Slashdot Mirror
Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80
After 33 years at the bench, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away at the age of 80 due to thyroid cancer. This comes after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court over the summer. Rehnquist's passing gives President Bush the opportunity to replace the second justice of his term, this time perhaps to assume the highest role in the judicial system.
fuck all the politics , lets remember the man..
Reinquest was a great guy.
Obviously important, but your rights online??!?
fsck -u
She will kick ass.
Wiki has a great writeup on him as well. This will make for an interesting Roberts nomination as well.
I hear cries of woe and lamentations from the liberals all over the world tonight!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Considering the sweeping implications, I'd say it falls squarely under "stuff that matters".
... after the next Supreme Court Chief Justice dies, make way for Bart Simpson.
Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
I, for one, welcome our new Chief Justice Ballmer to lead us!
Say hello to my little sig.
the presidential term is so brief that not many things can be effectively accomplished in the short term to garner or relinquish support. i am very interested in who the replacements will be. we will have to endure their decisions as long as they want us to... or at least as long as god wants us to endure them, as in Rehnquist's case.
http://www.sledgehammercomputers.com
...because a conservative is going to be replaced, presumably by another conservative? I'd be more worried about the whole Roberts thing, or if another liberal justice were to resign before 2009, but this isn't quite as major as the shift in the court after O'Connor left.
Seriously though. When can we get someone who wasn't in line to buy grandkids Pong when it first came out? I'm not concerned about the political leanings so much as I am about getting someone who doesn't think "The Internet" is a feature of premium adult diapers.
why would those of us outside the US care .... it's not like the SP decides law for the rest of us (yet) - in fact any US domestic political side show that stops Bush from invading somewhere is probably a GOOD thing
But wasn't Televangelist Pat Robertson praying for the death of a supreme court judge? If so.... @_@
Clinton got his two nominees, looks like Bush will get his two also.
Just hope this won't immediatly swing the issues of legal abortion and religious coersion too far to the right when all is said and done. Right wing judges aren't insane, but they are at least as activist on their core issues.
Ryan Fenton
america the beautiful is now america the corporate glutton. what else is left?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Here he was just a few weeks ago calling down "additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court," and Shazzam!
With 2 justices appointed by him, GWB's impact on American politics is sure to last way beyond his 2 terms.
And I somehow doubt he will appoint a moderate this time.
The filesystem is the package manager
Which implications?
Bush gets two appointments now? How screwed are we.
Though I was not a big fan of Rhenquist -- many of his positions on the Court, his work in the Nixon administration, his fashion sense -- he surely will be better than whoever we get next.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It's doubtful that any of them would resign; however, it's well known that John Paul Stevens is trying *very hard* to outlast Bush and (hopefully) resign during a liberal president's term in office.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Now, go change your soggy trousers.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Can you guess them?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It falls squarely under: shit happens
I just heard on talk radio that Chief Justice Rehnquist has just died in his Maine home. Whatever your views on his helping Bush steal the 2000 election, there's no denying his contribution to politics. Truly a Republican icon.
... that this sesssion of Congress will be filled with love, cooperation, friendship, and togetherness.
... white and male and heterosexual and well off are all going to have to get used to the idea that for the next several years, we are all going to collectively be sodomized with large cacti.
/many/ years to come, his judicial appointments will last even longer. prepare to be raped from both ends.
people tell me why i lament rehnquist's passing. the answer is simple: 1) he is a human being, 2) while he was conservative, his likely replacements make him look like a hippy by comparison, 3) not only has bush's tax cuts and utterly irresponsible fiscal policy ensured that we will be feeling the sting of his tax cuts for many,
I really wish he'd survived dubyas administration. in excruciating pane th whole time of course.
This is truly a sad day. It should be noted that anyone picked to replace Rehnquist though probably won't be too ideologically different. Check his history and you'll see a man who supported VERY CONSERVATIVE views. If GWB is smart, he cut a deal with the senate to appoint a more "moderate" individual in exchange for no fighting on the nominations, not likely but possible.
It should be noted that it is possible he will get more then just the two nominations. John Paul Stevens is 85, and could possibly retire or die before the end of GWB's term. The youngest justice at present is Clarence Thomas at 57. So anything can happen in two years.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
We get to watch all the news channels overheat.
I've always wondered why people have this thing for assassinating Presidents -- who will be followed by the Vice President (who, at least these days, is of the same party as the President). In any event, the longest a President can last is eight years, anyway, and if he's really doing a bad job, only four (well, at least in the ideal).
It seems that if you were out to produce political change by killing someone, a Supreme Court Justice, who can hold the position until they die or step down, would be vastly more effective. Also, justices have less public awareness, so there would be less of a martyr factor.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Ask the question in proper English and you might get a proper response.
It's not that we don't like our foreign friends, but just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean that it doesn't fucking matter!
I wonder if George W. Bush will be able to find as perfect of an antithesis of a model candidate, as John Bolton is as a U.N ambassador, to fill the position left by Rehnquist's absence. It seems unfortunate that a president, with an approval rating lower than that of Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate, will be charged with appointing judges, that will be around to perversely interpret our constitution and law, decades into the future. It's times like this that the fallacies of our republic become painfully apparent, especially the claim that it is a true democracy. The Executive branch is sometimes elected, not by the people, but through a Judicial decision that suspiciously adheres completely to party lines. And now the Judicial system is elected, not by the people, but by the Executive branch it originally implanted.
If the dems want to continue to have a voice in the future of this country they're going to have to get some leadership that can put out a coherent statement of what the party stands for and which has more charisma than a common flatworm. The party is adrift and in disarray right now and they seem to be at a loss as to how to fix things.
The dems have some golden opportunities with a quagmirey war in iraq, energy prices hitting levels that many Americans will find painful and a less-than-satisfactory federal response to the destruction of New Orleans. If they could put forth a coherent plan to deal with all that crap instead of the usual set of talking points that don't mean anything, they could clean up in the next couple of elections. My money is that they won't, though. *sigh*
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You shall be missed
Or not. Rehnquist might have just died, but guess what, he also thought segregation was constitutional.
Good riddance.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
Wow. Now THAT is what a troll SHOULD be! It's got style, it's got flair! It made me look twice and stop and think "is this guy trolling or is he really that wacked out of his skull?"
Bravo, sir.
Or, should I say:
"Cut it out, Ritzman!"
And I somehow doubt he will appoint a moderate this time.
Well don't you read the papers man? Roberts is a baby-eating right-wing neanderthal!
What you must have meant to say was "doubt he will appoint a neanderthal that eats fewer babies". More with the grain of things.
You have to wonder if the people crying wolf on Roberts will make it easier to appoint a more extreme justice as people will think they are full of hot air after Roberts.
Posting anon because it's Slashdot and I have mildly conservative views.
Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
Based on his past memos, that would be one of the scariest things for human rights as a whole.
Nowadays, Washington is dominated by a self-righteous Us-And-Them mentality that makes such friendships impossible. The Supreme Court is sort of resistant to this, but is still pretty bad. And we're all suffering for it.
Bush is now under heavy fire for picking heads of Homeland Security and FEMA who, when the crunch came, turned out to unequal to the job. Congress will be more critical of his appointments from now on. Being a Friend of Bush isn't going to be enough next time.
I was watching the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart about two weeks ago, and I seem to remember that Pat Robertson (the crazy televangelist) was praying to god that there would be yet another open slot on the Supreme Justice...
Well, despite his conservativeness (Me = die-hard liberal), RIP Rehnquist...
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
Oh wait, slashdot is too cool to care.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I know Slashdot got co-opted by the DU some time ago, please remember the new posting rules.
1) No cross-posting from the DemocraticUnderground.com
2) Any cross-posts will be marked as Redundant or Incite-ful.
3) Try to keep some sense of reality. While demagoguery and hyperbole will increase your karma, too much of it just makes you look like a nutjob.
We must become the change we want to see.
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fail -- think of it, ALWAYS.
Mahatma Gandhi
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and thus are not beholden to political parties. If you don't agree with that, then there were several points in history when all branches were controlled by a single party (e.g. the democratic republicans and Democrats or Republicans at several times).
There were and are scary points in the US, and this isn't one of them. Repeating the old-fart "the country's going to hell" line and making up history to support it is really irresponsible and dishonest.
The SCOTUS has always been a tool for political control. We've just lucked out that at least as often as not, judges picked for their apparent political leanings proved to be (or at least matured into) responsible jurists, more concerned with justice and the principles of law than forwarding their own pet agendas.
I'm nervous about the appointment, but I'm crossing my fingers that it'll work out in the end.
The young, on the whole, don't vote. God damn the old for voting for anyone who claims to be marginally more Christian than someone else.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Yes, President Bush can choose a candidate he thinks is best. However, he cannot (successfully) nominate a right-wing extremist who won't conceivably pass through Congress. Yea, this is the kind of power we afford the country's highest elected official.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He'll probably replace Rhenquist, a staunch conservative with, err, umm, another conservative?
:)
At least O'Connor was a swing vote, Rhenquist most assuredly, was not. There's no balance to upset on this one, and it may change negotiations over the current nominee for O'Connor's spot now that there are two seats in play. And when I say "change negotiations" I mean we might well get someone more liberal than we might have otherwise. Note that I said "more liberal" not "liberal" -- unless something rather drastic happens, I do *not* see Bush appointing any kind of liberal. I realize that that's stating the obvious, but I didn't want someone to misread it
I only hope it will be someone clued in enough to the Internet to rule sensibly concerning it, but I realize that that's pretty much dreaming...
Could you please stop killing off justices?
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/ videos/ed_helms/index.jhtml
watch 'The peoples court'. jesus christ almighty im going to church.
Though I didn't agree with the man on many issues, I do have to say I admire him for his professionalism and integrity.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Uh... killing a supreme court justice would certainly change that.
Are you a Constitutional lawyer? If the whole "separate but equal" theory had held water, it might not have been overturned in Brown or ever for that matter.
We're coming to get you. We're going to put laws all over your body--just think of it as nationalizing your private parts. We're going to make sure every redneck has a gun and a deer license and we're going to let them set up campers in your back yard. We'll indoctrinate your children and take away your money and give it to faith healers. You better move to Canada while you still can.
You're forgetting the biggest chack and balance of them all for the Supreme Court; Justices are appointed for life. Many justices have gone in believing one thing, politically speaking, and ended their careers on the opposite spectrum of belief simply because they can afford that luxury. They are not beholden to the whims of Congress or the President after they've been appointed.
Being that whoever replaces him will have a direct impact on future Supreme Court cases, I think we should all be interested. This includes all upcoming Electronic Rights cases that Slashdotters are oh-so-impacted by. Will his replacement be more interested in Electronic Privacy or Government insight into our personal lives? That's the type of question we should all be asking. I know for a fact that a large portion of us are members of the EFF after all.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee" -Homsar
Oh, well; I wasn't really using the Fourth Amendment, anyway.
Look, typical (886006) just read John Grisham's _The_Pelican_Brief_ . . . or more likely he only saw the movie.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It doesnt matter anyways though, the baby boomers vastly outnumber us.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
There were plenty of mediocre justices and mediocre decisions before Reinquist. Just look at the Dred Scott decision or for a less overly sited example, exempting MLB from antitrust laws.
This is the sort of nonsense that comes out of people's mouths when they take about the "golden age of Hollywood" but only compare crap movies from today to good movies from the past. So they'll put Biodome up next to Casablanca, but never compare Spielberg to Ed Wood.
Bush and DeLay rail against "activist judges" when judges threaten to bring down DeLay for breaking the law.
But when they want Terri Schaivo kept alive, they lament that the judges can't find a way to do it. They even pass specific laws to have judges look again, even after the judges (who do know their jobs) say there is nothing they can do.
This whole thing is a canard so the Repubs can undermine judges in preparating for the time when all these illegal deeds (locking people up without trial, DeLay's myriad election misdeeds) are declared illegal by the judges.
Furthermore, the whole idea that judges aren't there to read between the lines runs afoul of two things.
1. The whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law.
2. Anyone who has been to law school (or heck, watched The Paper Chase) knows that the law can never be completely specific. The world changes, the law doesn't change as quickly. It is invetiable judges will have to make determinations where the law doesn't cover.
I fully agree that when Congress acts, judges should follow those laws. I fully believe it is Congress' job to change the law. But when there are gaps, it is the Judicial branch's job to make determinations as to what should be done, at least until Congress can go back and make more specific laws.
So, the abortion thing comes up because there is no law specifically addressing it. Well, no law that wasn't found to conflict with the Constution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
See, a big part of the problem is the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it is terribly vague in many areas. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's the supreme law of the land, it's in the Constitution. It is up to a judge to determine what that means, barring an ammendment which clarifies it.
Anyway, this whole thing torques me off, since just last week Scalia was mouthing off, making the headlines in a way very unbecoming the staid image of the Judicial branch. And he will be our next Chief Justice. Yeech.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or Groucho Marx's sister?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
lol
excellent!
I was questioning why he stayed in office when everyone was expecting him to retire. I first thought it was just to spite Bush and not give him a chance to seat someone. I think now in hind sight that was wrong. The appoinment of the Supreme court justice is a position that will(can) be held for life. I think Rehnquist is the embodiment of what true commitment is. I don't know the facts, but how many of the previous justices have died while still being seated? Rehnquist is a man, who's life story will be known by many. RIP
I already left
A nazi nutcase wants to steal from whites and give to blacks.
Uh...are you sure you know what that word means? And the attitudes it denotes?
In fact your whole rant seems to indicate a lack of understanding for the various political views you purport to describe. Besides that fact that nazi nutcases aren't exactly the terror on the political scene that they were, oh I don't know, maybe 60-70 years ago. Of course it is a long road to decline and blaming the 'young' for the mistakes of previous generations is so, what is the word? Lazy. If you are old (maybe old enough to remember nazis) then shame on you for sitting on your wizened thumbs, nice and quiet all these years while this happened to your wonderful country, you obviously have understanding and insight that should have been put to use a long time ago. And if you are young (which I suspect is the case), quick pull your head out of your arse and realize that worshipping the golden years of yesterday is a quick way to give up on your future.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The New York Times has their obituary up for him at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/politics/04REHNQ UIST.OBIT.WEB.html?pagewanted=all.
Registration required as usual, but this seems of high enough quality to make it worthwhile.
Did you not read my post? The US government is not controlled by a single party, as the Supreme Court does not lend itself to control. Even if it were, that party derives its power from voters. This analogy to a totalitarianism is puerile.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because he is such a conservative ideologue that no matter who Bush chooses as his replacement, it won't really effect the balance on the Supreme Court.
Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story3 .html
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/1
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Since there is less than a month until the SC starts up again and since O'Conner's resignation is not effective until her replacement is sworn in, why not let Robert's fill Rhenquist's seat and ask O'Conner to stay on until another nominee is confirmed? This way we will have a full 9 member court on opening day. In the meantime, a justice such as Scalia can be elevated to Chief Justice or the court can function a while without a CJ.
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_His
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item
Look at the party divisions from 1933 to 1945. Of course after this they decided to institute a two term limit for each president since the appointment of eight Supreme Court justices by one presidents gave some people aneurysms.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
when /. is the first site I see report this news, something is going awry
They're using their grammar skills there.
Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html
OK, that's... interesting.
For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:
"My fellow Americans--At a risk of repeating your High School Civics teacher, I'm going to discuss the different roles in our national government. The first role which has gotten much attention of late, is the role of a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. This life term is a powerful thing. Members must rule on cases that are truly pervasive to all corners of every American life, going far beyond abortion and gay rights. The role of the President, of course, is to nominate. He was elected on his ideology, he will nominate someone who shares his ideology--someone he can expect to rule similarly to the President himself would rule on key issues. This has been fulfilled twice by President Bush. He has appointed judges who have consistently had right-wing ideology in important issues like Media Ownership and Corporate Rights. They may not be so called "hot button issues," but they will effect each of us an incredibly amount. So that leaves us with our role--the role of the Senator, especially the Senator of the opposition party. The Senate was never designed to rubber stamp any nominee. The senate was not designed to apply litmus testes to decide a nominee's worth. The Senate has been the voice of the reason. The power that stabilizes the powerful mood changes of the people. It is our role to not allow justices to be confirmed when they will harm this great country. This does not mean combing through documents to find smoking guns. This doesn't mean looking for scandals or coming up with asinine reasons. The President has not appointed two candidates who are moderate and will serve the nation in a non-partisan way. He has appointed two nominees who are his ideal choices. His ideal ideologues who will promote his party's bottom line. This is not a criticism. That it is what his party would have him do. That is what approximately many people voted for him to do. However, that does not mean he is correct. We are a narrowly divided country in terms of ideologies and in terms of parties. Nominating someone who is sharply conservative may serve the party, but it does not serve the country. That is why it is our role, our distinct responsibility, that we do not confirm any nomination who is not moderate. It is not important if the nominee is a nice person. It is important that he or she represents all of America. It simply does not follow that a country that is so narrowly divided have one party in the White House, both houses of Congress, and also in the Supreme Court. Our country largely a nation of moderates. The cloture rule in the Senate takes 60 people. It doesn't take a simple majority. It was for situations like the nomination of Ambassador Bolton or these two justices that this rule exists. It is to prevent a narrow majority from pushing the country far, far into one direction. Saying he "deserves an up or down vote" simply ignores the role of the Senate. That is why I am doing what is in my Constitutionally given power to prevent this nomination from being confirmed. Mr. President, give us moderate nominees who represent all Americans, not just ones who vote for you. And my fellow Americans, I hope you will all stand with me in doing what is right for this great country. Thank you"
--The 1:30 AM draft of a speech a Senator should give but probably won't beacuse they're pussies
68 previous Justices died while serving on the bench. Whether or not they were seated at the time is another matter.
t he_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_in_ chronological_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_
Yeah, Bush sure does hate women and minorities!
And just how important is the Chief Justice above the other Associate Justices? He still has only one vote. Renquist hardly got everything his way. How much more is it than just a title?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You're not understanding the difference in representation between the two systems, which is a very juvenile thing to do. I'm genuinely sorry if using a difficult word has somehow offended you.
How does a court that can only CANCEL actions taken by other branches of the government wield "more power" than the president - especially when issues have to be raised to them FIRST my citizens with problems!
If Congress passes some law tomorrow that the court wanted to strike down, they could do absolutley nothing about it until a case is brought before them.
So how does a body with no control over the armed forces, and no direct way to influence laws under debate have "more power" than the President?
By design the courts are to be equals with the executive branch. Not superiors, nor does anything they can do tend to lead in that direction.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Spelling not withstanding, perhaps the question should be "...ask yourself why one party keeps getting elected by the people
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Considering he voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans and the establishment of legalized abortions and was in favor of school prayer, capital punishment and states' rights. Doesn't really gel with my politics. Sounds like a hillbilly to me. But what do I know.
I agree it will add a lot of drama to the Roberts nominations - and will probably also increase the degree that people pay attention to the nomination.
Another interesting aspect is seeing if the people that oppose Roberts will lay low waiting to see who the next one up is, or if they will go full guns against Roberts now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Check it out now...
I've always read that to mean "Stuff that matters to nerds". Nerds have no business being involved or interested in politics. The last person you want in office is a nerd. An engineer? Yes. A doctor or biologist? Absolutely! A nerd? Never.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What's the Libertarian position on aid to NOLA?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Here we go again with this old debate....
Yes, the founders of the United States believed in God -- but this makes them Deists, not necessarily Christians. The Declaration of Independence does indeed speak of "Nature's God", and refer to mankind being "endowed by their Creator" -- but makes no mention of Christianity.
Furthermore, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "God" or "Christ" appear — a point oft considered conspicuous by omission in favor of "We The People". Rather, specific references are made to separate church and state, requiring within the constituion proper "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and in the Bill of Rights opening with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Add in the evidence of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as ratified by Congress and as published with little stir in the Press (albeit not as drafted at the treaty table!) which declared "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." , leads one to believe the Founders were doing their utmost to drag the United States away from the sectarian bloodshed that had divided Europe -- and particularly England -- for centuries.
Jefferson is the source of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that the religious right so detest; a man who removed all references to the miracles from his personal transcription of the Gospels; and who felt that his authorship of the Stature of Virginia for Religious Freedom one of the accomplishments most worthy for noting in his epitaph. Living in Charlottesville and having recently visited Monticello, I feel obliged to assure you that the persistent ground vibrations you can feel standing in front of his tombstone is not the rumble of a passing truck, but Mister Jefferson spinning in his grave from Bush's Presidency. =)
As for your assertion on abortion, while your position is better founded, I suggest you read the actual Roe v. Wade ruling all the way through; your assertion about the rights of the states in the 10th Amendment falls aside explicitly to the later "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"... although the court might reasonably revisit such a question, given the strained reasoning used. This makes the abortion war yet another twisted legacy of the debate over our former "peculiar institution."
As to your prime assertion on the legal import of the intent of the founding fathers, I suggest you read Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace"... plus a good more of the biographies of those colorful, contestous, and amazingly human founders of ours. Leaving aside Lessig's points on unaddressed assumptions, suggesting they ever had a single unified intent is a slander to their memories and to what they achieved in their struggle to unify in common cause.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a huge difference though between "narrowing" something that is already there vs. "creating".
Again, the Supreme Court does not "make" laws. They only refine of cancel what exists, and even that depending on what is brought before them. They have no control whatsoever over law without a case in front of them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Liberals sit to the left. Conservatives sit to the right. Libertarians are the clowns swinging from the chandeliers. (Heard from a libertarian.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The Senate voted 97-3 to confirm Ginsburg's nomination, and she took the oath of office on August 10, 1993.
After coming agonizingly close to a Supreme Court nomination in 1993, Breyer was President Bill Clinton's choice on May 14, 1994, for the seat vacated by Justice Harry A. Blackmun. True to form, Breyer easily won confirmation, 87-9, in the Senate.
The Republican's weren't a majority in the Senate (and House) until after the November 1994 elections. The 104th Congress didn't take office until January 1995.
As for Roberts, neither of the two most popular quotes of his are relevant. Quote #1 of "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" was made when he was solicitor general and charged to represent the views of President Reagan. Apparently contradictory quote #2 "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," was made when he was being confirmed for a lower court -- what else could he have said? No, the most important quote is "I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." That indicates he sees nothing glaringly wrong with Roe v. Wade and thus will not vote to overturn.
The scary part about Roberts, though, is his close ties to Bush and support for his policies such as Guantanamo Bay. With the Chief Justice gone, my fear is that Bush may make Roberts Chief Justice rather than the earlier favorites of Thomas or Scalia.
Thomas, at least, voted for medical marijuana (along with Rehnquist) as a vote for states rights and constitutionality. Thomas would be the strict Constitutionalist ideological heir of Rehnquist for the Chief Justice seat, but we're likely to end up with a neocon like Roberts instead.
... so that the next time you say something insightful over here (and get modded down) I'd have a chance to see it!
Paul B.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Hmmm... I think people may be overreacting here. Bush is essentially the leader of the Republican party. If he wanted to become Hitler, all he had to do was not reliquish the emergency powers he was given.
The loophole the bad guys use is that during an emergency, it is essential that all power be given to a single person so that decisions will be quick (not right, just quick - it is better to make a bad decision than no decision). New Orleans is the perfect example of this - the President had no business doing anything there, the state and FEMA were supposed to take charge. But because there was not a single person in charge (I believe that what we will discover after the rear-view analysis is a command chain failure), things did not happen quickly enough - and poeple died.
The problem with this is that once the powers are taken up, there is no good way to demand that they are given back. Bush, Hitle, and Julius Ceasar all took up emergency powers in order to defend their countries. In each case, the average citizen of the country would have agreed that there was an immenent threat. The only difference is that Bush gave power back to congress, instead of escalating the conflict (like the other two did).
I wish the Libertarians controlled the senate. That would provide an excellent safeguard. But, in the current state of affairs, I think what we have is the best we can hope for.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Way wrong. The USSC is *not* limited to shooting down legislation. They can declare that any of our laws are unconstitutional. Think Roe v. Wade, where they legalized abortion. Think Brown v. Board, where they integrated the schools. An activist court can pretty much make whatever legislation they want (once they get jurisdiction on the topic).
To be fair, Kerry's campaign team and supporters fucked things up really badly as well. What the hell were they thinking, failing to respond to the continuous stream of bullshit attacks? It was like a deliberate strategy. Karl Rove, the RNC, and the Swift Boat Vets were beating the crap out of Kerry even as Bush was doing a miserable job in the debates, yet the Dems did nothing. Why?
My money is that they won't, though. *sigh*
Yeah. Hillary's acceptable as one of my Senators, but as a Presidential candidate? She's got to be kidding herself. If the Democrats decide to run her, the party is dead.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but you don't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion on what laws should be. This is a democracy -- the people are supposed to decide what laws they agree to. The GP thinks that segregation was illegal. It doesn't matter if that holds water legally, or whatever; it's what he thinks. Is that a problem?
If everything thinks something is legal, and the Supreme Court decides that it isn't, the Supreme Court is wrong. (Like MGM v. Grokster. Sorry guys, you're wrong. So there.)
My other car is first.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reading the constitution may help you answer that question. The President can't do anything. However, congress can amend the constitution (as long as the states ratify it) to make their laws constitutional.
The point is that the Weimar Republic turned into NAZI Germany once the people became disenfranchised and VOTED a signle party into power.
The Nazis didn't control the Weimar Republic, and how the hell do disenfranchised people vote?
Can you please explain to me why the USA isn't capable of falling to the same problems as previous governments? What exactally makes us so invincable and right?
Who said it's impossible? It's moronically unlikely, as the country's currently very stable and content.
...so what does "Savior" mean in French???
Considering the sweeping implications, I'd say it falls squarely under "stuff that matters".
Ah, but the question is whether the phrase "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." indicates that "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters" should both apply to all posts on Slashdot, or whether it's either-or.
More seriously, I can get better political news stories elsewhere, and the argument that Slashdot should make exceptions for big stories like this doesn't make sense, because it's precisely big stories like this that people are likely to hear about elsewere anyway.
"Or not. Rehnquist might have just died, but guess what, he also thought segregation was constitutional."
You really shouldn't say shit like that without backing it up.
Ah, you want someone on the court who when necessary is capable of throwing questions like "what percentage of Web sites are incapable of using this CGI script, do you think?" at lawyers who waste The Court's time.
They may be assholes. They may be fossils. They may be lawyers even. But by God, there is not a one of them who is STUPID. (Which last detail caught both sides by an unseemly amount of suprise during Reno v. ACLU; try feeding Dick & Jane to someone who expects Dickens & Bronte and see how they react.) And they are far from oblivious to the modern world around them.
Being liberal-to-libertarian, I'm hoping that Bush nominates some withered old ancient... so another Renquist-type change is more likely all the sooner. However, given Roberts is only 50, it seems unlikely Bush will be that stupid.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Actually, all political stuff aside, you bring up a good point. The President (as the Executive Branch) sets the foreign policy of the US, except for ratification of treaties by the Senate. When one party of like mindedness controls both the Executive Branch and the Senate, the President does have a tremendous amount of power unrestrained by the Jucicial Branch. Full control of the Legislative Branch is not even necessary.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Reading the constitution may help you answer that question. The President can't do anything. However, congress can amend the constitution (as long as the states ratify it) to make their laws constitutional.
And who says the court will read the new amendment in any specific way?
The Bill of Rights have been around for 200 years, yet each generation has a court that reads them differently.
I'll give you an example. The right to "free speech". In the 1920's, the court said any communists could be jailed. If you had any communist literature, you would go to prision, for an indefinite period of time. In the 1960's, the courts said No More! Police need a search warrent, and PROBABLE cause. In 1955, you had no merand rights, in 1975 you did. Today, there are people in prisions around the world that the USA sent there because of the war on Terror. Some have been released after 2 years of torture.
What will the next court rule?
The thing most do not understand is the court is people. It is not laws. It is people. They decide. They have opinions. How else can you explain abortion? The laws have changes so much in the past 100 years. And 100 years is not that much time to pass to have laws change so much. What if the next justice says life starts at conception? Or does it start in the second trimester as current law says?
I will give you one last example. His name is Lois Mata. I did a report on him a decade ago. He was a retarted guy with an IQ of 60. He was sentanced to death by the courts, for killing a person. Louis could not tell you what he ate for lunch the day before. But he was killed. One year before being executed, the prosecutor came forward and said he could not take it, that he did wrong, and that Louis really had no idea of what he did. The court of the day denied his appeal to live. A court today might do different. Is it cruel to kill the retarded?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, at least once (during the Restoration period after the US civil war), Congress has restricted the jurisdiction of the supreme court, in that case, to not be able to hear cases dealing with the Restoration actions of the Govment...
No. McCarthy was not right when he created the thoughtcrime of "being a sympathiser", organized his witch-hunts and lied to congress (and to the public) about having "lists of commie spies".
Criticism of McCarthy is not about "finding spies" (isn't that the job of the FBI?) but about his prosecution of innocent people, and his practice of "extracting" confessions (that is, names of other witches^W sympathisers). It is about the black lists that would block you from getting work in your profession, without legal recourse, because "no such lists exist". It is about the very idea of "protecting freedom through tyranny".
But then, such behavior (fear-mongering, lies about "tons of evidence", prosecuting people "because we say so") is nowadays acceptable for US politicians, even presidents...
Ah yes, the high level we have come to expect from American political debate.
Maybe if we get a lot more Democrats in 2008, Carter will get to pull a Taft.
And maybe peanuts will fly without foil wrappers....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
A couple things:
Back when the court was something, they are the ones who told the police they must read rights to people.
Actually, that decision gave the police more power. Think about it: once the police tell someone their rights, they know for sure that anything they get out of them is admissible evidence, because all the police had to do was read them their rights.
Back then, the courts said that people could not be taken by government for no reason.
See Korematsu v. US. regarding the Japanese Internment Camps.
That government could not look at your reading list and label you as a terrorist because you read Carol Marx.
Not a terrorist no. But you could get labeled a communist for attending a single Socialist Party meeting before WWII. And don't forget the Alien and Sedition Acts. This comment is more about the government than the court so that's all I really have to say.
Do you know how many Joe McCarthy's there are in government, and how the courts have stopped them?
You do know that the courts didn't stop Senator Joe McCarthy, that the trials were all Senate hearings and that he eventually just lost popularity.
Why did Rehnquist not retire? Why did he stay when he was sick? Was he this sick?
He probably didn't know when he was going to die and wanted to decide the abortion case once O'Connor gets replaced (hoping by someone pro-life) since there will be an abortion case on the docket for the end of November.
"So, they (the Nazis) had more than a third of Congress AND the Chancellor was a Nazi. That sounds like control to me."
When the Nazis took control, Weimar was over.
"Probably like franchised people do, just in support of whatever party puts the least blame on the people (see the Eastern German Elections of 2004, 10% Nazi, 30% Communist)."
Disenfranchised people, by definition, cannot vote.
"So, 60% of the population NOT APPROVING of the president, $3.00+ for a barrel of oil, 150,000 thousand US troops in Iraq, ~13% of US Citizens living in poverty, the IAEA warning of a "global energy crisis", $412Billion budged deficit, not to mention what's going on in New Orleans constitutes "very stable and content"?"
No, it's everything you did not mention that makes the US very stable and content. There's not going to be this vaguely Naziesque revolution that you're prophesying or any political turmoil until the problems you mentioned compound tremendously.
"And please stop with the condesending nature of your posts, it isn't very becoming of you."
If you apologize for attacking my use of a difficult word and stop making things up, I will stop being condescending.
So how is "all people have equal access to government facilities, including educational facilities", judicial activism? If anything, the legislatures and Congress deserved to be bitch-slapped for the long history of passing assinine laws keeping one group of Americans at a distinct disadvantage, which only reinforced their cultural and social disadvantage (to which some do argue that they still buy in to).
How is, a Woman should not be a slave to what is inside her body? Would a husband be allowed to get the Court to keep his wife from getting a medical procedure (let's make it trivial, but improbable, say, a breast reduction surgery...) because it's the husband's primary domain over his wife, and she shouldn't be allowed to do it if he doesn't want it to happen?
OK, let's make it less black-and-white. Wife wants to die (she's terminally ill), but husband doesn't want to let her do it?
Mother has kid(s). Father is a sexual pervert. Mother decides the only way to protect the kids is to put them up for adoption (after court has removed father's rights), but Father decides he should still have some say.
If we invoke the slavery issue, why should a woman be held hostage for 9 months to bear a baby she may not want to bring into the world? Should the Government be allowed to force a person to do this?
Mandatory organ donorship is installed. All must register. Someone is having a baby, but it's screwed up, but it's all cool because the donor database decides that YOU are a perfect match, and, well, you should give up a perfectly good, redundant lung, kidney, an eye, a good chunk of your liver, and all sorts of other things, so that baby can live. So what if it destroys *YOUR* quality of life, your ability to earn a living (say you're a professional athlete, or have a very physical job like carpenter), etc., but a Baby got to live!
Would you be all cool about it then?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Looks like Pat Robertson does have God's ear.
I find it particularly amusing that it's now fashionable among the left to rail against strict constructionism as far too limiting, but those same dipshits turn around and play word games with the second amendment to arrive at a strict interpretation resulting in the national guard being allowed to have firearms (because we certainly would need a constitutional amendment to ensure that soldiers could have weapons!)
Were Rehnquist a liberal or a moderate, Bush could significantly change the ideological balance of the Court by nominating a left-of-center jurist to take his place. However, Rehnquist was neither a liberal nor a moderate, and Bush is not likely to nominate anyone substantially to the right of Rehnquist as the replacement. So this new vacancy on the Court is essentially a non-issue.
The O'Connor -> Roberts transition is another matter.
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
That's what the gp poster meant.
Think Roe v. Wade, where they legalized abortion.
The court ruled that the government overstepped its bounds. The court did not create legislation, it refused to enforce the law that made abortion illegal because the law was unconstitutional.
Think Brown v. Board, where they integrated the schools.
It was the federal congress that integrated the schools. In Brown v. Board of Education, the court had to decide which law took precedence, the state law that mandated segregation or a federal law which mandated integration. Since federal law always trumps state law, the court simply had to decide if the federal government had authority to pass the integration law in the first place. The 14th amendment grants congress the power to enforce equal protection so it wasn't a difficult decision.
Before anyone gets too carried away about abortion litmus tests, remember this.
US Constitution Article VI
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Rehnquist was a hard working man who took his job very seriously. For him, the time of hearing deliberations is over now and I hope whoever replaces him on the court will follow in his footsteps.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Its not so much outplayed as it is fooled...all the democrats had to do to win the last Presidential was show up and shut up. If Bush & co were the only ones talking, they'd have fallen off the stage on their own. But the Dems (on many levels, candidates, media, congress/senate, friends/family, etc) jumped at every bit of bait tossed out there and did their damndest to give the election away.
Maybe its a side effect of the new "big media" world , but it seemed to me the media was very soft on dubbya last go round, and fairly soft on him throughout his 2nd term. Though they have been fairly harsh over the past few days re: Katrina...too little too late.
Back to the original topic...while liberals may be disappointed a republican has the opportunity to replace rheinquist, the reality is whoever replaces him will likely be far LESS conservative than he was. How effective will the highest court in the land be when it is full of moderates?
So, the republicans will undo Lincoln's work at freeing the slaves and allow it to be state rights? Oh, wait. That is what the south wanted in the first place (which was under democrat control).
Personally, it terrifies me when I see not how far to the right we have become, but how much like Iran and Nazi Germany we have become. Few in America seem to understand what PATRIOT ACT I and II have done. And yes, we did nearly 100% of PATRIOT ACT II, but in another bill that was passed by the house and senate in a unrecorded vote on the very day that GWB announced that Sadaam was captured.
With that said, I have thought long and hard about abortion and where I used to be 100% behind abortion, I do think that we should limit it. The problem is where. As somebody proposed to me, if lose of upper brain function is considered death, then why not let the opposite of it be considered life. Basically, outlaw Abortion at the point where it can be PROVEN that upper brain functions starts (which is probably somewhere in the 2'nd trimester). But we also need to return to sensable education and science, such as teaching sex ed with birth control.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But one interesting thing about the CJ position is that he gets to decide who writes the opinions.
The CJ only decides who writes the opinions if he is in the majority (hence the going with the majority to limit the damage) or else the senior-ranking justice in the majority decides.
"Mr President, what are you going to do about New Orleans"
"We're going to send the Army's 12th evac in with food and medical supplies, secure the area against looters and lawless gangs and start air lifting civilians out to shelters around the country. While the corp of engineers works on draining the city, we will work to expedite getting the affected civilians in contact with insurance companies and other sources of funding so they can get back on their feet as quickly as possible. We will not allow anyone to be hungry or homeless due to this disaster!"
Shall we try another?
"Mr President, what are you going to do about high energy prices?"
"I'm going to release 60 million barrels from our current stockpiles, lobby Congress to temporarly suspend the 52 cent a gallon federal gas tax, and instruct the Attourney General to vigorously pursue anyone found to be price gouging during this disaster."
No bullshit talking points, no treating us like we're stupid, just tell us what resources you are mobilizing to solve the problem in an efficient manner.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The biggest canard in law is that "strict construction" has a coherent meaning. Other than "I am the true interpreter of the Text!" The bigger joke in politics is that there was anything principled about the guy.
You can look over his record and predict his votes by this formula: economic strong trumps weak (corp vs. individual), powerful trumps weak (govt vs whistleblower or random individual.) Remember: he voted that INNOCENCE WAS NOT A REASON TO OVERTURN A DEATH PENALTY CONVICTION. After all, rich white people are hardly ever in that situation, so it can't be very important.
Even CNN is falling for it. "States rights...except where state law threatens Republican election chances."
Gil made his bones in thuggish suppression of minority votes - naturally the shenannigans in Florida in 2000 so overwhelmed him with nostalgia that he could punt 20 years of his own precident to achieve an outcome.
It's just a shame it didn't happen 40 years earlier.
FEMA only part of the chain of command is that they are the central point for all federal supplies. FEMA is not in control in the event of an emergency, they only provide supplies and personnel when requested by the governor of the state that is effected.
The exception to this is if the governor signs forms assigning all control to the federal government, but why would they do htat.
If you don't like it, talk to your congress/senate-critter or write them, or found/join some kind of revolutionary thing. But don't go around thinking this is a democracy. It truly isn't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In 1955, you had no merand rights, in 1975 you did. Today, there are people in prisions around the world that the USA sent there because of the war on Terror. Some have been released after 2 years of torture.
No. You always had those rights. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that everyone must be informed of those rights. There's a big difference.
Actually, they ruled that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, without having to pretend to be straight in order to get them. (if you think gay marriage is a "special right", imagine yourself living as a straight person in a society where only gay marriages were allowed. Would you consider your wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a "special right"?)
Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership,
they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse". That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world, to make the place better.
Not only that, the courts previously ruled that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities in hiring, even if the business is private, and the owners are KKK members and want to give KKK values to the world, to make the place better.
Some people even look upon this as a good thing.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It is also worth considering that it takes a kind of courage that few on this planet possess to stay working when (quite probably) in terrible agony and (certainly) in full knowledge that his days were numbered.
I see little honor in the living dying for one's country. I see considerable honor in the dying living for theirs. The difference is important. The former is a waste, the latter is devotion.
While I have a hard time telling him to rest in peace, I do at least wish him no ill and pray that whatever lies beyond this life has mercy upon him and remember him not for his faults - we all have those - but for what good he brought into the world.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He consistently invented police powers vs. citizens, and in Bush v Gore tossed 20 years of opinions out the window to trash a state election law. The decision was so tortured they felt obligated to put - for the first time in history - a nonsensical clause that this decision should not be used as precedent.
Why not? Because it is so fraudulent? Or, more likely, they can't know in advance whether a Republican would benefit.
Make no mistake: Rhenquist disgraced his robes and acted as a partisan, not a judge. It's too bad he didn't die 30 years ago.
Let's not forget his early career suppressing minority votes in Arizona. He was a partisan thug.
Sincerity is a highly over-rated virtue. If he did a lousy job it doesn't matter very much if he was sincere in how he tried to carry out his duties.
First off, the word "God" is nowhere in the US Constitution.
Secondly, "Creator" is about as religion-neutral a term as is humanly possible.
Third, the US Constitution is most closely related to the constitution of the Iroquois, who were decidedly non-Christian.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
And who says the court will read the new amendment in any specific way?
The court can only vary interpretation of a law as widely as the wording allows.
If Congress decided to extend the constitution with the wording "The color Red is now defined as Blue, as defined by the Kwal color chip#xxxx" then the court literally has no room to decide anything else.
So basically the courts limitations are defined by how carefully the laws and constitution are written. Again, their power is always a SUBSET of what exists, no more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
On his watch didn't we get eminent domain AND civil asset forfeiture?
Not to mention he was a supporter of Manzanar.
The War on Drugs, The War on Terror... these can't happen without the courts ruling against the constitution.
Way wrong. The USSC is *not* limited to shooting down legislation. They can declare that any of our laws are unconstitutional.
Ok, how ELSE do laws get "shot down". Sorry I was not more clear but I thought it was pretty obvious what that meant since I cannot think of any other means the Supreme Court has to declare a law void.
Yes they can declare the laws unconstitutional but they cannot make new ones. As I said. They did not legalize abortion. They did not do any integration whatsoever. They just allowed laws to do what they did.
Even once they decide something it does not wholly settle the matter, as other cases on the same topic can come before them when the courts choices do not offer enough guidance to properly settle a case. You act like the courts can just say whatever the hell they want and then it's the law of the land. But all it means is that case is settled, and other cases like it weight heavily what the SC argues for (though even then they mostly look at the union of pro and dissenting opinions to decide what the court really thinks as a whole).
A real problem today is that people do not seem to study civics enough to know what dangers you should fear from any particular branch of government, if any. Every American should pay keen attention to the structure of government to see how it really all works, all the better to see where changes desired can be best pushed for. I know I didn't really think about it until later in life than I should have. I guess that's why everyone in politics seems very old, because the young just aren't interested.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The baby boomers are soon to die! The state of public health care assures painful death. then we get to fix their mistakes
We just need to hold on until their corpses are 8 feet under.
But more like "Your Rights Everywhere"
Only because there's no point in shooting once he's dead.
Of the 108 Supreme Court Justices, 48 died in office, of whom eight were Chief Justice. Source: Oyez.org.
- William H. Rehnquist (CJ)
- Fred M. Vinson
- Wiley B. Rutledge
- Robert H. Jackson
- Harlan Fiske Stone (CJ)
- Frank Murphy
- Benjamin N. Cardozo
- Edward T. Sanford
- Pierce Butler
- Joseph R. Lamar
- Edward D. White (CJ)
- Horace H. Lurton
- Rufus Peckham
- Howell E. Jackson
- David J. Brewer
- Melville W. Fuller (CJ)
- Lucius Q.C. Lamar
- Samuel Blatchford
- Horace Gray
- Stanley Matthews
- William B. Woods
- John M. Harlan
- Morrison R. Waite (CJ)
- Joseph P. Bradley
- Salmon P. Chase (CJ)
- Samuel F. Miller
- Nathan Clifford
- Levi Woodbury
- Peter V. Daniel
- John McKinley
- John Catron
- Philip P. Barbour
- Roger B. Taney (CJ)
- James M. Wayne
- Henry Baldwin
- John McLean
- Robert Trimble
- Smith Thompson
- Joseph Story
- Thomas Todd
- Brockholst Livingston
- William Johnson
- John Marshall (CJ)
- Bushrod Washington
- William Paterson
- James Iredell
- William Cushing
- James Wilson
Blah blah blah blah lameness filter sucks.This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
I'd want the right to marry a woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry his friend Steve. I assume the law in that imaginary land would say something to the effect of "you can marry whoever you want as long as they are the same gender as you.
Bob would therefore have the right to marry Steve. I also would have the right to marry Steve if he preferred me over Bob. That's what you can an EQUAL right.
A different right would be the EXTRA right to marry someone of the opposite gender. I would want the constitution changed so that it gave me the right to marry Alice.
The only scenario in which the straights in your imaginary land wouldn't have equal rights is if Bob could marry Alice or Steve because he was gay, but I could only marry Steve.
People would can't grasp basic logic because they want everything to make a good sound bite are annoying. The gay marriage thing is about changing rights. Not establishing equal ones. And if you're all pissed off reading that, perhaps you could stop, take a breath and realize that none of what you just read says that gay marriage is bad or that it should not be legal. It just doesn't insist on making stupid statements so the issue could be termed a "rights" issue.
Tell the difference between the DoI and the Constitution I mean (wonder how I got modded up!). I guess I blew that in bolstering my point, but it still stands somewhat. The Constitution was considered so vague by the colonies that they didn't ratify it until there were ammendments spelling at least a few important things out explicitly.
But it still says a few things (besides a slave is worth 60% of a white man), things that do matter. And are people just going to bitch every time a judge finds that its content actually means something?
Perhaps some people will. Well, they'd do well to get the people together and fix it. The Constitution has been ammended before, it can be done again.
I think it's personally quite obvious that the Constutition trump card was not supposed to be played in limited enumerated circumstances. It should be played whenever it applies, and not when it does. But that's the rub. One person thinks it doesn't apply, and blames judges. Pardon me, "unelected" judges. You know, the ones who are unelected because it says that in the Constitution (at least at the Federal level). When these people complain about judges being unelected, they are trying to undermine the Constitution itself. (And for that matter, you don't see Bush refusing to appoint Supreme Court Judges based upon these "unelected" complaints.)
Really, it all doesn't surprise me at all. When Bush stood in front of the press and said he felt there was a higher law of the land than the Constitution, and reached down and brought up a Bible, that pretty much said it all right there.
Bush, for some reason thinks his religion is good enough for everyone and so we should all follow it. If his religion has a problem with stem cell research, then he puts a major crimp in stem cell research. If his religion is against abortion, then we change the courts ASAP so that they can overturn that too. And then of course we should be able to pray to his God in our schools too.
It drives me nuts. Escaping others telling you how to live your life on religious grounds was a big reason this country was formed, and why we have a separation of church and state. To see it all undone distresses me greatly.
I would love to see a return to a leader who, although religious, doesn't feel like he should invoke his religion as a governing principle above the Constitution, nor thinks that we should rejigger our laws to match his religious beliefs (like they do in Fundamentalist countries). You know, someone like George H. W. Bush (president #41). How this apple fell from that tree I just can't understand.
Anyhow, "strict constructionism" just doesn't work. The law isn't explicit enough. The law has to be interpreted. Or else perhaps the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to anything but matchlock muskets, since that's all that existed when it was written. And you do realize that nowhere in the constitution does it say women are equal to men, only that black men (slaves) are equal to other men. Are we to supposed that women aren't equal because it isn't explicit in there?
Let's not get stuck in the past here, as an excuse to change a few unhappy decisions in the present. Let's not lock ourselves into 18th Century principles.
All this religious nuttery and "it must be as it is written" crap is really starting to freak me out. I mean, why did we go into Iraq? To stop Muslim Fundamentalists who want to make their religion the law of the land based upon strict, outdated interpretations of a 200 year old text? Substitute Christian for Muslim and I swear we're heading to the same awful place.
So sad. I won't sleep well tonight. I mean even worse than usual.
Whatever happened to real conservatism? The Republicans left it behind in favor of telling everyone what to do. All we have left is Pat Buchanan, who isn't doing us any favors either.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
About the whole not being able to discriminate in hiring thing... I think you'd agree that there are some fairly good reasons to not allow businesses to refuse to hire on certain grounds, but I think you need to realize that there are exceptions to this principal. For instance. A Women only gym. Should they be permitted to hire only female staff? Seems to make sense to me. An all girls private school. Same deal? A rape support centre. Should they be forced to give equal consideration for male applicants for ALL positions in the organization? A church. Should they be forced to provide equal consideration to all applicats or should they be allowed to discriminate on all sorts of normally verboten grounds. (Like, oh say... religion). Frankly, there are times when discrimination is a perfectly legitimate thing.
Votes for Supreme Court justices are the most politicized votes of all in Congress (except perhaps impeachment). The whole thing is a sham, it'll go right down party lines, no matter who Bush picks. Oh, they'll talk like they're evaluating the candidate, but it's a sham.
And heck, he's a lame duck, it's difficult to hurt him in any way.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.
Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.
The "withered little apple-John" was a proponent of keeping church and state well separate, and Mister Jefferson was anything but neutral to established religion, albeit perhaps on amicable terms with his creator. If the people wish to place menorah, crosses, and mistletoe-strewn oak trees amidst the public square, that is all well and good... but for the nation, state, city, or school board to do so is another. (Yes, I've read the Koran. I prefer The Principia Discordia before bedtime, but own copies of both on my shelves.)
For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)
As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.
Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.
Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.
"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Did Slashdot become the apropriate place for obituaries of high-ranked political figures?
Then why wasn't there an article on what happened in New Orleans? They are talking about thousands of deaths, there.
Who are these people and any should anybody give a stuff?
I guess people *do* laugh at what they fear.
"laws all over your body"
I watched Dan Quale state that a 12yo incest-rape victim should be required to give birth.
Not he, but his ILK now run this country.
"make sure every redneck has a gun"
check!
"indoctrinate your children"
Intelligent design coming to a school near you?
"take away your money and give it to faith healers"
Tax-free status for "churches".
"better move to Canada while you still can"
No way. Looking forward to taking a few of you out when you "come for us".
Almost. The decision was 9-0... which is not quite the same thing. Two separate concurrences with the main opinion were filed; everyone agreed that Grokster was run by a bunch of Jackasses who deserved to get exactly what they have coming, but the question of what should happen to the next fellow trying to rely with better faith on Sony was a little more divided.
It would take some serious work to find the last completely unanimous decision (without separate concurrence) that came from the SCOTUS. And there were cases in the 1800's where each justice filed a separate opinion....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Yeah, but there were several times during the debate where Kerry seemed evasive or indecisive. When you're under attack for being a flip-flopper you damn well better be sure of your answers.
I still don't get why Kerry just did not say it like it was: politics IS flip-flopping. The last thing you want is someone unable to evolve their view on things, compromise. Especially in the sort of complex decisions that end up in Senate and Congress.. Indecisiveness (indecision?) can be a bad thing, for sure, but it doesn't do anybody any good to make things appear simpler or more clearcut than they really are, either.
And both parties treat this country's citizens like we're retarded.
Obviously I should not generalize -- and I definitely don't mean you personally -- but I must say, from where I'm standing, the average American (i.e. as manifest in polls, elections) shows alarmingly little criticism of government, period. Many argue the mainstream media help, but if people really wanted to know then the media would have to cover -- after all, the public is the product which a network sells to advertisers.
Anyway, that both parties jump on that apathy, use it to make the sheeple look away from what really matters to them and those they represent (corporations, in both cases, not Joe 6P) does not necessarily prove they are responsible for it -- although it is likely they would actively try to maintain it.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
> See, people don't voluntarily retire in the Suspreme Court when they are worried about their replacement, like you seem to think they do. They retire under threat of impeachment, or when they cannot hold the office anymore
Justices retire whenever they wish to and only if they wish to. While it's true that they're appointed for life, it's not a sentence by any means--they are free to leave the Court should they wish to for ANY reason.
While it's true that no one has recently chosen to without some duress, it does NOT mean that they can't just up and leave whenever they wish to. It's not like all of those who have retired because of "ill health" were on their deathbeds at the time. All you have to do is no longer feel up to the task.
ominous ... that's the theme song from "The Sound of Music" which, if we get more conservatives like that on the Supreme Court, is a pretty good idea of the kind of world we will be living in here in the US in 20 years.
You know, when the Patriot Act came up the first time, all the Republicans said: "Cut your whining! This is only for a short time."
"When things go back to normal, the laws will go back to normal."
Granted, these are not quite "single-person emergency powers." But the Patriot Act has just been made permanent law, and you'll excuse me for thinking that's worrisome.
It is my humble belief that the USSC was our last sane branch of government. Call Reinquist what you will, but he was an honest man of a different generation. I truely believe that with his loss, we will be forced to face a USSC with another younger and less principled justice. I really feel that we are going from a court dedicated to interpitation of the constitution to one that just may be another political tool to enforce a given ideology.
The Constitution is designed to make the Supreme Court reflect shifts in the public opinion, but only very slowly so that temporary jitters are smoothed out. Like it or not (and personally, I don't like a lot of it), the country has moved to the right in many ways in recent years by electing Bush and a Republican Congress. "Interpretation" of the Constitution is a subjective process, and many disagree on how to interpret different aspects of it. These shifts will just result in a different interpretation, which some might call "enforcing ideology."
Rehnquist was honest, but I don't see any point in prejudging Bush's yet-to-be-announced nominee for his spot. Roberts seems to be quite reasonable, and if he is any indication of what Bush will bring, I don't think there's an enormous amount to be worried about (especially since Rehnquist was already conservative).
This is a scary time in the US. We have never had ALL of our branches of government run by a political party with control centered in the hands of so very few. Truly a scary time.
I wouldn't say that we've never had such a situation before, but yes, I agree with you, it is quite worrisome. We need to get some balance sooner rather than later.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Is "wall of separation" really the best way of understanding the establishment and free exercise clauses? I don't think so. Instead, I think we need to recognize two things: first, the approval of the fourteenth ammendment has expanded this beyond recognition, since it has taken what was meant to be a ban on Federal establishment of and interference with religion and turned it into a ban on all government doing the same. At the time of the constitution, Massachussetts was a theocracy! Second, much of the thinking on this subject has been guided by ideologies overtly hostile to Christianity--i.e. militant atheism and agressive pluralism. Is it really a violation of the establishment clause for some school teacher, working for a county in Virginia, to pray with a student? Does it really constitute a violation to put a copy of the ten commandments on a courthouse wall along with a copy of the Magna Carta and the code of Hammurabi? Is it really an establishment issue to allow a community group to put a nativity scene on the courthouse steps? Current legal decision regarding church and state issues seems to be not so much designed to enable the free exercise of religion in the public sphere as to prohibit it in every case possible.
The point then is that America was not a "Christian nation", but neither was America founded on the position that America should drive religion from the public sphere--which is the end objective of many on the religious left. Instead, the goal was to avoid sectarian tensions overwhelming the new republic. This is a very different thing.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The only good fascist is a dead fascist... and gentlemen, the gods of blessed us with one dead fascist.
http://www.mintruth.com/blog/index.php?p=323
or even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamRehnquist
But you're right - it depends on where you sit on the fence. I certainly don't feel like he was one of the greatest, not by far.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The GP said that they didn't have power to legislate. I am arguing that the ability to reverse any law equates to the ability to legislate.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court said that it was unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. That's the same thing as creating legislation explicitly legalizing abortion.
The Supreme Court upheld "separate but equal" prior to this, and that satisfied the equal protection clause. So, ultimately, it was their decision that separate isn't really equal that forced integration.
What federal law mandated integration?
If the USSC is controlled by the same people that control the House, the Senate, and the White House...
I don't think you'll find history showing Supreme Court justices marching in lockstep with the politics of the Presidents that nominated them.
Face it, you are a minority here. As a conservative you must BOW to the majority in ANY situation.
Your words appear on my screen, but they say nothing to me.
Blar.
Would I be "all cool" about what? Judicial activism? Or mandatory organ "donation"?
My point was not that abortions are bad or that segregation of schools is good. In fact, I have not voiced my opinion on the topics. I was only stating that the Supreme Court has the ability to make legislation. Given a scenario where somebody sued to invalidate laws protecting people's organs, an activist Court could potentially mandate organ donation by declaring any laws that protect my organs unconstitutional. (Not that I think that's too likely.)
That was my only point.
Convince the American public to change their minds (and thus their leadership). The will of the people has put the Republicans in a majority. Feel free to keep whining and scuttling about, nimrods. It won't change anything.
Bitches.
...in the 100's of Billions of Dollars. And what do we get for our dead sons and enormous debt? A theocracy in the Middle East that MIGHT sell us oil at a better price.
No, what WILL be a boon to the economy is the rebuilding efforts after Katrina.
But Bush lovers will claim it was the President who did that.
Blar.
Not doing well? Job get out-sourced? Angry that you aren't quite poor enough to go on welfare? Resentful towards those who are? Guess you should have tried harder in school, eh?
Blar.
While the man was a conservative, he was largely an honorable conservative in the sense that he did his best to adhere to the principles of the constitution. This is remarkable and respectable - and this comment is coming from someone that most of the conservative crowd here would consider a bleeding-heart commie. I sincerely doubt that his replacement will do the same.
http://www.articles.morebusiness.co.nz/Legal/S4662 .separate-but-equal-legacy-of-chief-justice-bill-r ehnquist.html
Blar.
At the time the American Communist Party was taking orders (and money) from soviet Russia, idealizing revolution by military force, and encouraging members to lay low, hide their affiliation, and achieve strategic aims by stealth. Sounds like spies to me.
McCarthy goofed not by crusading against the very real Red Menace, but by making anti-communism look unjust, through sloppy targeting and lack of due process.
In '04, the Democrats and their supporters in the entertainment industry worked hard, and successfully, to turn out the youth vote - in the belief that the young were overwhelmingly left and atheist. Turns out, the increased turnout didn't particularly favour anybody. There is no hidden army of disenfranchised atheists.
Nope. Still just a coincidence.
Let's see - some really old guy, with a very serious health condition, dies. Oh, yah, that is an act of god, right.
To convince me, I'd need this guy to show up to work, cured, and live another 50 years while nobody else lives within 20 years of his age. That would be an act of god.
Maybe ill run i was born may 5 1955.
My motto, A birthdate easy to remember 5555.
thats 5555, again 5555 thanks for your vote.
All kidding aside that really is a good idea. and also to not have any party afilliation listed.
That way they dont blindy vote the party line, just like thier dad did and his dad before him.
wow that was just truly amazing. who would have figured it.
years.
I'm was not an octogenarian you insensitive clod, I died at 79, not 80.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Where are you getting your figures from?
The 2004 election was quite different than the 2000 election, actually. Not only was the country MUCH more divided in their opinions on Bush. This helped the democrats to some degree. They were able to mobilize a record number of voters to vote against Bush. But, Bush had several things going for him as well. (1) He brought this country to war and kept it at war. Americans are afraid to change presidents in times of war. (2) People weren't yet convinced that there was no link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. (3) Religious "ChristiNazis" (not Christians, but the crazy cook's like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, and the folks that follow them) are very organized.. And there numbers keep growing (scary enough!) (4) People still praised him after the way he handled 9/11.
It would be interesting to see how another election would turn out after seeing how Katrina was handled this past week, and now that most people believe there was no link between Iraq and 9/11 (even though he's going to try and push that again at the 4th anniversery of 9/11 coming up next week), and we know for certain that there were no weapons of mass distruction. I suspect a good deal more people that were giving Bush the benefit of the doubt would be changing their votes. But, he will always have a faithful following of conservatives. I'd suspect he'd lose another election (if there would be one) by about 60% dem, 40% rep.
Just wait until you see who he gets replaced with.
You MUST consider, that now, as the appointment looms, that the legal rights of women in the United States in regards to their own health and well-being are FORFET. Its been a battle hard lost, but lost it is.
Thanks to all the women in RED states, that made this possble. Stand by your man[Bush], He's an idiot, but you voted for him, and he is going to set us back at least a century or more in womens rights.
The real issue is that about half the country believes in moral and ethical absolutes, and the other half believes in moral and ethical relativism. Very contradictory philosophies.
The question that needs to be answered is, "Is society defined by morals and ethics, or are morals and ethics defined by society?"
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Everyone can marry an individual of the opposite gender. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture.
Are you saying that a Republican Senate caused Clinton to pick more moderate nominees? I have a hard time picturing someone more hard-left than ex-ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
As for 'balance,' I'd say that's been gone for a long time. These days courts are acting like unelected, unaccountable legislative bodies, erecting entire new bodies of law and striking down laws enacted by the people or their representatives. I'm coming to the conclusion that if courts are going to become politicized, it's time we start electing judges.
The supreme court is good and bad, and mixed. Good because it finally let simple things such as what color your GF/BF is not matter in the eyes of justice anyway. mixed in that depending on what mood they come to work in it can in theory declare martial law, throw out a president on a vote of no confidence [only has realy happened twice], and recently bad because some of the policy choices have been by all acounts been whack. However the judges individually will field in artibritration out of court almost any old thing. For instance Mrs.Conor's secritary arbitrated a local union debate.
"Yet the courts ruled that gas had special rights."
:)
What else was Iraq about
I'm finding it difficult to look at the big splashy memorial banners on the news sites when there are reports of thousands dead in New Orleans in smaller print below it.
I know it's a "celebrity" and all that, but I'm still amazed how we (or the news media) don't have the capacity to magnify the loss of one well known person into the loss of thousands of unknowns, and grieve accordingly.
You're free to have whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that the exact same 'logic' was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, and the equal protection clause was the basis for ruling them unconstitutional as well.
Quoting the ruling in Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
Substitute 'sexual orientation' for 'racial classification' and it's basically the same thing.
When I say "sounds like spies", I don't mean "I'd suspect them of spying". I mean "that's pretty much the textbook definition of spy". Whether or not they had KGB personnel numbers is as irrelevant as whether Bin Laden has a military rank. Being an amateur spy is hardly an excuse.
"People weren't yet convinced that there was no link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
If you go read the surveys done of this, you will need to goto a better library or work at a company that subscribes to them, you see that people who belive there was a link were more likly to consider themselves liberal or independent. This belief spiked when the movie farenheit 9/11 was released and then dropped down and then increased again when it was released on DVD and on TV. Soon after the election it dropped down.
President Bush and administration has been out there multiple times saying there was no direct link. This this not factor into people voting for Bush.
It was clear to us by late morning Monday that many people inside the Superdome would not be returning home. It should have been clear to our government, Mr. President. So why weren't they evacuated out of the city immediately? We learned seven years ago, when Hurricane Georges threatened, that the Dome isn't suitable as a long-term shelter. So what did state and national officials think would happen to tens of thousands of people trapped inside with no air conditioning, overflowing toilets and dwindling amounts of food, water and other essentials? State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn't have but two urgent needs: "Buses! And gas!" Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially. In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn't known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day." Lies don't get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President. Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You're doing a heck of a job." That's unbelievable. There were thousands of people at the Convention Center because the riverfront is high ground. The fact that so many people had reached there on foot is proof that rescue vehicles could have gotten there, too.
It doesn't matter whether they're official or not, it matter whether they're spying!
Oh, and spies do a lot more than just filch secrets. They also do sabotage, infiltration, provocation of trouble, propaganda... all things that the commies were doing, or trying to. So yes, spies.
Abortion: They didn't explicitly make it legal, they ruled that local, state, and federal governments could not make it illegal.
The gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts: They didn't say to the state legislature, "You will legalize gay marriage". They ruled that the government could not restrict giving out marriage liscenses based on the genders of the people involved.
Integration: There were no laws requiring integration. There _were_ laws requiring segregation, and it was those that the SCotUS smacked down.
They can legalize things that people do by way of illegalizing things that governments do. That's a direct consequence of the nature of freedom; anything not prohibited is permitted. But they can only take action on things that the govrnment is already doing. Superficially, this may often resemble the ability to legislate, but it's not. For instance, the SCotUS could never have created the EPA. They could never have passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. They could never force Congress into declaring war. They cannot do anything _new_. They cannot take action themselves except in response to selectively _undo_ things that have already been done by other government bodies. And even then, they must wait until someone brings a case to them.
Dyolf Knip
First off, there was a link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The inspiration to go to war was induced by 9/11. If 9/11 had not occured, would Bush had gone on his rampage to exterminate the world of terrorists? Centering his efforts on Iraq? Would the people have let him? Sorry, but there was a definite tie between 9/11 and the war in Iraq, and this shouldn't be an argument.
What I think you meant to get at is the tie between Iraq having anything to do with 9/11. This preceeds the war. Now maybe I was hard of hearing, but I don't remember Bush ever insisting that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on America. I say "hard of hearing" because if he did... he did it so quietly that I couldn't hear it. Did he go on tv, on every network and insist that there were no ties, such as he did when he told the country we would be going to war to kill the terrorists in Iraq?
Actually, wasn't the Bush campaign pushing the fact that Iraq had strong ties to Al Qaeda? When in fact, it is now known that there were no strong ties. Heck, is there even proof that there were ties at all?
The people that believed that there were ties, believed that the war was justified. The people that believed there were WMD's, were the people that believed the war was justified. But alas.. now that those have all been proved as falsehoods... now it's just a war to "save the people of iraq from the tyranny that was saddam". Funny, I don't remember that being one of the original reasons for going to war. Somehow people accepted the change of reasoning. We pretty much cut through Iraq with the greatest of ease. Whether the country and government was guilty or not, we were going to rip that country apart. Now tell me, do the vast majority of people think Iraq is a better place because of it? Yes. So it doesn't matter if the reasoning to blow up that country was justified. Now that it has happened, are we better off? I think the people of America would rather say "we did something good", than "we did something unjustifiably", don't you? Voting against Bush was the ladder, and voting for was the former.
Then again, you don't switch presidents in a time of war. Why? The Bush campaign INSISTED that if Kerry was made president, he would pull out of Iraq and leave a mess. Of course, no one knows if this is true. Kerry tried his best to prove the Bush campaign wrong. But with the republican campaign machine in full force... Kerry could have laid out detailed files of what he would do, on what dates, with which men... and he still would have been shotdown. The theory of him pulling out was already there, and couldn't be removed from our minds. Psychology 101.
As of now, with the current situation in New Orleans AND with Iraq in its current state, I think Bush would get ousted in another vote. Heck, I didn't fathom him ever being re-elected with his 4 year record of stupidity. And when I say stupid... I mean it. For instance, watch his speeches from when he was running for governor of texas. Quick thinking.. fast talking. Now watch him speak. Slow. Fumbles over his words. Guess maybe he used to think for himself... now the teleprompter does it for him. Too bad he "doesn't read much"... Should there not be a requirement for reading comprehension for the president? Yeesh, and with all of those reports on his desk spouting on about some terrorists hijacking airplanes. We don't need a president that reads anyways! Documents showing those levees needed maintenance and reinforcement? Bah... we'll deal with them as they come.
On a side note, just remember, BOTH candidates in the 2004 election received more votes than any other candidate in history. They BOTH broke the record. That's something to think about.
I'd want the right to marry a woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry his friend Steve.
I'd want the right to marry a white/christian woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry a black/muslim woman.
This would be pretty blatant racial and religious discrimination. Don't you see that what you are suggesting is sexual discrimination? The right to "marry the opposite gender" is not an equal right, it is two different rights "the right to marry men" and "the right to marry women". Imagine a law that said "the right to travel in areas designated for your race". It's pretty obvious segregation, even though everyone has the "same" right. Except it isn't, because white people would have different rights than black people.
Whether or not a person could marry Steve depends on the sex of that person, thus it is discrimination based on sex. Perhaps if I put it in the form of an imaginary amendment it will be brilliantly clear:
"The right to marry an individual [Steve] shall not be denied to any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Clinton impeahced? It was Rehnquist who was presiding judge in the Senate."
... had jack and shit to do with the Constitution of 1789.
... had jack and shit to do with the Constitution of 1789.
He had no involvement in the House vote to impeach, and while presiding over the Senate he has no say in the Senate's vote on conviction. He may have been the "judge" as you say, but he certainly wasn't the jury.
And the only reason he's involved is to avoid a conflict of interest. You don't see anybody in the judicial branch presiding over the impeachment trial of a federal judge, so it makes little sense to have had Al Gore presiding over Clinton's impeachment trial.
"They can do far more than "cancel" actions. Look at Massachuset. They legislature took no action on gays. Yet the courts ruled that gas had special rights."
First off, apples and oranges; that was a state court, which has jurisdiction in anything and everything the Constitution doesn't grant to the courts set up by Congress. Secondly, all the court said was that the state legislature could not grant rights to heterosexual couples while simultaneously witholdin them from homosexuals. There were no special rights, the courts said "Everybody can get married, or nobody can get married." Pesky Fourteenth Amendment.
"Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership, they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse"."
It also means that Catholics have to support the Protestant spouses of employees or, even worse, divorcees. I can also think of a few Christian sects that say it's a mortal sin to marry someone of the wrong skin color. If you allow religious discrimination of any sort, you allow all of it, or else you end up "respecting an establishment of religion."
"That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world"
That's for them to do in their places of worship, not in the hiring of employees.
"John Adams"
"Hamilton was gunned down by the Vice President of the USA."
And yet he lives on in the courts' continued reference to his writings as "The Federalist," where in he talked about the government formed by the Constitution of 1789 as designed.
"Jefferson"
If you're going to complain about the document, try focusing on the people who actually signed the thing. I'll let you include John Jay as an exception, but otherwise you did nothing but list two straw men.
"They are the only one that is not checked."
While the impeachment of presidents is rare, the impeachment of federal judges is not. For example, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida got elected to the House after he was kicked off the federal bench by the Senate. Seems like a "check" to me.
"How can Congress or the President strike down a court order?"
Well, they can ignore it (Lincoln has a history of ignoring several big federal court rulings), they can remove the judges, or they can do what is most often done: stack the deck.
Of course 9/11 pushed Bush forward on remove the stalemate on Iraq. If the 9/11 attacks had not happened shaddam would still be in power kill 10K people a month and no one outside of Britan and the US would of been saying much. The 9/11 attacks basicly said that type of situation should not be continued. That is not the people are talking about when they mention a link between the 9/11 attacks and iraq.
according to the 9/11 report and numerous other Al Qaeda did have links and support from Iraq specificly Saddam.
A quick google check find numerious quotes from the "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." of Rice to "If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim" from the white house spokesman to "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" from Bush.
The not finding of WMD does not prove a falsehood or lie it provies a mistake by intelligence source in the US and most other countries. For the statements to be lie or falsehood would require that they knew that they did not exist when they said them.
"doesn't read much" did a google search on that and it was printed newspapers. He mainly gets his news from the internet, tv, briefings and sources such as http://ebird.afis.mil/, that is public one but there are similar ones where they take newspaper articles and correct numbers and what the intelleigence agencies have determined.
"I'd want the right to marry a woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry his friend Steve. I assume the law in that imaginary land would say something to the effect of "you can marry whoever you want as long as they are the same gender as you.
Bob would therefore have the right to marry Steve. I also would have the right to marry Steve if he preferred me over Bob. That's what you can an EQUAL right."
Bob is white and Steve is a Freedman. Both want to vote. The law says that you can't vote unless your grandfather was able to vote. Bob's grandfather was a free white man, Steve's was a slave (who obviously couldn't vote). However, because the law is applied "equally" in your view, Jim Crow is just fine and dandy.
The federal courts have already said that a law, no matter how "equally" it is applied, cannot be used to produce an inequal result. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say "equal application," it says "equal protection," and so long as the law is used to protect a heterosexual's liberty to freely associate with someone in marriage while denying the homosexual's liberty, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Look, ma! My sig is on topic!)
"A different right would be the EXTRA right to marry someone of the opposite gender. "
A different right would be the EXTRA right of the descendant of slaves to vote.
To nitpick your nitpicking, the term democracy refers to any form of government where citizens have power either directly or through elected officials. The term republic is often used to refer specifically to a representative democracy. However, the Romans actually used the term respublica to refer to any government not lead by a king and this use continues to this day (i.e. many non-democracies include the word republic in their official name). The Romans considered Athens a republic and oddly enough they even referred to Sparta as republic (I guess that's because it had two kings so it technically wasn't lead by "a" king).
Anyway, the point is that calling the United States a democracy is valid under the historical and current usage of the term. The idea that the term democracy can't refer to an indirect democracy seems to come from some misguided subset of social studies teachers.
John Paul Stevens is 85, and could possibly retire or die before the end of GWB's term.
The only way Stevens is leaving the Supreme Court is if there is a democratic president or if he is taken out feet first.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The people are rioting because they cannot get bread to eat.
"Let them eat cake."
Any person may purchase property in $1M parcels.
All people may go to a Catholic Church on Sunday.
Any man may marry a woman of his own race.
These rules are all perfectly fair according to your logic, yet they all serve to enforce or strengthen the existing power structure. They all discriminate against those who are poor, or non-white, or non-Christian. They are all un-American.
Now, how about this right:
In the interests of promoting stability and family values through long-term bonds between loving couples, any two consenting adults will be allowed to form a union so as to be mutually supportive and to provide an environment for the growth of both individuals and their family structure.
(Note that two people can constitute a family. Also, we need the extra couples to adopt all the unwanted babies when the administration outlaws abortion.)
The difference is that a business doesn't have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Say what you want about corporate power, but no company, no matter how large, has a monopoly on employment. You can always take a job doing something else. To escape the power of a government, you have to leave a city, state, or country. The larger the governmental unit, the more absolute it's power and the less influence you have as a person over its dentiny.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20041008differenceact
Site:http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/index.html
Then, quote from 2004 article:
Hmmmmmmmmm. So when it doesn't work, then it's modeling. But when it does work, it's actual jobs. Right. The tax cuts were heavily hyped as being job-increasing measures, and they have so far failed.
Govenments are different from private institutions in that they have a territorial monopoly of the law. No company today has that kind of power, no matter what their level of wealth. Just think, we let KKK protestors march because they have free speech, and I think we should let private organizations exclude people based on race, sex, and creed. In reality we do things like this already, we are just selective about when it offends our "common sense". To me this is simply freedom of association.
Like all things, just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. Just because a law achcives an outcome you like doesn't mean that it is a good idea. One good test is to apply the power of that same law in a direction that you find repulsive. What if the law said that you HAVE to let people smoke in your place of business (you can't discriminate against their rights) or that the government could take land away from the nature conservancy so an oil company can drill. Remember that any time you grant the government power that it can you that power in ways that you don't like either. I don't that an exclusive all black or women's college should be forced to take me under "equal protection". Sure it might be good for diversity, but we recognize that these places offer something the students want that may (or may not) be good for society. When in doubt, we should err on the side of protecting an individual's rights, even if it sometimes generates outcomes that we don't like.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
In short, I don't think that a sizeable majority of conservative types want the government to be in the religious establishment business, they just disagree over where establishment ends and discrimination begins.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
This is what i mean by selective outrage over discrimination.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
At least in the US. Congress passes laws, both the house and senate. All spending bills have to start in the house. The Senate ratifies treaties. The president has to sign everything. He can veto laws passed by the house and senate but his veto can be overridden with a 2/3rds vote in both the house and senate.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
1. Saddam actually refused to work with Bin Laden. Iraq was not supporting Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, yes, Iraq, no.
2. Both Bush and Blair told their respective governments and populations that they had confirmed evidence of WMD's in Iraq. They were lying, Blair even admitted it, while Bush tries some complicated argument on the semantics of his statements. Donald Rumsfield lied to the UN about these WMD's as well.
3. IRAQ was the first target for Bush after 9/11, in fact prior to 9/11 Bush had been looking for some way to justify attacking Iraq. After 9/11 he gave direction to that effect, even when advised that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan actually had Al Qaeda present and that is where the world focused their efforts.
4. There was a reason the "Coalition of the Willing was made of mostly craptastic (easily incented) US client nations and many reputable countries (France, Canada, to name the biggies) refused to participate.
Sixty years ago, you would have said: "Everyone can marry an individual of the same race. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture."
It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
First of all, I refer you to the pledge of allegiance: "To the republic for which it stands." You're not pledging to a democracy, because we don't have one.
An indirect, vaguely democratic representative system where corporations and PACs are the primary "voters" is what we have. If you think otherwise, you're sadly mistaken.
Secondly, even an actual indirect democracy (assuming we had one, which we definitely do not) is so incredibly different from a "direct" one that it still needs to be pointed out, especially in the case we have here, where the post I was replying to was inferring that citizens have choice in what goes on. They don't. Period.
In an "indirect democracy", the citizens have no choice in what goes on, all they can do is after the fact fail to re-elect someone based on actions that have already screwed up the country. The unspoken, but implied, message is that "someone better" can then be elected. But that's an illusion; all you can do is elect the next political hack the party puts up for your rubber-stamping, and they, sure as the sun will shine, will up and behave just like the last hack.
"Indirect democracy" implies that the representatives are doing things on the citizen's behalf. They're not. They're doing things on the PAC and corporation's behalf; since the general idea we elected the official for and the actions they take are, these days, just about 100% divorced from each other, you'll have to look with a bloody microscope to find any vestige of "democracy" of any kind in the system, unless you consider corporations and PACs citizens in a degree equal to their ability to grease politi-critter palms, leaving the rank and file residents of the country out of it completely.
In a direct democracy, what goes on is a direct consequence of the citizen's current majority opinion, which is so far removed from the whim of an elected, party-picked and citizen-rubber-stamped hack that it should hardly be called by any name that uses the same letters, never mind the same words, as a direct democracy.
So please don't get all self-congratulatory quoting the Romans and hand-waving about the ancient Greeks. They aren't here. We are. The fact of the matter is that our votes don't mean squat. No matter what you want to call it.
Welcome to the republic, Mr. A.C.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Prior to this decade, no one understood the word "marriage" to mean anything other than something along the lines of "a commitment of fidelty between a man and a woman." Sure, different cultures had different understandings of how *many* men and women could be involved, but the word "marriage" was never understood to mean anything like "a committed relationship between two partners," which is what the SCoM, and implicitly, your post, take it to mean.
So the jump to gay marriage *is* a redefinition of the word "marriage." Justifiable? Perhaps. But we cannot pretend that it is not a new and special right.
This is why (IMO) even states that are generally gay-friendly have been slow to jump on the gay-marriage band-wagon. They realize that it is a substantial change in the way that "marriage" is conceived of.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
has been around. "Bill" is the subject, and it's singular.
court that reads it. Again, "Bill" is singular.
prison. Maybe you should go to "prision."
Miranda.
prisons.
changed.
Perhaps you meant, "Louis" or "Luis?"
Retarded. Your IQ speaks for itself.
sentenced.
Aha! So which is it? Lois or Louis?
Sounds OK to me.
Maybe that depends on how much harm they have done. We kill mad dogs and other dangerous animals, don't we?
Perhaps the next court will rule that you can be sentenced to death for unforgivable abuse of the English language.
Yes, and you should be scared of us. We are all out to lock you up in secret prisons, stripping you of your rights, dignity, and basic humanity. We really want not just the liberals to suffer, but all who disagree with us! Down with democracy!! Mwahahahahahah!
Ok, I'm done having fun, but I'd like to pose an honest question--do you really believe that Conservatives are out to get you? I'd really like to know. And if you're having trouble sleeping at night, remember: IN GOD WE TRUST.
1) read the 9/11 commision report they mention a few of the ties they had and even mentioned that the al-qaeda was going to be setting up training camps in iraq at one time. This story about al-qaeda and iraq not being friendly is extermly outdated by the the time 9/11 took place.
2) For the statements to be lie would require that they knew the statements were false when they said them. At the time the confirmed evidence was shown it was from sources both they and other governments had reviewed and accepted. Give me a quote where rumsefield lied.
3) Iraq was one of the possible people that most people figured did the attacks; even after al-qaeda was identified it would of been smart to make sure that iraq had no hand in it. As for attacking Iraq that was recognized as something that would probably happen to get the results of having saddam follow through with the obligations, or his removal, he aggreed to back in the early 90. Saddam did not want to follow through and bush figured that attack plans should be drawn up so they would be available if needed, this has been back up by various british personnel and papers. It took close to 1 1/2 years between the 9/11 attack and the the joint country reattack on Iraq and during that time there were many times when saddam would fullfill his obligations and the re-attack would not be needed. If they were looking for justification to attack iraq they sure did it a wrong. 4) Most of thoses countries had no interest in upsetting the status quo. They were happy with iraq sealed away out of site of the public and the two sides exchangeing minor attacks on a regular basis. They all believed that iraq had WMD(read UN meeting briefings) but figured iraq could be treated like north korea and over time saddam would die and be replaced with someone who would follow the obliganations of the country.
Like most people who thrive on control, McCarthy's problem was he was a fucking coward.
If you believe in your way of life, if you truly believe it will work... Then it either works, or you're proven wrong.
Communism was proven wrong. As an economic model, it was a complete utter failure. The capitalist model that the US had followed(up until recent years) created the biggest gain in economic wealth in the history of mankind.
McCarthy didn't believe in America. He thought we were going to fail. That's why he went after all these Communists with such a vengance, and then claimed everybody who disagreed with him was also out to get him.
He was weak, and a fucking coward, and probably psychotic to boot.
There's a difference between strength and cowardice. The strong survive. The Cowards try to control everybody else.
And yet we have camp X-Ray.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
And thank fortune we dont live in a democracy. As it is now, my nieghbor cant stand my life style, and I cant stand his, but we are both powerless to inflict/force the other to adopt the others lifestyle. Because we dont live in a democracy. That is a Good Thing.
Ones rights dont increase because one is standing in a group of people. You have no rights within a group that you dont have alone. If you do, where exactly do these magical rights appear from?
WanderingHermit, I'll bet you wouldn't claim to know everything. That being the case... If you want to know whether the "finished product" of the Bible is true or true enough, how would you go about it? If there were, indeed, a way to determine its validity as the Word of God would you do it? Even if it meant that you might have to humble yourself and change your life?
I propose a way to know who God really is: Openly, honestly ask God "if he exists," to reveal Himself to you _without qualification_ (without saying things like "_My_ god would never do/say this/that," or "I like this/that about this/that religion's god"). If you do this honestly, persistently, with the full intent of serving God should He reveal Himself, He will indeed do so. I appeal to reason that one could expect a good God who requires belief in Himself to do nothing less.
The problem is usually that people have a set of requirements for their god(s). Rather than letting God be a free being who can do as He pleases and be what He will, they start setting limits and putting God in a box. They say that God cannot be good if such-and-such happens or is required, but never stop to think that maybe they don't really know what good is. If they were open and sincere, perhaps such a God would reveal what is good. It just makes sense.
The alternative, of course, is a god who doesn't care to be known or loved, doesn't care if people know whether he will help them or not, and doesn't tell people what they can expect from him.
(BTW, for those who tend to do so, don't get hung up on my use of the masculine pronoun for God. If you seek Him openly, you will find out whether He is a "he" or not.)
Again, to be redundant, I propose only one assumption in this post: that if God requires us to know Him for salvation, then He is willing to reveal Himself to an open heart. That simply seems reasonable.
- Mike
I kid, I kid. I'd settle for public floggings.
No, I kid again. I just hope Rapture comes soon so we can be rid of them.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
private company forces me to do anything against my will.
The government does this every day.
Corporations have no power over me unless I give it to them - and that is a profound and staggering difference which you are ignoring.
After the Lies about Iraq, the gross mismanagment of the government and all the other sins he has committed there HAS to be a pretext to do it. Even if it fails at least it can hold up apointing a new judge until after the next election when hopefully something resembling sanity will return to the white house.
So when does overturning STATE laws make someone more powerful than the president?
How does affirming what something the constitution says (or what they think it says), make the supreme court more powerful than the people that wrote the constitution and amendments in the first place? Simply put, it does not. Yes they have power but not any more than other branches. That is the crux of the matter. If soemone does not like the way the judges rule, I mean really does not agree, a constitutional amendment can cut that short.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, if lifetime appointments are a good thing, then why not elect the President for life?
Che Guevara executed more political prisoners than anyone he opposed.
You state that as fact yet you don't provide any evidence to support it. The link you use says some sources use 156 while others say as many as 500. First, there isn't any agreement on how many Che executed, then you don't provide any data on how many those he opposed executed, the link doesn't provide said data.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oddly enough, most libertarians don't believe in majority rule. Well, we believe in it for some things, but the majority shouldnt be given power over every rule. For instance, freedom of speech is defined as a basic right, and the majority, even if it is 99%, should never be able to take that, and many other rights away from the 1% who want them.
As a libertarian I admit there are disagreements between libertarians on specific issues. On democracy most if not all believe in democracy as long as the will of the majority doesn't interfer in anybody's rights, when it does then it becomes the tyranny of the masses. More important than democracy is Liberty.
I almost mentioned jefferson in my post
Like many Libertarians I've come across Jefferson comes the closest to embodying the ideals of Libertarians. As I learn more about his friend James Madison the more I like him more too. I've quoted TJ frequently and now I've started quoting Madison as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
With a co-operating group, you have a right to lift heavy loads you can't lift by yourself. Within a group, you have the right to pursue one craft to perfection (woodworking, programming, whatever) that otherwise would be compromised (or eliminated) by the requirement that you till your soil. With a group, a majority of you can agree to do (X), where (X) is any job that takes more than one person, or (X) is any consenual activity that takes more than one person (determining group opinions, for instance, so as to come to consensus rules.
Rights, per se, are useless without the ability to pursue that right. What good is the right to pursue happiness if your ass is locked in prison, away from your loved ones? What good is the right to freedom of (not to mention from) religion when some choad prints "In Allah We Trust" all over your money, requires you to put your hand on the Koran to become trusted in a courtroom, requires that everyone faces west for 1 minute in school each morning, hangs selected passages from the Koran in government buildings, builds and houses monuments to Allah with taxpayer money, allows Imams to pursue life tax free while YOU have to pay taxes on your income, decides all marriages have to be on the terms of the Koran (hello, polygamy, goodbye, clitoris!)...
You assume that a real democracy could not have just as strong (or stronger) foundation elements underlying it than does our current brittle, broken mess. Well, let me clue you in, son, you're wrong. You could empower such a group just the way it is done now --- with a base constitution --- and require a more than 1/2 vote to adjust the constitution (97.5% feels about right to me, once the thing is crafted.) Or you could do something else, maybe even more clever and foresightful. You don't have to walk into it as ignorant as a homeopath. You don't have to have 50.001% as the "we accept" threshold, either.
There is a bunch wrong with our current constitution --- from misogyny to allowing religion to weasle its way into government and education to allowing the government to assume debt and tax the citizens to any degree it decides is convenient and so on --- lots and lots could be fixed, and then people -- not some bought-and-paid-for representative, but people, you know, the ones who have to obey the laws, could vote on them.
Every time I hear some lamer make the assumption that direct voting involves worse consequences than our current system I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are so bloody ignorant. THINK, would you???
And how free are you now? Have any covenants? Can you fly a flag? Can you put up an antenna? A tower? Can you put up a fence, install a pool, build new construction without a permit, play rock and roll late at night, roll naked on your lawn, smoke pot on your porch, fuck your spouse blind on your roof? Well? Can you smack your kid if they misbehave, or will you go to jail? Can you own an assault rifle, and more to the point, can you set up a 100% safe firing range in your yard? If you're in a home "zoned" area, can you move a trailer onto your land? If you're in a home zoned area, can you set up a business? Can you sell food off your porch? Can you go out and buy the services of a prostitute, or bring five or six of them home and throw a party? You think you're safe from your neighbor(s)? You think you're free? You're out of your tiny little mind. The powers that be have already decided on what your lifestyle will be. Your neighbors are 100% ready to rat on your sorry ass the second you step out of line. Sucks to be you.
Those who will not fight (or even argue) for improvement deserve what they get.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Kind of like how abortions didn't exist before the Roe vs Wade decision.
Just because gay marraige is an issue now doesn't mean it never happened before.
Long ago, before the Church decided that sex was bad for you, homosexuals in Europe would marry, and nobody but them and their close families would care.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Nonetheless, it would take a brave - and extremely foolish - person to argue that Rommel does not deserve respect for his tactical genius. As for Hess - flying blind is dangerous enough. Flying blind through the defenses of two hostile air forces and risking assassination by both sides, on the off-chance that he could negotiate a peace treaty... That took guts. If you'd been in his shoes, could you have done the same?
Do I have any sympathies for either man, or their fate? No, not really. Do I agree with their allegiance or affiliations? Not in the slightest.
Do I believe they deserve respect for their displays of astonishing daring? Yes, absolutely.
Now, I honestly can't think of any other Nazis who I could say the same for. The bulk relied on superior numbers, superior force and a perception of superior race. The first two are signs of physical cowardice, the latter of intellectual cowardice. Perhaps for this reason, it is all the more important to honor the little bravery that existed.
Going back to Rehnquist, I would argue a similar case. I have seen little evidence of true guts in American politics. Rather, I have seen a great deal of running for cover, a great many excuses and pretenses, and virtually nothing I could remotely call noble or meritorious. I would argue that Rehnquist did his fair share of running, and does not deserve any respect for doing so.
His "final stand" - his choice of staying on with the Supreme Court, despite the cancer and despite the fact that the stress may well have worsened his odds of surviving - that is something worthy of respect. I honestly can't think of anything else about him that deserves so much as a second glance, but that's not the point. An individual action should stand or fall on its own merits and not be judged according to the wisdom or folly of something else.
Hey - if we all worked on the principle that some action irretrievably damned everything else a person might do, then how many would use OpenBSD? After all, its creator is not known for being rational.
Should we dispense with Nash's work on mathematics and economics, on the grounds that much of his early work was done when he was an untreated schizophrenic?
Should we shut down NASA, on the grounds that virtually the entire organization was built by Nazis and that the bulk of the technology it uses was provided by them and not discovered by someone more politically acceptable?
If we're willing to accept other achievements for what they are, then accept the achievement of Rehnquist for what it is. Sure, slam all of his follies and foolish posturing - I certainly am! - but there's no need to reject the good (however little) because of the bad.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Way wrong. The USSC is *not* limited to shooting down legislation. They can declare that any of our laws are unconstitutional. Think Roe v. Wade, where they legalized abortion. Think Brown v. Board, where they integrated the schools. An activist court can pretty much make whatever legislation they want (once they get jurisdiction on the topic).
Umm.. Where do you think laws come from? Do they magically appear on stone tablets? Declaring law unconstitutional is "shooting down legislation."
Brown v. Board overturned an 1896 ruling regarding the "separate but equal" clause of an 1890 Louisiana general assembly act (hint: legislature); thus rendering applicable portions of the original act null and void on the basis of the 14th amendment.
Similarly, Roe v. Wade struck down portions of texas criminal abortion legislature on the basis of the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment.
Agree or disagree with these rulings, your assertion that an "activist court can pretty much make whatever legislation they want" is evidenced by neither case. I believe if you do some research into the organization and rules of the judicial branch, you will discover that this is almost universally true by action and by design.
So, the Slashdot faithful have particular reason to dislike him - see . Considering the type of nominee put forward to replace Justice O'Connor, I can only imagine the kind of rabid right-winger that'll chosen to replace him.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Anti-misegination laws weren't an example of unequal rights either. They were unjust, but they were equally unjust to both whites and blacks. It's not as if white people could marry outside their race and black people couldn't.
People today seem to have a serious inability to understand that unjust does not always mean unequal.
Possibly, and congratulations for coming up with a novel argument. Problem is that it is a novel argument. If I recall correctly, the court made it's decision on the basis of it being illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual-orientation, not sex. (Different thing).
I wonder why they didn't use your argument. It certainly makes more sense.
I'm no expert on the Jim Crow laws, (not being an American and all that), but wouldn't such an argument fall apart on the basis that denying blacks the right to vote was always against the constitutional guarantees of equality? In other words, since it was never legitimate to deny Steve's ancestors the right to vote, that cannot be used against Steve. In other words, you can't legally use an illegal action as a weapon. Your other problem is that rights are always determined on an individual basis in US law. Not on the basis of group. You Americans don't have any group rights, only individual ones. So Steve's ancestry cannot be used to restrict his rights because they are HIS rights. Not his ancestral group rights.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z =l&q=l&c=
Excluding the dip to 8,000 in 2002 and 2003, that is. Is that what you're calling a "bull market"?
"A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
In '04, the Democrats and their supporters in the entertainment industry worked hard, and successfully, to turn out the youth vote - in the belief that the young were overwhelmingly left and atheist. Turns out, the increased turnout didn't particularly favour anybody. There is no hidden army of disenfranchised atheists.
WTF? How does not Christian mean athiest?
What's your point? That you could change the marriage laws? Go right ahead if you want. We did that in Canada. It's really not that difficult. I never argued that you shouldn't do that or that it would be somehow illegitimate or "unAmerican" to do so. I just argued that it wasn't an equal rights issue, because IT'S NOT. Anti-miscegenation laws were unfair, but they weren't an equal rights issue. Don't you Americans have referendums on all your ballots? Put it on the ballot if you can't get your politicans to get in line. Stop distorting the logic of the situation to make a nice sound bite and actually get what you want done.
So what? It was bullshit then, but it wasn't an equal rights issue. Not all bullshit is an equal rights issue.
So it's bullshit now. Fair enough. He's right though. It is an attempt to alter US culture. Frankly any gay rights activist will tell you that. They want to change US culture to be accepting of gays and various gay lifestyles. They see this change as a good thing. They don't pretend they're not trying to make a change.
To be fair though, he might not have said that. You have no reason to assume that he's against inter-racial marriage or that he ever would have been. It's only that stereotype of conservatives as troglodytes that lets you get away with saying that.
Yes, be you liberal, conservative or somewhere in between, let's show some respect for this ARCH CONSERVATIVE. Let's not pretend that replacing him with a Bush "Conservative", who will work tirelessly to destroy our right to privacy, is really "conservative". Let's not pretend that replacing him with someone who backs unquestioned authority of the government to kidnap and torture people in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib is "conservative".
Let's not pretend that Bush will put anyone onto the Supreme Court or its lower divisions who might allow prosecutions of Bush administrators for war crimes or criminal negligence after disasters like hurricane Katrina. Let's have some respect for at least Rehnquist's lifetime of rhetoric about fairness and justice. Maybe a little respect for the experience needed to run the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch, and not appoint a brand new Justice, with only a couple of years experience as a judge, to run the whole thing.
--
make install -not war
I don't know if John Locke or any others smoked pot but Thomas Jefferson along with other Founding Fathers grew hemp on thier farms:
Jefferson is credited with several inventions, including the swivel chair, a pedometer, a machine to make fiber from hemp, a letter-copying machine, and the lazy susan.
Cannabis was brought to America during the early colonial period. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both hemp farmers. During the early period of settlement of the New World, everyone owned or used something made of its fibers. Hemp fibers were known as the toughest durable fibers around. Hemp was even used as currency in some cases (Abel, 1982). But, Cannabis is mainly used as an illegal drug in the United States today.
The Monticello Textile Factory
Jefferson's annual goal was 1,200 yards of cloth woven from purchased cotton and wool and hemp produced on his farms. He never sought to make fine cloth; coarse cloth for the summer and winter allotments for the 130 slaves on the Monticello plantation was his only ambition.
Common Sense by Thomas Paine ...
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage...
Ralph Waldo Emerson would be object to be categorized along with Ayn Rand.
Just as there are democrats who disagree with with each other and there are republican who do also not all libertarians agree on everything include Ayn Rand. I don't know much about Rand but some I agree with and others I disagree with. No it's my sister in my family that knows about her and she was very much a Randian. That is until she learned about Objectivism, as a Christian this turned her off. Fact is is that you don't have to be a Randian to be a libertarian.
Ooh here's something I found of John Locke's that mentions hemp:
To the Right Honorable Sir John Sommers
...
And a Swede will no more sell you his Hemp and Pitch, or a Spaniard his Oyl, for less Silver;
And with his sayings, John Locke wouldn't of liked laws outlawing hemp seeing as how he was very much a man of liberty and such a law abridges liberty.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.
-- John Locke (1632-1704)
Falcon
Ooh and btw do you know where canvas for painters come from? It got it's name from cannabis. Here's a page listing some of the uses of hemp aka cannabis, Cannabis sativa L.
Should there be a Law?
oh be sensible.
He's taking about marriages recognized by civil authorities. Not just sex.
Gay sex has been around throughout history, but gay marriage has not been. That's just simple facts buddy. Deal with it. If you want to swallow the line that gay marriage was all "accepted" before the big bad church got involved you go right ahead, but you're a gullible fool.
For starters, which Europe would this have been? It would have to be the Europe of at least 2000 years ago. And then I'm afraid the historical record still calls bullshit.
I think you've read The DaVinci Code one too many times.
Like the man said "Justifiable? Perhaps. But we cannot pretend that it is not a new and special right."
The law.
A corporation can hire all the mercs it wants - they can't force me to do anything.
I have no idea where you get the lunatic theory that corporations are about to overthrow the government. Hell, in the current legal system, being a corp is a major handicap. Need proof? Watch Merck get annihilated in the next few years, mostly based on bad reasoning and worse science, as decided by juries with an average IQ of about 90 (smart people are not allowed on juries in liability suits).
Two separate media consortiums found that a recount conducted under the prevailing election laws would have put Gore in the White House.
That's as close to the truth as we'll get.
Bush and his bagmen (James Baker et. al.) successfully denied late military ballots bound for democratic leaning precincts while lying about the Gore campaign, claiming they were trying to exclude late ballots.
Remember the outside and Gucci-clad agitators staging a riot outside the recount offices? Why didn't the police bust their Republican skulls? I can't imagine a pro-Democrat riot getting such gentle treatment.
And Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush conspired to illegally exclude legal minority voters from the rolls and defied court orders to stop.
He stole it. And the Supremes aided and abetted.
The government merely sorts out lots of competing private interests. The "public" is only and idea and therefore cannot have interests. Do people from both sides of the aisles get laws passed that unfairly benefit them? Of course. The simplest way to combat this is to simplify the laws to the point where they can be transparent, particularly tax laws. Every four years, we have this massive debate about taxes, and the honest answer is that it is pointless. There can be no possible rational argument to lower or raise Bob's taxes until we have half of a clue as to how much Bob actually pays. Our system is so complicated that this question simply cannot be answered. Hence, the debate is meaningless. There is simply no way to know if people making $200,000 each year or $20,000 each year are paying their fair share, as we cannot tell how much they are paying in the first place. One of the better ways to end corporate subsidies is to end the corporate tax and raise capital gains tax on the investors to replace it. Most corporate "subsidies" are tax breaks, not hand-outs. If they don't pay any tax at that level, there is nothing to cut. Our courts need massive reform. First, I would start with the simple principle that juries should not decide the reward in any case involving more than a million dollars. In reality, they don't anyway so why pretend? The reason is that below a million dollars, we are talking about something within the realm of human experience. You do not need to be an accountant or mathematician to know what $100,000 is. However, when we are talking about hundreds of millions and billions, these things are abstract. You cannot do this by feel, you must do it by reason, and layman juries have proven again and again that they do not have this power. The result are rewards that are all over the place, and often orders-of-magnitude out of whack.
And I'd have to agree with you if we were talking about a courthouse or other place of public business. However, I don't understand this sort of regulation in places like restaurants or other private establishments. As long as people know what they are getting in to (eating in a place that allows smoking for example) then I guess I don't think it should be anyone's business. Look, I'm athsmatic, and smoking is a real problem for me, but I'm none to keen on giving government the power to control this in private establishments. We let people engage in behavior that may be considered much more risky.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Theoretical anarchy is only temporarily possible.
Groups of people make governments.
Whether it's a country, neighborhood association, labor union or club of kindergarten girls, people will form governments one way or another.
Real-life anarchy is just a bunch of small governments fighting over who gets to rule with they consolidate into larger governments.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.