a pleasure to know this guy awakes every day to a Democratic-led Congress. He's currently aging at a tremendous pace and will be checked into re-hab by next summer.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm(since women by nature are generally more pacifistic than men due to 1/20th the amount of testosterone).
Comment by unbelievable
You know, I have my doubts. Silly example: men think better when engaging into a fight with another men. But women dont hesitate when it comes to fight another woman. Of course, you dont see women fihgting as much as men fight, but I think, and this is a personal opinion, that women care less about engaging a fight against other women. My girlfriend used to be a complete bully against other women :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pmZooey and Unbelievable: I like to at least take a stab at it.
I wholly support you on this. After all, most of us engage trolls to fight the spread of ignorance.
Otherwise, they just think we’re too dumbfounded by their astounding intellect.
True... They do come here to beat us up. Good that they learn that they cannot.
Once or twice, though, that’s it. I promise.
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 26, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Knock yourself out - however long it takes. Think about the trolls who've stopped coming here because they could not win... :D
December 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pmBut unless you’re planning on dating your Anthropology professor, age shouldn’t be a problem.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Well, it wasn't exactly a plan.... :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHeh.
Your mom sounds like a great lady.
Comment by Zooey
Heh. Thanks. But I agree with BnF, you wont have a problem even if you want to date your professor.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:33 pmSitting Missouri Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. has published a book claiming to “expose the liberal judicial assault.†The first chapter, which has circulated online, “frequently uses the term ‘femifascists.’†Lawyers and judges believe “Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit.†Dierker’s book roll-out begins with a Bill O’Reilly interview next week.
Where would someone go with a book to promote that bashes liberals? Fox News Channel, of course! And you can rest assured that if you're promoting a liberal-bashing book on Fox, you'll never be asked to back up your claims. Do any loyal FNC viewers out there believe that O'Reilly will ask Judge Dierker about this controversy? I would be surprised. At least, I would be surprised unless the judge just waves it off as irrelevant and O'Reilly says, "Fair enough if it's groundless." and then moves on. But when it comes to having even the tiniest understanding of what liberals believe in, Fox News Channel (in general ) and Bill O'Reilly (in particular) are the last places one should look. This is sort of like trying to sell an anti-immigration book at a KKK rally. Wait a minute. On second thought, they're exactly the same.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:34 pmYou’ve apparently never met a woman whose child is being threatened. No need to wait for the testosterone to get pumped up, it’s pure adreneline.
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
That happens a lot?
The point was to disuade the boys from the teenage sexual jokes. I still have an entire week of freedom from those. I wanna enjoy it...
December 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pmKnock yourself out - however long it takes. Think about the trolls who’ve stopped coming here because they could not win… :D
Comment by unbelievable
On the occasion that I engage a troll, every time they respond to me I consider it a win -- and I'm sure they feel the same way about my responses to them. (It doesn't matter, if I happen to be having fun.)
Just sayin'
December 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pmOf course, you dont see women fihgting as much as men fight, but I think, and this is a personal opinion, that women care less about engaging a fight against other women.
Comment by Juan C — December 26, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Which is scientifically link to testosterone. Not that women don't have the ability - they just - in general - tend not to as much as men.
I had a friend who took steroids for two weeks to treat endometriosis. She said that she didn't know how men did it because after a week she either wanted to f*ck or fight everyone she saw...
December 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmThat happens a lot?
Comment by unbelievable
I've experienced it several times.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:40 pmFrom the Federalist Paper 69 discussing the office of President:
However, Bush has proved quite effective in establishing a dangerous influence during his first term...only to be re-elected!
Thanks to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, George Bush enjoys the same immunities from criminal prosecution for war crimes as King George.
George Bush has assumed the same power as King George through the use of "signing statements."
December 26th, 2006 at 1:41 pmNote to Bush:
December 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pm" Everytime you think, you weaken the nation"
Moe Howard
She said that she didn’t know how men did it because after a week she either wanted to f*ck or fight everyone she saw…
Comment by unbelievable
Now, that was hilarious!!! Ha ha!!
December 26th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#78 Pluky - Exactly!
December 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pmBy holding hearings exposing the policy making process (lies and deception) that got us to where we are now, the impeachment sentiment will come from the public, not from the Congress.
When the sentiment becomes overwhelming, the Congress, wanting to stay in power (read elections 08) will pick up impeachment when they sense they either do it or find another line of work (K street).
# 87
Nice work, BnF.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:47 pmOn the occasion that I engage a troll, every time they respond to me I consider it a win — and I’m sure they feel the same way about my responses to them.
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
You give them a lot more credit than I do. I guess I always thought that the one with the more logical argument was actually the winner (from debate in high school), and the more of their arguments you could logically disassemble, the less likely that they would continue down that path. Plus, I changed my political views when people were courageous and respectful enough to point out the flaws in my conservative arguments, so that I would do a better job researching information before I continued. And as a result, reality having that liberal bias - I changed my perspective. I think there's hope, not for the rude trolls, but for those who are on the fence and looking for debate. People like robert.
Not sure what got rid of this current one - the administraors, the evidence against their misinformation, or your concise retort... :D
December 26th, 2006 at 1:48 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Which part would you like to discuss?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pmI’ve experienced it several times.
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
In what regard?
I guess when you don't go around threatening children, you aren't as aware of people who do. That's pretty appalling. Was it more from men or women or equal amounts?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:51 pmComment by pluky — December 26, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
That didn't stop the Republicans a few years ago. And you're making the assumption that Republicans in the Senate will not vote to convict even if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you truely believe that, then you must admit we have a defacto Dictatorship and One-Party Rule. The days of the United States as a Constitutional Republic are dead.
I still have hope. Impeachiness. And that's The Word.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pmMore Republican victims....jeesh, I am tired of that squeaky wheel.
-GSD
December 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pmYou are wasting your time trying to reason with mandolin.
He lives in Chimpy's Bizarro World. He has had a psychotic break with reality.
Idiots like this are incapable of facing facts, you cannot reason with a dumb animal like mandolin.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#88 are you implying that Bush is thinking all the time?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:00 pmWow, there have been a lot of posts since I left to get some delicious Chich-fil-a for dinner. From what I've read so far I see that most of you know nothing about the Scalia. Scalia's view of law is not static in the sense that laws can not cover things that weren't yet known at the time the law was adopted. An example would include his viewpoint that freedom of the press should cover more than just the print press, it should cover all forms of media. However, if you think that law should be dynamic in the sense that the MEANING of the law changes Scalia and Hamilton both would reject that. An example would be the cruel and unusual punishment clause being used by sitting Justices to say that the death penalty is unconstitutional. That would require the law to change its MEANING. The question is, is it better for a Justice to make that change or is better for the Legislative Branch (remember, that is the branch that makes the laws) to say that the Death Penalty is right or wrong. As far as Bush v Gore, I haven't read it, but I suspect it involved statutory laws instead of constitutional law. Perhaps someone could explain how Scalia came out wrong on that one. Scalia has a book he wrote I think in the early 90's. C-span also has links to his debate with the prez of the ACLU. Either one of those would be a good way to learn about his judicial philosophy.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:05 pmThe ONLY remedy to rid this country of King George's diabolical influence is IMPEACHMENT and perhaps imprisonment although he's managed to change the laws to exonerate himself from wrongdoing. Now it's up to the people to reverse those laws and then throw his can in the clinker.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pmand that's the word. BnF, you are on today.
I think the lute has left.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pmMandolin is clearly a paid GOP troll. Freeze him out and he'll slink away like the deluded, braindead zombie that he is.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pmmandolin is so freakin stupid he thinks we are at war.
Even Alito admitted at his confirmation hearing that a state of war does NOT currently exist. Congress never declared it.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#99 mandolin,
While you're busy forming your cogent arguments against all that you've read here, don't forget to explain how bringiung up Justice Breyer had anything to do with the impeachable offenses committed by the current president. You kind of went a little off point there.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pmOnce again hippies. George Bush doesn't make the laws. The Legislative Branch does.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:10 pmHigh crimes and misdemeanors were perpetrated by this president and company well in advance of the change in the law (to exonerate the spineless) so those crimes and misdemeanors outlined previously should still hold water, regardless of these recent, cover-his-ass change in the law.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pmLooks like the convoluted, flukey-flute (mandolin) has effectively been run off or maybe he's just on his "lunch break"?? Such self delusion!
December 26th, 2006 at 2:12 pmI wasn't talking about impeachment. My problem was that you invoke the Constitution when it fits your agenda and ignore it when it does not. Of course the Legislative has the power to impeach the President, but that is not going to happen.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:13 pmmandolin's a Chimpylover. He has nothing cogent to say.
Chimpy has been systematically dismantling the Constitution with his assault on the Bill of Rights, his infamous signing statements and his dictatorial theory of the unitary president. Chimpy thinks he has wartime powers when Congress has never declared war.
mandolin probably sees nothing wrong with the White House outing a NOC CIA agent AND her entire covert operation, the "brass plate" Brewster-Jennings company front for the CIA's WMD intel operation.
Reich wingnuts like mandolin are destroying our great nation.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pmHowza bout this except from Federalis #26
The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.
and later in the same
It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pmI suppose outing a CIA is unconstitutional to you hippies as well.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pmBanjo,
Thanks for the quicky on Scalia's philosophy. I will take it into consideration. I would boil down your paragraph by saying it appears you enjoy a more absulute meaning of the law, and therefore not much flexibility. Seems like the ol' corncob up the ass syndrome to me.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pmOnce again hippies. George Bush doesn’t make the laws. The Legislative Branch does.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
No one said he makes them.. we said that he BREAKS them.
Reading comprehension problems... You should start there. Might fix a few things for you.
Now run along, the grown ups are having a conversation.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:18 pm# 93
December 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pmI'll give you an easy one. Explain the decision in Roe. You constituional experts should be able to handle that one.
Why won't there be an impeachment mandolin? What makes you so sure?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#112
December 26th, 2006 at 2:20 pmWhat?
#115
December 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pmYou don't have enogh of a majority. Besides a good portion of the Democrats are more conservative than John McCain.
Dieker may have broken the "law" Mandolin. What about that?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:24 pmmandolin lives in Bizarro World where everyone who disagrees with his beloved Chimperor is a dirty hippie. mandolin is delusional.
Poppy Bush said it best when he said that outing CIA agents is TREASON. The entire WHIG group at the White House, including Condi and Cheney, committed TREASON when they outed Valerie Plame and Brewster-Jennings. Chimpy either knew about it, which also makes him a TRAITOR, or he was ignorant of it, which makes him incompetent.
mandolin supports these traitors.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI'm being oppressed by the UNITARY legislative branch
December 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pmForget Hemingway's mangy ass six-toed cat decendents in Key West.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI’ll give you an easy one. Explain the decision in Roe. You constituional experts should be able to handle that one.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:26 pmmandolin obviously supports chimpy's failure in iraq too.
and poor baby, he's being oppressed by the legislative branch.
waaah waaah
somebody call mandolin a waaaaahmbulance. what a repuke wussy.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:29 pmOn January 11, 2002, the first detainees from Afghanistan arrived at the prison in the US Naval Base, Guantanamo, Cuba. In the succeeding five years, Guantanamo has symbolized to the world the Bush administration's abandonment of international and domestic law, and the development of a policy of inhumane treatment and use of torture. These claims have been linked to military and CIA operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and in an unknown number of secret prisons.
time to shut it down
December 26th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI’m being oppressed by the UNITARY legislative branch
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
You can than GW for that. It was him and the hierarchical Republican Congress that turned it into that - with EXECUTIVE as the most powerful.
We want it back to three EQUAL branches.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:30 pmOk, Ill leave this thread cuz its becoming a law issue, which I know nothing about. When we begin talking about justice I will return.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:31 pmI’m being oppressed by the UNITARY legislative branch
Comment by mandolin
Look at the bright side, you could find some real creative inspiration from being oppressed.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#122
December 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pmnor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Read the 14th amendment. A state can deny people of Liberty as well as life and property, but not without due process.
Maybe your message is getting blurred here mandolin. Exactly what part of the Bush administration are you supporting? All or just some? Let us know. You have this commanding knowledge at your hand. Is hippie a bad word where you come from? Ignorance is where I come from.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#124
December 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pmYeah, detaining people from Afghanistan symbolizes ambandonment of domestic law.
"...After all, most of us engage trolls to fight the spread of ignorance...True… They do come here to beat us up."
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 26, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
I disagree. The trolls, many of them, are sent (and paid) by the republicans. They're told to occupy us and tie us up in endless meaningless arguement. Yes, their arguements are weak and often nonsensical. So of course you'll win the discussion. Big f*ing whip. But if you waste your energy debating them then they have won.
The trolls job is to tire you out. To make you waste hours yelling at them. If they keep you from marching on the street in protest, writing letters to your local newspapers, calling your representatives then they have done their job. They have won and you have lost.
So many posters here are so knowledgeable and such talented writers. Its an absolute waste if you're not using those talents in ways that yield greater results. I suggest making a daily list of things to do. Keep it really simple and manageable. Vow to write one letter a day to your (or any) newspaper. Vow to call your representative once a week. Plan to shop for items made by workers with actual rights at least 1/2 the time. Call your local news station once a week and suggest a story.
I'd hate to think all the talent and knowledge here is wasted yelling at trolls. Its the people who still get their news (cough) from tv, radio and papers that need to be informed.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#129
December 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pmYou come from ignorance?
I support the Constitution before anyone.
#131
December 26th, 2006 at 2:41 pmI'm not being paid by Republicans. I repair vending machines during the day and I work at a vet at night so that I can put my wife through Nursing school.
mandolin: "I suppose outing a CIA is unconstitutional to you hippies as well."
One of the articles of impeachment written up for Nixon was "compromising intelligence apparatus for political purposes."
Mandolin: "As far as Bush v Gore, I haven’t read it..."
Great, man, you suggest that we read three Scalia opinions and you haven't read this one???!!! To history, this will be his defining decision, chucklehead.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#136 One of the articles of impeachment written up for Nixon was “compromising intelligence apparatus for political purposes.â€
December 26th, 2006 at 2:44 pmHow does that make it unconstitutional?
Mandolin, YOU read the 14th Amendment. In it you will find the startling news that your dear leader violated it over and over by implying that treasury bills are "useless pieces of paper."
December 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pmnor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
And Roe v Wade was that due process.
Read the 14th amendment. A state can deny people of Liberty as well as life and property, but not without due process.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
See, here's the caveat - people, not fetuses are covered by the Constitution. So viable and actual life gets a priority over non-viable and potential life (it's not a baby until it is born).
Pretty simple. I mean, you wouldn't tolerate having your life ended so that a bunch of gestating fetuses might be born into a world with less people and therefore more resources would you?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI see, Mandolin, Bush can do things which are, in effect, impeachable, but not necessarily unconstitutional. That's quite a standard you have for your leaders.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#117, please keep believing that the house and senate are so conservative. It will help soothe the pain you feel when they do things you don't agree with. Youc an simply say they are being conservative.
As to your commment about Bush/Gore 200, you have not read that? I can not freaking believe that. Possibly one of the most important, yet disasterous decisions ever made by the SC and you did nto read it? Wow, yet here you are lecturing on the constitution and the importance of Scalia's decisions. What it boiled down to was that there was conflict between Florida election laws (established by the state in accordance to the constitutional rights granted to the state to select their own electors). Theh decision essentially boiled down to, yes we know the laws are inconflict and we knwo the state has these rights, however this presidential election is too important there for we decide... Of course that simple explanation plays out over many pages. essentailly this jurist whom you seem to admire greatly who previously deferred to the states rights said the state shoudl be trumped in this case. Or at least that is how I read it.
You know what else iis funny about Scalia? A few years ago he aided in the crucifiction of a fellow justice becuase he did research on the internet and another because he quoted other countries laws. The funny part is that probably most research is now at least started on line because CCH, RIA and others have such great seach engines. More funny is that Scalia himself had less than 12 months prior also cited international law in an opinion. But in alll fairness neither justice actually used the law as basis for their opinion, they ised it for comparisons sake. But as with all things from the right they choose to have the do as i say not as I do attitude about all things. It must really suck to be so conflicted all the time.
Onne last thing. For the past few years Scalia and Scalia junior (Thomas) have voted nearly identically. One of the few times they diverged was on a porn case, which I found highly ironic.
As to your comments abotu Hamilton/Scalia and the meaning of Cruel annd unusual punishment. It is true whhat Hmailton thought was cruel and unusual is nto what is considered that today. However Hamilton was a voracious reader and writer. Because of this he was a master with the english language literature and history as well as Latin language and world history as known at the time. He fully recognized that things change over time and to ignore it is simply wrong. The law is the same but how we view the law will change over time becuase our body of knowledge today is greater than it was yesterday and Hamilton because of his education was well aware of this. I guess I might need to amend this a little as republicans seem to have learned little or ntohign from History, so their body of knowledge iis simply static and or shriveling.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#137
December 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI don't think you understand constitutional law. It has nothing to do with fetuses having constitutional rights. Roe said that passing a law banning an abortion is unconstitutional. My question is, why is it unconstitutional? What is it about an abortion that puts it out of the realm of political debate. If a state wants to limit abortions they should be able to and nothing in the Constitution bars them from doing that.
What if a state wants to execute doctors who perform abortions or force women to carry their babies to term against their will. Would that qualify as denying these doctors and women of their life, liberty and happiness? How about if a state wants to make heavy artillery legal for any citizen to own? How about if a state wants to bar certain people of color from public schools? Are there any limits to state power, mandolin?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIs it just me, or is mandolin talking to himself and decompensating fairly quickly?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pmI don’t think you understand constitutional law.
Of course I do.
It has nothing to do with fetuses having constitutional rights.
Yes it does. Just as it was once just white men's rights until we added amendments to change that.
Roe said that passing a law banning an abortion is unconstitutional. My question is, why is it unconstitutional?
I answered your question. It is a protection of liberty to do with your body what you will. Until it is a separate body, it is not protected by the Constitution - therefore a law favoriing it over people is unconstitutional.
Abortion is a religious matter and the first Amendment rejects it as being established as law as well.
What is it about an abortion that puts it out of the realm of political debate. If a state wants to limit abortions they should be able to and nothing in the Constitution bars them from doing that.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
People don't want that. Look at South Dakota - a red state - that voted to keep it legal. I'm not sure why the neocons can't accept the will of the people on this matter.
One could also argue that legal abortions are in the best interest of our country because the consequences deny women a healthy way to abort. In fact, I've read several legal arguments on this matter...
December 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pmOk, Ill leave this thread cuz its becoming a law issue, which I know nothing about. When we begin talking about justice I will return.
Comment by Juan C
Brilliant.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pm#139
December 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pmFirst give me the foreign law Scalia cited. I suspect it had something to do with due process and was probally a 200 year old case. I won't comment on it further until you give me the exact example. As far as cruel and unusual punishment, if you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual you shuold persuade your fellow citizens and legislators to ban it. But this notion that the meaning of the clause changes is ridiculous. That is a bigger attack on democracy than anything you can cite GWB as doing.
Are there any limits to state power, mandolin?
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 26, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Excellent points.
Sometimes the consequences are the best arguments going...
December 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pmMandolin you are a constituion scholar who repairs vending machines? Interesting.
With Roe the right has this general statement they make where they accuse the decision of being a poorly written meandering mess and poof the right to privacy comes out of thin air and is transposed into a right to an abortion on demand. This is so far from the truth. Anytime that particular argument is raised I know the person has never read the decision. I read a hell of a lot of law mostly tax law and while I have read better opinions, I have also read worse (Gore/Bush 2000 for instance). But Roe flows pretty smoothly and takes the evolution of the right to privacy and extrapolates it into the abortion issue. It is not at all what the right protrays it as. If it were so poorly written and reasoned it would have been overturned by now. Heck there have been landmmark SC decisions that have been based on less. Star of Atlanta for instance, or the Hotdog case from Alabama (can't think of the name right now) Both involving interstate commerce though on their face to the common man neither seems to involve insterstate commerce.
If you Mandolin can not follow Roe then perhaps you are not reading it properly or more likely you do not really agree with the results so you do the right wing thing and attack the decision in a manner where you criticise it enough so the incurious among you beleieve the alternate reality you created. The alternate reality of a poorly wriiten poorly reasoned decision.
Here's one for you, since this is nto in the constitution, could you please explain how a corporation is now regarded as a perpetual entity? At the time of the constitution corproations were granted charters and were expected to act in the public good in addition to their money making endeavors. However their charter coudl be revoked at annytime. So please explain the genesis of this notion. Perhaps you might want to start during the antebellum era. I know you republicans like it back then and this may be one reason among many...
December 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pmMandolin,
Aside from your bombastics,
How hard is it for you to understand "corn cobb up the ass syndrome"? That's what you suffer from. Now quit being such a good time to be around.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:05 pmLarry from C.
That was a great, encouraging post. Thank you.
mandolin
December 26th, 2006 at 3:06 pmyou sound out of tune, today. You describe yourself as a working class man, why do you defend your president in his illegal doings, what GWB has done for you during his government?
#146 yes, the power to choose their own electors.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:07 pm"Lawyers and judges believe “Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit.†Dierker’s book roll-out begins with a Bill O’Reilly interview next week. expand post "
So does Dierker consider himself above the law, or should he resign?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:07 pmBrilliant.
Comment by Zooey
Oh, Im gonna cry! thanks, Zoo. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#143
Wake up! Roe v Wade has nothing to do with abortion being right or wrong. It has do with whether we can legislate against it or for it for that matter! Liberty can be taken away with due process. We do it a thousand times a day. Being put in jail certainly puts a damper on your liberties, but it is not unconstitutional to put someone in jail. The Constitution doesn't give you a right to do what you want with your body. It could if you ammended it, but as it reads now there is nothing protecting a right to an abortion.
One could also argue that legal abortions are in the best interest of our country because the consequences deny women a healthy way to abort. In fact, I’ve read several legal arguments on this matter…
I'm not disputing that, but what does that have to do with the Constitution?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pmMy question is, why is it unconstitutional?
Laws against abortion violate the constitutional right to privacy under the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment.
What is it about an abortion that puts it out of the realm of political debate.
It is decided law.
If a state wants to limit abortions they should be able to and nothing in the Constitution bars them from doing that.
Comment by mandolin
Again the sticky wicket of the 14th Amendment.
Sorry you don't like it, but there you have it.
And what's with this, vending machine man?:
Homework assignment
Who has the power to prosecute a war?
What is the Legislative branch for?
What is the Judicial branch for?
I want all of you to read the Fedaralist Papers tonight and at least 3 of Scalia’s Opinions. Then we can START to talk about the Constitution.
Comment by mandolin
Hmmmm....?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#147
December 26th, 2006 at 3:16 pmI'm not a Constitutional scolar nor do I claim to be but I can read at at least a fifth grade level. Since you are the expert please point to the right to PRIVACY in the Constitution. That doesn't seem like to much to ask.
The Constitution doesn’t give you a right to do what you want with your body.
Comment by mandolin
Excuse me, but I don't need the constitution to give me rights to my own body. Thank you very much.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#139 it was nto an actual citing of international law, but then again the opinion he hammmered was a simple statement of the US being the only ciivilized country in the world with a death penalty. Scalia did nto like this, but had a similar comment within the year prior to the teenage death enalty decision. I'll look for it, but since it has been several years It will be like lookign for a needle in a haystack.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#154
December 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pmOnce again there is no right to Privacy in the 14th ammendment.
I do repair vending machines and work for a vet but I'm very interested in the Constitution. I'm not trying to pretend to be something I'm not.
#156
December 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pmThen where do you rights come from? Whatever they are is irrellevant because we function under the Constitution.
I know you republicans like it back then and this may be one reason among many…
Comment by Mark — December 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Excellent post Mark!
You prove the difference between one who has studied or read something and one who has actually experienced orpracticed it. Well done!
December 26th, 2006 at 3:24 pmSince you are the expert please point to the right to PRIVACY in the Constitution. That doesn’t seem like to much to ask.
Comment by mandolin
Right afteryou display the part that gives the president "unenumerated powers." Or do your hemorrhoids only flare when it's a decision you disagree with?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#158 - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I guess since the actual word PRIVACY isn't there, we're all up shit creek without a paddle, eh?
If you're not pretending to be something you're not, next time you want to assign homework, assmunch, try a disclaimer.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThen where do you rights come from? Whatever they are is irrellevant because we function under the Constitution.
Comment by mandolin
Any right to my body is a human right I claim for myself.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI won't wait for someone to give me a right to my own body.
#157
December 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI think I know what cases your talking about. It's been a while since I've seen them as well. I think Scalia was trying to expose the hypocrisy of the Breyer reasoning. While Breyer cites foreign law to support the world wide support against the death penalty he ignores the fact that most nations ban abortions. This could be what you are reffering to. In that case Scalia was not citing foreign law to support his decision but rather to expose the inconsistencies in Breyers opinions.
Zooey,
December 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmMaybe you should have highlighted without due process of law.
Wake up! Roe v Wade has nothing to do with abortion being right or wrong. It has do with whether we can legislate against it or for it for that matter!
Then why would you want to oppose the will of the people? Did you miss my point aboutSD?
Liberty can be taken away with due process.
Some liberties - but just those that would harm others. Abortion isn't harming others. That's why it doesn't get put into that catagory.
We do it a thousand times a day. Being put in jail certainly puts a damper on your liberties, but it is not unconstitutional to put someone in jail.
Well, it can be if it isn't properly handled... you have read those Amendments haven't you?
Again - liberties that are harmful to others can be revoked. I don't know any rational people who would disagree with the spirit of that... the practice of it perhaps. Which your boy president is a shining example of how badly it can be practiced.
The Constitution doesn’t give you a right to do what you want with your body. It could if you ammended it, but as it reads now there is nothing protecting a right to an abortion.
Actually it does give you that right. Everything short of ending your life is pretty much acceptable. It's CONSTITUTIONALLY your RIGHT to liberty.
I’m not disputing that, but what does that have to do with the Constitution?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
You're trying to make these aspects stand alone rather than as a cohesive system as they were intended.
The intent of the judicial system is not to legislate, and therefore the courts cannot take away this right without a law in place - and such a law, which not stated in absolute terms is quite clearly in the spirit of the document.
Consider the consequences.
Besides, really, you actually have to prove that the Constitution prohibits abortions. That's the problem. You can't, because you aren't denying anyone else's liberties (that's when they get taken away) and therefore, the system errs on the side of liberty.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pmI completely disagree. This is like saying prosecuting criminals is usless.
If investigations lead to crimes committed, then its Congresses duty to impeach.
Impeachment not only sends a message to future presidential wannabes, but it puts Republicans, some who voted to impeach Clinton, on record either supporting or opposing actual high crimes, which can be used during the next election.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pmBTW I hope I'm not upsetting anyone at this website, I'm trying trying to engage in some honest debate. If I'm upsetting anyone I would be more than happy to leave, but I think this debate over the Judiciary benefits liberals and conservatives alike.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:35 pmmandolin,
The word "privacy" is not in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has agreed that the Constitution has created "zones of privacy" through such things as the Fourth Amendment which, in case you are unfamiliar with it, reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This, at the very least, implies that we have some right to privacy. What has never ceased to amaze me is how conservatives want so very badly to apply a limited interpretation of that amendment, yet they claim to love freedom.
BTW, how's that connection coming along that I asked you for between the president's impeachable offenses and Justice Breyer being on the Court? Is there one, or were you just looking for another excuse to bash liberals. (Am I mistaken, or did a Republican-controlled Senate confirm Justice Breyer? I could be wrong about that and if I am, then I'm sorry I mentioned it. But if it's correct, then it makes whatever point you were trying to make all the more elusive.)
December 26th, 2006 at 3:36 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Then you should be screaming for impeachment, not arguing why there won't be an impeachment.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Oh? Where in the decision did the Supreme Court make that holding?
Roe set forth a balancing test between the rights of the woman and the rights of the potential life. Read the decision before you go around making claims about what Roe did or did not hold.
Now, if you'll forgive me, I just got a call to play the bagpipes at a funeral for a local kid killed in Iraq. Later, all.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:36 pmZooey,
How come you have a right to your body and you prodded Granny to pepper my ass with buskshot? She used rock salt and I am recovering nicely, thank you, but I still sleep on my front side. Just kidding! But she did consider it for awhile.
We shouldn't be so hard on DUHbya because he read a newspaper article. I used "The Google" for "Pet goat news items" and found several interesting articles. One in particular caught my eye as it was published in a San Juaquin Valley Elementary School Student Weekly, written by a third grader, that was not to much above DUHbya's reading level.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#164 Breyer does not cite Foreign law at all and does nto take it into account in his decision. Breyer mentions that the US stannds alone and that set off the nuts. Many mmany decisions take actual foreign law into account. I for one deal intax where foreing v US issues crop up all the time yet I hear no outcry there. It is only with the pet peeves of the right that they get pissed. heres a biit of news for you, one of yourr most revieled decisions is full of international quotations and the evolution of the international position on Abortion. Of course iit is all followed by this...
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
...I know you don't like that but there it is. Not everything we follow today is spelled out in the constitution, but it generally has a load of case history to back it up. However, the unitary executive, signing statements and the ability of the supreme court to override states rights granted specifically by the constitution all have very thin case histories behind them.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI’m very interested in the Constitution. I’m not trying to pretend to be something I’m not.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Then why the name calling and insults?
You lose credibility when you go there.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#166
Then why would you want to oppose the will of the people? Did you miss my point aboutSD?
I don't think you understand my position. If the people of SD want allow abortions they can. More power to them. I don't want to take that away from them. But if the people os MS or FL or VA want to ban it they should be able to.
Some liberties - but just those that would harm others
Where does the Constitution draw that line? It doesn't. If you think it should, you can change it through the ammendment process.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pmmandolin,
save your breath -- the folks here are only interested in THEIR INTERPRETATION of the constitution -- not what it really says.
BTW, nobody is going to be impeached. The dems may be stupid but they're not suicidal enough to impeach Bush for transgressions dreamed up by a bunch of nuts on sites like this and DailyKos...
December 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pmMaybe you should have highlighted without due process of law.
Comment by mandolin
Thanks, but I highlighted it just the way I wanted to.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:44 pmI guess ol' George is getting his newly acquired 97,000 acre compound in Paraguay ready for immediate occupancy.
Sorry, George, the only place you'll be able to hide is on another planet.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWayne,
December 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI thought I mentioned this earlier but maybe you missed it. I was not trying to connect Breyer and and Impeachment. I was complaining that the Constituion is envoked when it fits an agenda but is abandoned( as Breyer often does) when it does not.
Also #164 How can Scalia be pointing out the hypocracy of Brey when what i am thinking of occured long before Breyers opinion? Is Scalia prescient? Chances are it was a tax related decision I am trying to come up with, buut I'll let you knwo when it occurs.
NNow about that unitary executive issue? Where is that one spelled out in the constituion? Remeber I am aware of history and that the fledgling US governemnt was very leery of having a person with king like powers in charge.
Also where is that part about siigning statements? These seem to be iin direct contradiction to the separation of powers spelled out very clearly. So where in the constitution does it give the power to the presiident to legislate from the oval office? I'm really curious on this one.
Also regarding Gore/Bush exactly where in the constituion does it say that the supreme court, or the federal government for that matter, have the right to take away a states constitutionally granted right to choose their own electors?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:48 pmHow come you have a right to your body and you prodded Granny to pepper my ass with buskshot? She used rock salt and I am recovering nicely, thank you, but I still sleep on my front side. Just kidding! But she did consider it for awhile.
Comment by Clyde the Ripper
My dear Clyde, you put your body in jeopardy when you declared your love for me within sight of Granny. Next time, hide her bifocals. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI don’t think you understand my position. If the people of SD want allow abortions they can. More power to them. I don’t want to take that away from them. But if the people os MS or FL or VA want to ban it they should be able to.
But the people don't want this. How are you missing that?
Where does the Constitution draw that line? It doesn’t. If you think it should, you can change it through the ammendment process.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
If you run into a crowded theatre and yell 'fire' you lose your right to do so because you've harmed others. That's how it works. You might not see it that way, but it doesn't make it wrong.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This, at the very least, implies that we have some right to privacy
I'm not arguing against that. I'm talking about this right of privacy that comes from the due process clause. As far as the cases mentioned, I'm not saying those opinions don't exist, I'm saying they are wrong.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pmWill someone please expalin this Unitary Executive?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:54 pmBut the people don’t want this. How are you missing that?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThen reverse Roe and let the people decide what they do and do not want.
Let's take Mandolin's argument back to the 1850's:
I don’t think you understand my position. If the people of SD want ban slavery they can. More power to them. I don’t want to take that away from them. But if the people os MS or FL or VA want to allow it they should be able to.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pmLet’s take Mandolin’s argument back to the 1850’s:
December 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAre you suggesting that I would support slavery? That is sick.
That is sick.
Oh? And enactingyour position wouldn't make slaves of pregnant women?
Please.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pmIt was nice talking to ya'll but I'm gonna leave because I've changed this thread from what it was really about. Thanks for the interesting debate.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pmWill someone please expalin this Unitary Executive?
Comment by mandolin
Where the f*ck have you been?
Read:
December 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pmhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
#178 read the opinion, the court does not abandon US law or the constitution. they do not base the opinion on international law, they merely cites that the US is the only industrialized country (read: Western Christian nation) that has the death penalty for minors. In no way shape or form do they use it in the opinion.
Don't know if you know this but...opinions usually start out with a story telling what is at issue then they go through the facts of the case, sometime hitting on jurisdiction. The decision might have a section tracing the evolution of English common law, our basis of law by the way...not the ten commandments, as it pertains to the general issue at hand. Then they get to the decision portion of the case where they quote US law. where they build their reasoning. The court did not use any international law here at all. The right wing simply did not like his decision so they attacked it on this on narrow issue of him comparing the US to the rest of the world If you read the actual case you will note that the international law discussion comes after the decision is made. Yet Scalia and the right choose to distort the importance of those few paragraphs because killing people is a hot button issue for them.
By the way it is Kennedy’s decision that brought out derision from the right wing, not Breyer. It is easy for them to attack Breyer since he is a Clinton appointee, less so for Kennedy. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html There’s the text go read it have fun.
At some point will you or any right winger ever admit that you really do want judicial activists on the bench, you just want them to be activists for causes you hold dear.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pmIntelligence sources say President Bush -- along with Israel's Ehud Olmert and the UK's Tony Blair -- are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran in early 2007, with the United States providing logistical back-up.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pmThis from Alternet.com
Right here Mandolin, here is the crux of the right to privacy. If you choose to ignore it fine, there is little anyoen can do for you. And if you claim to be a constitutional scholar yet know nothig of the unitary executive then you are a liar. It has been the guiding force behind the Bush presidency.
The right to privacy for the last time...
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental†or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,†Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:13 pmComment 1.
Comment by veritas — December 26, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Bush doesn't care about you, or the people that will be marching in the streets. Bush see's good people that oppose him as a impediment to his goal. An investigation into Bush will be made to look anti-patriotic after the next "terror attack", and the democrat's will slurry back into that spinless mindset so as not to be interned by FEMA for speaking out against the "Decider". Those of you that are patting theselves on the back because the Democrats won, need to ask yourselves why the democrat's allowed HR6266, Patriot 1 and 2 to pass without even a peep, whay has the democratic leadership made it very apparent that they are not interested in persuing impeachment against Bush and his trolls? They are not going to save you from losing your freedoms and your country. It is up to you. Below is a repost of the exeutive orders passed, these married with P1, and 2, and HR6266 means Police State:
10900 - Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
10995 - Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
10997 - Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
10998 - Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
11000 - Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
11001 - Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
11002 - Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
11003 - Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
11004 - Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, and designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
11005 - Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
11051 - Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
11310 - Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
11049 - Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen-year period.
11921 - Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the President declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Also look at REX 84. These people are not playing.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:13 pmIt was nice talking to ya’ll but I’m gonna leave because I’ve changed this thread from what it was really about. Thanks for the interesting debate.
Comment by mandolin
It's the OPEN THREAD f*ckwit.
Paid troll knocked off at 4 p.m.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pmComment 191:
Regarding your comment and news story. Here is my perdiction that I first posted over a month ago on TP, and will keep posting as I see things moving into place:
The Military and the Iraq Commission will deliver a recommendation that 30,000 additional troops be deployed to Iraq as the Bush administration wanted. This new deployment will not be deployed to hot spots in Iraq, but will mass on the Iraqi/Iran border. A false flag operation will coincide just prior too, or during the deployment phase of this operation.
This false flag operation will be a nuclear/dirty bomb on Israeli soil that will be detonated between Hebron/Bethlehem and Jerusalem. It will be determined that Syria and Iran instigated the attack. The Temple of the Mount will be destroyed, then Israel will attack Syria, and the United States will attack Iran, concurrently. Because of the middle-east crises, oil production will cease, causing the worlds economies to collapse in a domino effect.
Once Syria and Iran have been fully engaged, China will see this as a direct threat, and enter the war. Russia will stay out of the conflict for a time.
Marshall Law will be leveled on the United States and dissenters will be processed into FEMA camps. People will try and leave the cities, but will be turned back in armed conflicts. The “American Federal Empire†(AFE) will be established, which will encompass the whole North American continent. Venezuela’s government will be over thrown and it’s oil reserves will be used for the war effort. A new currency will take the place of our present currency, and it will be called the Amero-System. This new currency will be paperless, and eventually, due to fraud the AFE will move to chip implants.
This is from news accounts and watching the natural progression of this administration.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:18 pmOh? And enactingyour position wouldn’t make slaves of pregnant women?
Comment by Lincoln's log — December 26, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
It was nice talking to ya’ll but I’m gonna leave because I’ve changed this thread from what it was really about. Thanks for the interesting debate.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Way to go Lincoln!
December 26th, 2006 at 4:22 pm#195 - JTitor,
I really, really hope you're wrong.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:24 pmYou guys keep sucking me back in. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR I REPAIR VENDING MACHINES. I know the 14th ammendment gives you a right to liberty ,property and life. BUT THAT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW! Even if there is an implied right to Privacy in the 14th ammendment it could be taken away with DUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!
December 26th, 2006 at 4:25 pmComment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
You'd think he'd be arguing for an increase in the federal minimum wage so he can get a raise!
December 26th, 2006 at 4:29 pmDUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!
Comment by mandolin
Careful there, mandy, you're gonna sprain something.
Ok, how about this: The right to privacy can be taken away with due process of law. Fine. So if the states want to limit a woman's right to have an abortion, due process ensues, and the court says NO! to those wishing to limit said right to privacy. Due process achieved, eh?
December 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmYou’d think he’d be arguing for an increase in the federal minimum wage so he can get a raise!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
You'd think. But actually, I was just hoping he was gone. No joy.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pmYou’d think. But actually, I was just hoping he was gone. No joy.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI've been more than polite while I've been here. I'm sorry if you think I sholud be silenced because you disagree with me
If you run into a crowded theatre and yell ‘fire’ you lose your right to do so because you’ve harmed others. That’s how it works. You might not see it that way, but it doesn’t make it wrong.
Comment by unbelievable — December 26, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Um, that should be "falsely yell 'fire'". If you see what you presume is evidence of a fire in a crowded theatre, you can yell "fire", though if there's enough time, you should contact the theatre's management before resorting to such a hasty action.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pmSorry, but it's just a point that needs clarification.
There must be a lot of empty vending machines in viola's district. Because the guy who is supposed to refill them is wasting other people's time writing stupid right wing posts here. So hurry up to your vending machines...
December 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pmmandolin,
Briseadh na Faire understands my sarcasm.
But really, showing up here and issuing homework before YOU would discuss constitutional issues is a bit beyond "more than polite."
I don't think you should be silenced for any reason. I just think that if you're here to ask questions and learn, you should read the good faith information you're given.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pmThere must be a lot of empty vending machines in viola’s district. Because the guy who is supposed to refill them is wasting other people’s time writing stupid right wing posts here. So hurry up to your vending machines…
December 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pmI repair them and I'm on vacation.
I’ve been more than polite while I’ve been here. I’m sorry if you think I sholud be silenced because you disagree with me
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
From your very first post:
Prediction: Investigations will happen. They will find nothing. Hippies on this web site will complain about how Democrats should be thrown out of office for covering up for Bush. You will still vote for Democrats in ‘08 anyway.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
I'd post more, but really, you just have to scroll back to the top to see that you insulted people and name called. When you do that, you get what you've given...
Also - all caps is screaming. Not respectful behavior.
You've hinged your entire argument on an exception (not the rule) meant to stop people from hurting one another. The due process aspect is simply an exception to the norm. And it's a cumbersome one.
So, your need to be right is impeding the fact that you want to apply an exception in the law to ALL situations.
Lincoln was right. Deal with it like an adult.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:49 pmThe incurable '30%' are barking loud because their master tells them to. They are the same '30%' that brought fascism to Germany with known consequences. 30 percent is not a lot, but unfortunately those 30 percent can pull this country into a civil war. We need to find a sustainable solution to get rid of the fascist right wing waste. Moon?
December 26th, 2006 at 4:50 pmI, on the other hand, have studied Constitutional Law.
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted govern-
ment intrusions into a dwelling or other private places." Lawrence v. Texas.
Lawrence v. Texas was decided under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Here's what to look for:
If there is no legitimate State interest, it cannot be regulated by the State.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmHow could it not be perfectly obvious that the homework thing was a joke? Yeah Zooey, I wanted you to go home write a paper and turn it into me tomorrow.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmOkay, broken vending machines then.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmI've been called much worse than a Hippy while here. BTW I use an explanation point to scream. I use bold to make sure you notice a particular word.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmHow could it not be perfectly obvious that the homework thing was a joke?
Well, if I'd ever even heard of you before a day or two ago, it might have been obvious.
Yeah Zooey, I wanted you to go home write a paper and turn it into me tomorrow.
Comment by mandolin
Hence my initial response to you.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:54 pmHow could it not be perfectly obvious that the homework thing was a joke?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Because you started out calling us names and insulting us. The rest is a reasonable assumption that you were also being degrading.
We don't know you and you didn't start out very nicely.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:56 pmIf there is no legitimate State interest, it cannot be regulated by the State.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:57 pmWhy? What ammendment claims that. Was that considered to be the case when the ammendment was passed by the Legislative Branch . If it was not why would it be interpreted diffently today. What has changed?
Biden wants Rice to testify on Iraq policy
POSTED: 4:33 p.m. EST, December 26, 2006
• NEW: Biden also seeking testimony from experts outside the administration
• NEW: Three weeks of hearings about the Iraq war to begin in January
• NEW: Rice has not responded to request to testify on Iraq
• NEW: Biden opposes sending more troops to Iraq
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he has invited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify during three weeks of hearings in January about the Iraq war.
Biden, a Delaware Democrat, told reporters Tuesday that the proponents of different plans for Iraq will be invited to the hearings that are to begin on January 9.
He also will call former secretaries of state, academics, Iraq study group members and other witnesses from outside the administration as the committee examines various approaches to the war.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, comprising five Democrats and five Republicans, recommended this month that the United States pull out of Iraq by 2008.
Rice has not announced whether she will appear before the committee, primarily because President Bush has not announced his plans regarding Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/index.html
December 26th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#215 - Re Lawrence v. Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
December 26th, 2006 at 5:02 pmmandolin: "I’ve been more than polite while I’ve been here."
Why yes, you very politely gave us a condescending "homework assignment" and very politely told all of us we didn't understand anything about the constitution. Let's not forget when you politely referred to those on this site as "hippies." Thank you and have a nice day!
December 26th, 2006 at 5:04 pmBiden wants Rice to testify on Iraq policy
No!! Please, no. What did we ever do to deserve this?
Biden will wear his funny brown nose and talk us all to death!
December 26th, 2006 at 5:04 pm/sarcasm
Also quoting Lawrence v. Texas is pointless to the argument because what I'm saying is cases like Lawrence, Grizwald and Roe were decided on this false notion that you can only take away liberties if there is a percieved legitimate state interest.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:06 pmWhy? What ammendment claims that. Was that considered to be the case when the ammendment was passed by the Legislative Branch . If it was not why would it be interpreted diffently today. What has changed?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
The Constitution is not a recipe... It is a living document.
That's the intent of the Constitution.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pmNo!! Please, no. What did we ever do to deserve this?
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
It is how we found out that the Bush Regime knew of Osama's intentions to attack us in advance and did nothing.
Just imagine what she'll uncover next...
December 26th, 2006 at 5:10 pm...Lawrence, Grizwald and Roe were decided on this false notion that you can only take away liberties if there is a percieved legitimate state interest.
Comment by mandolin
Oh heavens! Mandolin must be placed on the Supreme Court of the United States immediately! He'll straighten out the whole mess.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:11 pm/sarcasm
#195 JTitor
December 26th, 2006 at 5:11 pmThat is one frightening scenario you portray. However, considering certain events and the conflation of those events, I suppose that your prediction is not as outlandish as it may first appear.
We already know of the plan to unite Mexico, the USA and Canada through the "superhighway."
We already know that in the past, certain acts of aggression have been purposely and carefully planned against an enemy which incriminates a third party and justifies the original desire for an attack.
The Patriot Act already gives the government more power than realized initially.
Who ultimately benefits from world war III?
this false notion that you can only take away liberties if there is a percieved legitimate state interest.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
If it's false then what exactly is the point in having a Constitution at all? Answer that question and you might realize that you are arguing for an exception to be the rule which is the real false issue at hand because what you are suggesting invalidates the Constitution itself... Think about it. Really.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pmThe Constitution is not a recipe… It is a living document
Explain this living document to me. Are you saying the legislative branch( the one that makes the law) passes a law and years later the Judicial Branch(the one that interprets law) has the power to change the law to mean new things? Shouldn't the legislature make new laws if the people think the laws should change? Why would you allow the Judiciary to make that change? That seems like a terrible system of government. Why would you support that?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pmWhy? What ammendment claims that.
14th Amendment
Was that considered to be the case when the ammendment was passed by the Legislative Branch .
The 14th Amendment was ratified by 28 of the then 38 states.
If it was not why would it be interpreted diffently today. What has changed?
Comment by mandolin
Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. What do you mean "interpreted differently today?"
December 26th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThe Constitution protects liberties from being taken away without due process of law. That is what it says. Do you dispute that?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#226 - Wow. Just, wow.
I don't know about ya'll, but I'm done the with the mandolin.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pmmandolin, you posted this: "I’m being oppressed by the UNITARY legislative branch."
Nobody who understands how our system work or even what is special about it could ever make such a statement, so stop bs-ing around and just be honest. You're pissed that your dear leader has screwed up so bad, right? It's ok. We understand.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:25 pmFurthermore the Bill of rights is needed because it protects some very specific things listed in them. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, not to have soldiers quartered in you house and so on. All other things that are not mentioned in the Constitution are left up to the State to decide. Examples are abortion, death penalty, making laws prohibiting eating cats and dogs, whether or not you can have tassles on the handel bars of your motorcycle, how many peaches can be used in a standard 8x8 cobbler. This is left up to the states.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:26 pmZooey,
December 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pmThat sounds like a good idea. Judging by your post in #227 you have know idea what we are talking about.
How about marijuana laws and "the right to die." Should they be left up to the state?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pmHow about marijuana laws and "the right to die." Should they be left up to the state?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm#220 so much for #188?
Anyhow I thought your position all afternoon has been that there is no right to privacy expressly stated in the constitution and that rights can be taken away by due process in relation to Roe. Griswold pretty much said there was no interest for the state in the private affairs of individuals and that there is a guarantee of privacy implied in the constitution. If as you imply you can take away liberties and rights when there is no legitimate state interest, I would be very interested to hear what these arbitrary reasons might be. Please at this point attempting to say that a murderer should be deprived of these liberties will not fit your argument as there is a legitimate interest for the state to lock up a lawbreaker, especially one heinous enough to kill.
I find it interesting that in Lawrence Scalia says that there is no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, is there any fundamental right to heterosexual sodomy? Any heterosexual activity? Of course at the end of his dissent Scalia rails against the homosexual agenda and then makes it clear that he has nothing against homosexuals but spends quite a bit of his rather insulting dissent (yes he insults and derides the other justices who do not see it his way) railing against homosexuality immorality etc… I find it very interesting that Scalia spent several pages of his dissent dealing with the homosexual agenda, which he implies is to be mainstreamed into society as acceptable, but did not quite spell out what that agenda was. He sounded too much like a right wing radio host.
But the main thrust of Scalia’s dissent is that he does not think it right that bowers is overturned via this decision due t changing social norms and the impact on society etc… but Roe is not. He spends quite a bit of time railing against Roe, which makes me think if this and other dissents where he similarly rails against Roe are simply laying the groundwork for when he thinks he gets to write the opinion overturning it.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pmmandolin,
Like you, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. perhaps re-reading the 9th and 10th Amendments can help clear things up for you.
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Essentially they say that just because a certain right is not mentioned in the constitution or its amendments, it doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have it. You do, unless the state can show some compelling reason why you shouldn't. (And "because the Legislature said so" is not generally considered to be a "compelling reason.")
By all means, I welcome any properly trained lawyers to correct me because it is not my intent to deceive anyone. This is my understanding of how it works and if it's wrong, believe me, I want to know.
And if you'd like to read a poem mentioning "Unitary Executive", click on my name and go to my blog. (Somehow I managed to work that phrase in.)
December 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pmNow, I truly am an anybody-but-bush guy, but AFAIK if the island sank so fast that there are actual refugees, it can't have been due to sea level rise--it's rising, but too slow.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pmP.S.: Sensational claims like that (island sinking) just help the righties.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pmHow about marijuana laws and “the right to die.†Should they be left up to the state?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pmRight to die and marijuana laws would not be held unconstitutional. Scalia wouldn't consider them unconstitutional either. The Constitution has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Therfore both could be decided by statutory law and they colud not be reversed by a court.
#224:
Roaches?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pmThat sounds like a good idea. Judging by your post in #227 you have know idea what we are talking about.
Comment by mandolin
Then I shall join you in your ignorance.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:40 pmDid you ever figure out your Unitary Executive question?
Just askin'
I find it interesting that in Lawrence Scalia says that there is no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, is there any fundamental right to heterosexual sodomy?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pmOf course ther isn't a Constitutional right to heterosexual sodomy. Have you read anything I have written. The Constitution says nothing about sex at all, so how can it protect it?
#226 that statement baffles me. When laws come before the courts they judge the constitutionality fo them. Just because the laws were passed does not make them legal iin the eyes of the constitution. If simply passing a law were enough then why have the SC at all? Annyhow the court weighs the arguments presented and looks to the law, looks to the comittee reports, looks to the public comments and makes their decision. They do not arbitrairily chaneg laws as yout hink, (though they did pretty good job of changing the constitution by not allowing Florida their constituionally granted right to choose their electors in 2000).
And the SC like other courts, takes afacts and circumstances approach. If the facts and cricumstances of a particular case are different from the last one they heard they can interpret the law differently. They do it all the time on tax issues and other non-social issues that do not gain the public notice as much as a case like Roe Might.
As to the living document, yes it is a living changng document. If not then Guys like Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, JC Watts, Condi Rice, Colin Powell etc... woudl only be 3/5 of a person. Laura Bush and the Twins would not be allowed to vote. Etc... things change, the founders knew and admitted this, get over it and move on.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pmSee mandolin?
Mark at #243 is baffled by you too, and he's SMART.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pmWayne,
December 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pmWho is the moral arbitor who decides which rights stay and which rights go? You keep going to compelling state interest but the constitution says nothing about having to have a compelling state interest to bar an act.
mandolin,
I'm not sure I'm following your perspective on this. There is no "moral arbitor" picking out which rights stay and which ones go. The rights are there already. The "compelling state interest" language that I "keep going to" is from one of the decisions I read above. I didn't make it up. And it's the judiciary that came up with that line of reasoning, so take it up with them if you don't like it. As I reminded you, neither of are lawyers. I was simply trying to help you understand how we could have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution; it's because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. But I'll do you a favor and leave this conversation now and let the ones who studied law explain it to you. They are certainly more qualified than I.
Good luck and best wishes for a Happy New Year.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:54 pmWayne,
You're always so civilized. I should learn from your example, but I never have. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pmMark,
December 26th, 2006 at 5:59 pmThe courts have Judicial Review at least since Marbury v Madison. You can't pass a law that says so and so can't talk about politics in public. That would deny someone their freedom of speech and that would be reversed by the courts.
As to the living document, yes it is a living changng document. If not then Guys like Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, JC Watts, Condi Rice, Colin Powell etc… woudl only be 3/5 of a person. Laura Bush and the Twins would not be allowed to vote
That is dead wrong. In fact that is the worst argument I've heard today. It proves that you have never read the Constituion. A living Constitution didn't give them that right, the ammendment process did.
Wayne,
December 26th, 2006 at 6:02 pmThank you for the conversation. You have been the most pleasant one to talk to.
I have the inalienable right to sodomize my wife. She belongs to me.
-Tony Scalia
December 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pmExplain this living document to me. Are you saying the legislative branch( the one that makes the law) passes a law and years later the Judicial Branch(the one that interprets law) has the power to change the law to mean new things?
No - that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we can make and repeal laws as our changing culture dictates. Go read just about anything from the Founding Fathers to know that this was their intent - for they said so. That they knew times would change and didn't want to restrict us for what they might have left out or not thought through. It is truly an egoless document. Very rare.
Shouldn’t the legislature make new laws if the people think the laws should change? Why would you allow the Judiciary to make that change? That seems like a terrible system of government. Why would you support that?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Again, not what I said.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pmA living Constitution didn’t give them that right, the ammendment process did.
Comment by mandolin
The Amendments (correct spelling) are part of the Constitution, and that's what makes it a living document.
But don't take it from me, mandolin, since I'm not SMART.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pmSomeone else here will say the same thing, and that way you'll know.
Thanks, Zooey. I'm still struggling with it. Essentially, I try to stick to the argument itself being made and I try not to let myself wander away from that. I will, of course, make exceptions for when someone is attacking another poster (like they did to you last week), but otherwise I try to understand what the person is saying and then try to figure out what's wrong with it. For the non-liberal visitors who genuinely want to understand something, I am always willing to help when I can. (I'll certainly help liberals, of course.) But if I start to get the idea that learning isn't their objective, then I either leave the conversation right then and there or I open up my sarcasm weapons locker and let 'em have it with whatever's laying on top. That's fun, too.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pmZooey,
December 26th, 2006 at 6:08 pmYou don't even know what the term living Constitution means. Look it up and get back to the debate.
She's right, mandolin. The Amendments (correct spelling) are part of the Constitution, and that’s what makes it a living document. Okay, that should exhaust my usefulness here.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:08 pmI’m saying that we can make and repeal laws as our changing culture dictates.
No, you're saying Judges can make and repeal laws as the culture dictates.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pmYou don’t even know what the term living Constitution means. Look it up and get back to the debate.
Comment by mandolin
Since Wayne has been so pleasant to talk to, take it from him in #256.
See ya loser.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pmWho is the moral arbitor who decides which rights stay and which rights go?
I've repeatedly explained this to you...
"Your rights end where my nose begins" --Worfeus
You keep going to compelling state interest but the constitution says nothing about having to have a compelling state interest to bar an act.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Yes it does - Wayne posted the article above.
Again, the Constitution it is NOT a list of the rights you have - it is a list of the processes the government has to function.
Read something, anything by a founding father to know that they were skeptical of government and created this document to protect the people FROM government - and not what you are suggesting that it enslaves us to it. Sheesh you are irrational.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pmThe living document ya'll are advocating has nothing to do with the amendment process. I'm the one that has been saying the amendment process is how the constitution should be changed. You are claiming that a judge can change the meaning of an amendment to suit a changing culture. That is wrong.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI’ve learned a lot from him through osmosis, but never enough to keep up with this kind of argument.
Comment by JaneESchneider
Jane,
You and Wayne are total sweeties!
December 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pmYes it does - Wayne posted the article above
I'm sorry I missed that . Wayne can you repost where the Constitution says the state must have a compelling state interest?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:16 pmWhats that?
You can't?
Oh, maybe because it isn't in there.
You don’t even know what the term living Constitution means. Look it up and get back to the debate.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
See, that right there - that is not nice as you've claimed you're being.
You're the guest - you're not supposed to put your feet on our coffee table and demand to be fed caviar. Your parents should have taught you at least that much.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pmZooey,
Believe me, I do have my sour parts. But thanks for the kind words.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pmNah, thanks for the compliment, but we just put on a good act! ("The Aristocrats"?)
I'm going to be heading home in a few minutes, goodnight everyone!
December 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pmNo, you’re saying Judges can make and repeal laws as the culture dictates.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Okay, you know what I'm saying better than I do.
This is pointless. You aren't interested in debate - you're interested in getting attention.
We've made our points above. Anyone in doubt can read the thread and get a graet education for free.
You, however, I am done with. Gonna go wash my hands now...
December 26th, 2006 at 6:19 pmUnbelievable,
December 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pmIf you believe the amendment process is how a Constitution evolves, then why have you been arguing with me. That is what I have said since the begining. Apperently you, I , and Scalia are all in agreement.
mandolin,
Here's the first paragraph from a website that you should go check. perhaps it can help you with this "living constitution" idea.
Read the rest of the article (two more paragraphs lilke this one in length) here.
I hope this helps you understand a little better. Keep having a nice day.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:25 pmMilitary considers recruiting foreigners
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer
December 26th, 2006 at 6:30 pmSome of us obviously are not as schooled in the details of the Constitution, and we readily admit it. When someone like Wayne S. - who obviously knows a lot more than most of us, and can articulate it - states something, I take note.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pm#195
December 26th, 2006 at 6:32 pmI read Your post before. I agree in the underlying current, but I don't think things will unravel the way You discribe. Because of my historical background I am very sensitive to fascism no matter how disguised. Here lies the biggest threat to America. Fascism does not need the approval of a majority. It oppresses the majority out of a minority. As seen in history and witnessed right now, the oppressors are always a minority, like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco et al. First they tell the people all kinds of stories about 'imminent dangers' or out side threats from another country to take control of the economy. Once they have achieved that, they divert funds to the military industry. The police will get extra powers and extensive additional personel. The media, already
evolved into 'proclamators' will do the propaganda that is neccessary to lift the Fascist Movement over the required 'critical mass'. Issues like 'immigration' or 'gay marriage' become powerful tools to collect and generate opinions and followers to give the impression of 'widespread acceptance' of more relevant criminal activities of the state.
© Buddhists Don't Torture
Torture is a very good example of how fascism works. Torture becomes an accepted practice of oppression, because in the people's minds it only happens to 'the ones that are our enemy' or the ones that deserve it anyways.
After controlling and manipulating the masses there is no more need for 'democracy'. Democracy is generally perceived as 'weak' by the military, as it lacks the rigid structure of 'following orders'. Thus, democracy is nothing else than 'liberal, immoral, uncoordinated and chaotic', never producing longlasting and positive results. Only a 'strong hand' can manage to lead people, with the help of the military, secret services and police.
This is the deeply anchored believe of the 30 percenter's in this country, just like in any other fascist country in human history. And the word fascism is not a German invention either. Fascism is a development of an unchecked government, occupied by those 30-percent-people, into an omnioppressive force that will not stop at anybody's will but fate.
Therefore the timetable for America should read like this:
1) Executive Orders to 'restore order'
2) Economic failure
3) Imprisonment, torture and executions of dissidents
4) War
5) Total destruction of the USA
Thanks, Marie. And if you enjoy the way I articulate things, I invite you to go check out my blog (click my name). I "articulated" a few things there regarding (of all things) the "Unitary Executive." Enjoy.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#273
December 26th, 2006 at 6:37 pmThat was reported on a German News Show two month ago.
"Passports for Iraq"
Wayne,
December 26th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThat website did nothing to explain why the meaning of an amendment should be changed by a Judge. It just that it sometimes is. I'm saying that is wrong. I'm saying that is a terrible system of government. I'll leave it that.
Good Day
“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.†Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County “soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years.â€
Methadone clinics like it. Who else might like it too? Where do the proceeds end up?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pmAye!
December 26th, 2006 at 6:41 pmMandolin: "Right to die and marijuana laws would not be held unconstitutional. Scalia wouldn’t consider them unconstitutional either."
Scalia sided with the federal government in the case about whether or not a co-op furnishing marijuana to cancer patients could be raided by federal agents. Yes, and Scalia has always claimed that it would be wrong for the feds to intervene in a state-run election. Yet, there he is in Bush v. Gore, an opinion you say you've never read.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:45 pmLast night, I couldn't sleep, so I got up and turned on the TV. I saw the last hour of a movie I saw a few years ago called, The Siege, with Denzel Washington. I was really awake then!
December 26th, 2006 at 6:46 pmThe movie was made in 1998 yet it was a foretelling of Iraq, Saddam, the destruction of the Constitution and American freedom, even the torturing of naked prisoners.
That website did nothing to explain why the meaning of an amendment should be changed by a Judge. It just that it sometimes is. I’m saying that is wrong. I’m saying that is a terrible system of government. I’ll leave it that.
Good Day
Comment by Mandolin
I think his Mandolin is firmly lodged up his butt. It took all day to come down to this last statement. So what the hell have you been trying to say?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:46 pmOh, well. I tried.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:51 pmOh, well. I tried.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
A fine effort, Wayne, but he didn't really want to know.
Heh.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pmWhat gets me always the most is this endless waste of life and resources for the pleasures of a few. If it wouldn't have been for the hijacked US with the Massmurderers at the helm, this planet could be way better of right now. Trillions of hard earned dollars wasted.
Latest News:
"US praises Iraqi courts following Saddam sentence decision"
Well I know the WORLD will praise the US courts following Bush sentence decision. Death through hanging.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pmHEY MANDOLIN!!! Yeah, you! Be more respectful of us hippies.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:16 pmI suggest You get rid of Your cordless phones. Those don't work without electricity. Corded phones work without power, as long as the relais-station hasn't been tampered with or taken out.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:18 pmBut that's a big problem right there. Who is going to save us from Bush and his 30 percent? It might be helpful to read about the french resistence. And finally, move now as long as you can. Move to where You don't freeze to death without heating.
I guess most of you missed Mandolin's post earlier today where he claimed to read at "at least a 5th grade level." He's no paid troll. He is abysmally ignorant (which may not truly be his fault), but I can discern a real attempt on his part to learn and understand. For those of you who made a really serious attempt to help him do so, kudos to you. However, the really technical answers are probably going over his head. "Legaleze" is hard for most lay people to understand.
Mandolin, just start with reading the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Please stop listening to Fox, or Limbaugh or any of the commentators on the far-right radio programs, because they are truly not interested in educating you; they are interested in propaganda, and that is their function. And I guarantee you, they will keep you from discovering the truth yourself.) Once you've read, and re-read the Constitution a number of times, then move onto the Federalist papers. As you learn and digest the original thinking of these documents, you willl naturally seek out other information. If you have access to cable, watch C-Span, both coverage on the House and Senate activity on the floor, but the many discussion programs as well. The secret of successful learning starts with curiosity. Good luck!
December 26th, 2006 at 7:33 pm#276 - your description of a very possible course for this country rings true for me. Last night, following Christmas dinner at a friend's house, HER SON started a rant that pretty much followed this 30% belief system. He's about 27 years old, and he scared the shit out of me. He already works as a driver for UPS and has the brown uniform; all he needs is the jack boots! But really, this 30% could do nothing except that a very large percentage of people do NOTHING. They close their eyes and deny anything is happening. They care more about their shopping, their tv programs, their golf...whatever. They block reality out. And herein lies the real danger we are facing in this country.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:53 pm#297
Allow me to introduce a different interpretation?
My personal variant would be like this:
Mr. Viola uses words and attributes like a joggler.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:06 pmTheir deeper meaning is of no interest to him. He
doesn't have to understand the origin of the words
or their initial concept. Mr. Viola represents the parrot
in the republican principle, important
synonyms joggled meaningly senseless into a thread, not possibly capable of realizing that his intrusion into a forum
of intellect would nothing but immideatly uncovered.
Because a fool uses words to confuse. But it is the resulting confusion that confuses the confuser most. Because he doesn't realize the dynamic of words, thrown around meaningless or used in respect, and their impact on human history.
Dangerous because Mr. Viola is the instrument of a republican propaganda and as such can have a devastating effect on people with no education at all. Because it is the half-knowing who seeks to impress the illiterate. Historically proved though that the mentally lesser gifted part of the population was always vulnerable for cheap and dirty propaganda. Not many illiterates are known for winning the Nobel Prize in literature. And there is no maybe.
Hey I have to add this to my 'essay':
The daily wisdom of myDictionary:
"The strong and the weak cannot keep company".
Aesop (620 BC-560 BC)
May I humbly add:
"Neither can the bright and the dull ones".
December 26th, 2006 at 8:17 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
See Article 1, Section 8. Congress is limited to making laws that are "necessary and proper. " If there is no legitimate State interest, the law is neither necessary nor proper.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:53 pmYes, I was reading about that weeks ago. It war regarding the rating for the game. They had to 'take the blood out' to get the more profitable 'teen rating'.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:55 pmWhile 'impeachment' is becoming the word of the day,it is important to look at US history to see that impeaching presidents does not happen so often and so easy . No president left his office due to impeachment. Only two preisdents went thru the Senatorial trial of impeachment -the seventeenth chief executive officer President Andew Johnson and the forty second president William J. Clinton. Nixon escaped impeachment by resigning after the articles of impeachment were voted on by the House Judiciary Committee.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:55 pm216 - unbelievable - thanks for the post, and the link.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:56 pmA fine effort, Wayne, but he didn’t really want to know.
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
He just wanted to convert us to his point of view.
Like a political Mormon of sorts...
December 26th, 2006 at 8:57 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Excuse me? Did you earlier state that you were not a Constitutional Law Scholar? Yet you dare to presume Lawrence v. Texas is not germane? Your entire argument earlier hinged on "due process."
Tell Rove to send over more intelligent trolls. You sir, are an idiot.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:02 pmThe Judicial Branch interprets the law, insofar as is possible, to be consistent with the Constitution. Period.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:10 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Words of wisdom from our vending machine repair man. Check out the application of the Commerce clause. Then there's the negative commerce clause...but for that, you'll have to go to law school.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:16 pm235 - Mark, well said!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:18 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Why not? Under which clause of the Constitution? For a vending machine repair man, you certainly seem to be authoritative on what is and what is not Constitutional.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pmIf there is one thing that I agree with bush and his ilk with it’s this: we’re running out of resources fast. Like it or not we are in the first stages of what’s going to be a major clash of civilizations around the world for control of those resources. And those that control the most will have the most to lose and meet with unmerciful and brutal force any that oppose them.
The dynasties, royal, industrial, political, and wealthy, often overlapping, that have controlled civilizations for hundreds, if not thousands, of years are trying to hold onto that control against the uprising that comes from the people they enslave.
Can you blame them? If you were a Rothschild, Krupp, Morgan, Roosevelt, or any of the say 20 odd dynasties that control 90% of the wealth, and most likely won’t be happy till they get 99%. Their dream of a “one world government†is almost, if not already here.
SO, here’s the crime – time. We’re out of it. And even if bush and his farce of followers of fools hadn’t wasted so much time, we still would have been way beyond the point of no return. The dwindling of just basic resources like water and food, forget going to see a movie, will soon, even in the richest of countries will be scare. America will suffer the most. Cities and suburbs will turn into war zones. Bush and his ilk know this. Forget the “raptureâ€. That’s just more theater for the folly. They want control. They will be that 1% behind the walls protected.
Or so they think. The 1% that will survive, if even possible in the damaged world we’ve produced, will be the tribes.
Hey, maybe that’s why bush bought land in Paraguay?
December 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pmThat is frickin’ hilarious…
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
Damn it, you beat me to it...
December 26th, 2006 at 9:23 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
Now you're just being stupid.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pmDamn it, you beat me to it…
Comment by unbelievable
Quickest filthy mind in the West!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:28 pmNow you’re just being stupid.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
*snort*
December 26th, 2006 at 9:29 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
aren't you the same guy who insisted we read the Federalist Papers? Haven't you read them yourself?
December 26th, 2006 at 9:32 pmQuickest filthy mind in the West!
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
No argument...
December 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pmNo argument…
Comment by unbelievable
Wouldn't do ya any good -- ask anyone in the West!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:36 pmaren’t you the same guy who insisted we read the Federalist Papers? Haven’t you read them yourself?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I am so enjoying watching this unfold, Briseadh na Faire!
It's like slowly, layer by layer, opening a papertowel to find the dog poo in the center.
Heh!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Now, you are the one who said you weren't a Constitutional Law scholar. This kind of remark is totally uncalled for, coming from a "vending machine repairman." You've gone from being stupid to being arrogant.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:39 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Ok. Kindly explain Marbury v. Madison to me. (bear in mind I had a dialogue with a Supreme Court Justice on this case)
December 26th, 2006 at 9:46 pmComment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Bullsh!t. Rove, send better trolls. I'm tired of playing with this one!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:48 pmI’m tired of playing with this one!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Awwww, c'mon!! I'm having fun!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:50 pm273 - thank you!
That ought to take care of all those Mexicans who come to pick our crops...sign them into the Army!!!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pmHey y'all be nice to the eight stringer here. He's not just a vending machine repairman.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:00 pmHe's a vet at night. You know, in case your parrot upchucks its dinner, he can interpret the law on bird feeding and care.
291 - read Farenheit 451.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:05 pmHe’s a vet at night. You know, in case your parrot upchucks its dinner, he can interpret the law on bird feeding and care.
Comment by RUCerious
Good one, RUCerious.
**yelling over drums playing**
Did you have a nice holiday?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:06 pmby the way, sorry I’m so late with these…getting caught up as quick as I can….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
No! No hurry...no hurry at all. I've got nothin' going on, and I'm enjoying myself so much.
Too much, in fact. :)
December 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pmI am out of town, surviving the attentions of a precocious Grand Daughter. Her evaluation of W has not changed since last year except she added the adjective 'evil' to 'bad'. At five she is learning.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pmZooey - WHAT? I can't hear!!!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:16 pmLovely Christmas, with my wife's family Christmas eve and my sister & parents Christmas day.
Amber scored her drums, a Thomas train set and more Snow White stuff than I thought existed.
How bout yours?
Comment by Zooey — December 26, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
I dunno...I think I could give you a run fer yer money!!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:16 pmWalt - the attentions of precocious five year olds are some of the best attentions on the planet. Surely better than any drill sergeant's!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:17 pmI dunno…I think I could give you a run fer yer money!!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I know you could. I dare you to prove it!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:18 pmComment by RUCerious — December 26, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
thanks for the best laugh of the night, RU!!!
:-D
December 26th, 2006 at 10:19 pmAmber scored her drums, a Thomas train set and more Snow White stuff than I thought existed.
How bout yours?
Comment by RUCerious
You know, I never even heard of Thomas the Train until I helped a friend buy a bunch of that stuff for her grandkids, and here you are with more.
Mine was good. The wingnut family was well behaved, and so was I. The football was deafening, as usual. :)
My family combines the money we would have spent on xmas, and donates it to charity. This year was heifer[dot]org -- my mom's favorite. Tons of fun picking out the animals to donate toward.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:23 pmZ - That's a really sweet thing to do. Paying it forward & karma galore!!!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:42 pmBNF - thanks for whacking the conlaw wannabe.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:45 pmMy major at UCSB was PoliSci with conlaw kind of emphasis, but never followed it to law school, something to do with a dinero deficit...
Paying it forward & karma galore!!!
Comment by RUCerious
And something the whole family can agree on -- always a big plus!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:48 pmZ - from what I guess, that is a big deal for your family! Nice. We all try to avoid political discourse during the holiday season for obvious reasons. Tis not the season to get pissed at the relatives!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:52 pmTis not the season to get pissed at the relatives!
Comment by RUCerious
True. I'm the only "normal" one, and they'd probably gang up on me!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:56 pmMeanwhile, back in Iraq:
December 26th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Oversight, Investigate, and nail this Unitary Executive signing POS to the wall. To hell with Bipartisan anything! No President (Republican or Democrat) must be allowed to waive the laws of the US with just the power of a pen! No Bipatisanship.... No Holds Barred... NO PRESIDENT can be allowed to wield such power without checks and balances.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pmComment by RUCerious — December 26, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Hey, that's what student loans are for, aren't they?
December 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pmJordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit said Tuesday that a former Iraqi Cabinet minister who escaped from a Baghdad prison this month had arrived in Jordan on a U.S. plane.
Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.
Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie's escape "in any way."
December 26th, 2006 at 11:56 pmBNF, yeah, but I used up my GI bill, had a kid, divorced, and the support payments required me to work full time +.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:32 amI don't regret a day, would have made a lousy lawyer.
Took me 20 years of being a buyer to realize I should have been a programmer all along!
Looks like Saddam won't stand trial for the gassing of the Kurds. Could it be the U.S. doesn't want all that evidence dragged into the light since Saddam was our very own little monster at the time.
Publicly: condemnation
behind the scenes: "Don't worry little buddy, we still love ya. Those choppers we sold you really did the trick."
Saddam Hussein is just another of our pets that got rabies and has to be put down.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:11 am“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.†Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County “soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years.â€
DONT SUPPOSE THERES A DIRECT LINK TO AMERICANS BEING IN AFGHANISTAN - Of Course NOT
December 27th, 2006 at 11:11 amJordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit said Tuesday that a former Iraqi Cabinet minister who escaped from a Baghdad prison this month had arrived in Jordan on a U.S. plane.
Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.
Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie's escape "in any way."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_escaped_official
A Sunni Arab, al-Samaraie was a member of the transitional government set up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
He was convicted on one of 13 charges of corruption earlier this year, but the conviction was thrown out on appeal a few days before his escape. He still faces trial on the other 12 counts. The charges concern an estimated $2 billion in missing funds for contracts on rebuilding the country's electrical infrastructure.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:25 pm“Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.â€
I wonder if Mexico will treat this as some kind of violation of the NAFTA agreement. (I'm kind of half-joking.)
December 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pmFemifascists eh? That's great. Expand the culture war to include an outright war on women. Not enough to erode women's rights, is it? Just put women themselves on the enemies list and watch the rising tide of support from disaffected males. Nice setup to build a base of woman haters to oppose Hillary. Of course, one might reasonably mention that women have the right to vote too. They may not appreciate being demonized. But whatever. Follow your black heart into whatever dark corner it leads you, Judge Dierker.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAlso quoting Lawrence v. Texas is pointless to the argument because what I’m saying is cases like Lawrence, Grizwald and Roe were decided on this false notion that you can only take away liberties if there is a percieved legitimate state interest.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Excuse me? Did you earlier state that you were not a Constitutional Law Scholar? Yet you dare to presume Lawrence v. Texas is not germane? Your entire argument earlier hinged on “due process
Wow, you knew Lawrence v Texas hinged on the due process clause! Did that come up in your conversation with a Supreme Court Judge? You must be smarter than I am, after all I'm a stupid vending machine repair man and you took classes on the Constitution in college. Perhaps those classes would have benefitted you more if you weren't smoking crack everyday. Did you know that Lawrence v Texas was decided on a thing called substantive due process? Did you learn that in class? Did this mysterious Supreme Court Justice explain it you in your imag--I mean real conversation. I know Lawrence v Texas hinged on due process. The problem is that the activist Judge throws in the word substantive to preceed due process.
Are you saying the legislative branch( the one that makes the law) passes a law and years later the Judicial Branch(the one that interprets law) has the power to change the law to mean new things?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
The Judicial Branch interprets the law, insofar as is possible, to be consistent with the Constitution. Period.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
If the Constitution says that no one shall be deprived of life , liberty, or property without due process of law, and the meaning of that law should not be changed by a Judge unless in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, how could the death penalty be construed as unconstitutional. Taking away someone's life is mentioned specifically in the 14th amendment. How then can a judge say that taking away a person's life(with due process) is unconstitutional and still be "consistent" with the Constitution. You can't claim that the authors of the 8th amendment thought it was unconstitutional. The authors of the 14th amendment specifically mentioned that act. You can't claim that the Government does not have substantive due process(a term that is bogus in my view) because there is of course a compelling state interest in using the death penalty. But then again I just repair vending machines.
All other things that are not mentioned in the Constitution are left up to the State to decide. Examples are abortion, death penalty, making laws prohibiting eating cats and dogs, whether or not you can have tassles on the handel bars of your motorcycle, how many peaches can be used in a standard 8×8 cobbler. This is left up to the states.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
I did fail to say that States are subject to Federal statutes that are passes by the Federal Government. If only I could have conversations with Supreme Court Justices like you do, I would remember to mention those thingseven though it's pretty obvious otherwise.
Right to die and marijuana laws would not be held unconstitutional. Scalia wouldn’t consider them unconstitutional either. The Constitution has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Therfore both could be decided by statutory law and they colud not be reversed by a court.
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Why not? Under which clause of the Constitution? For a vending machine repair man, you certainly seem to be authoritative on what is and what is not Constitutional.
Have you been smoking that crack again? What do you mean "under what clause of the constitution?" ? My point is that they are NOT in the Constitution at all. There is no clause in the Constitution that mentions marijuana, so how could marijuana possibly be considered unonstitutional? By the way I feel I can be authoritative on what is in the Constitution because the Consitution is made up of things called WORDS. And WORDS mean things. Therefore if the Constitution does not contain the word marijuana, or abortion, or even vaugely refence said words I can be fairly confident that they are not in the Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about sex at all, so how can it protect it?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
Now you’re just being stupid.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — December 26, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
Please enlighten me on what the Constitution says about sex? Perhaps I am too stupid. Tell me how that topic is above legislation. Is sex a Constitutionally protected right? How so? Certainly not under the due process clause(or as you would perhaps prefer substantive due process clause). The state could have a compelling state interest in banning certain sex acts such as incest and pedophilia. Are those protected in the far reaching arms of substantive due process? Then again I'm only a stupid bluecollar worker, what do I know? I mean I am close to having a degree and I'm in my early twenties and I read about the Constitution nearly everday after work, I watch all the debates between the intellectual juggernauts like Scalia, Breyer, and Nadine Strossen. How could I know even a little bit about the Constitution. I just repair vending machines. I've never preten--I mean actually talked to a Supreme Court Justice about Marbury v Madison(I'm sure you brought a lot to the conversation). By the way where did you go to school? I just want to know so I don't go there. Do you have a law degree? Maybe when I get my law degree we can discuss things further, I mean right now I'm just a stupid repair man. If only I was like you in my twenties, smoking dope, listening to Bob Marley, sleeping through my classes on the Constitution, experimenting with guys. After all it worked out good for you. You had a conversation with a Supreme Court Justice!!
December 27th, 2006 at 10:42 pmThanks all -
From what I understand, PNAC is still up but not in it's entirety - 92 pages(?)
On the raytal.com site you could find all pages especially page 51 which stated "America needed a new 'Pearl Harbor' " in order to accept the mission of PNAC. Ray Taliaferro had this page right out there for aqll to see. His web site of 5 years and message board are now gone and from what I have heard that was one of the few places left with the complete untouched PNAC document.
Big Brother????
December 27th, 2006 at 11:31 pmComment by mandolin — December 27, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
yep. that about sums it up. there is a difference between procedural and substantive due process. But then, if you'd studied Constitutional Law, you'd know that.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:19 amThank you
I am impressed with Think Progress.... Ray T, Thom Hartman, Rhandi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Sam Sedar, Bernie Ward are always bringing up TP... great posters here also.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:32 am#395 Lora,
Thanks for the tip. I will be sure to add it to my reading list.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:42 amHeartburn drugs are connected to the hip bones
Hey, didn't Dr. Nick sing that song in a Simpsons episode?
The heartburn's connected to the hip bone.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:51 amThe hip bone's connected to the something.
The something's connected to the red thing.
The red thing's connected to my wrist watch.
Uh-oh.
May I humbly recommend "Fahrenheit 451" the movie with Oscar Werner(!) and Julie Christie (!). One of my alltime favorites. Surely the book is very intense but the movie is absolutely outstanding. Very nice camera work and directed by François Truffaut. A must see, especially after 40 years.
December 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pmI just realize that the movie had its 40th anniversary this year.
And not lost a bit of the bite it has.
Ray Bradbury - One of my heroes. 'Death Is A Lonely Business'!
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! ojn05zcnDcwMCu
January 12th, 2007 at 1:31 am