Well, that settles it then. You said "Duh". You MUST be right!
We'll totally disregard the principle of the separation of powers. We'll ignore the constitution. We'll blow off Justice John Marshall regarding the judiciary's role in INTERPRETING the law. You said "Duh", for christsake! You MUST be right!
We'll ignore the last role the judiciary has played the first 200 years or so as one of strict constructionists in favor of the most recent swing to loose constructionists -- all because you said "Duh". Mighty powerful word, that "Duh".
The federal judiciary are appointed, not elected. If they stay within their defined roll as layed out in the constitution, this is a GOOD thing. When the principle of separation of powers begins to be violated, it becomes dangerous.
The legislators are elected directly by the people, both TECHNICALLY and ACTUALLY. I'm not sure how you can say that our legislators are not directly elected. Please explain.
Let me get this straight. You are seriously suggesting that the dot-com crash was due to Bush saying he would "steeply" cut taxes and increase military spendnig and not touching entitlements? Event though at the time there was a HUGE projected surplus that belonged to the tax payers who OVERPAID and at the time there was no real fear of any significant or actual deficit spending?
Further are you are suggesting that the stock market crashed because they "feared" republican economics and completely unrelated to the poor business models of the dot-com era which could essentially be summed up with the following points:
Their business plan. While often "inspiring" or "revolutionary", they were never profitable.
They spent other people's money unchecked in an effort to gain market share as soon as possible
They had inexperienced teams whose only goal was the fastest possible growth of their company, not long term success.
Their company may have made it in the end, but because of the failure of so many others their investor capital was pulled.
(note: the above was taken verbatum from a left leaning source).
My God. Are you being deliberatly obtuse? Since when is news of a lower tax burden BAD news for the stock market?
The seeds of this recession were planted LONG before Bush came in to office -- predicted before Bush won the election, appears to be ending, as predicted, ON SCHEDULE dispite HUGE unforeseen and EXPENSIVE catastophies (9/11, Federal take over of airport security, Afganistan, Iraq, Corporate corruption etc.) which ALL took HUGE bites out of our economy. Is Enron Bush's fault, too? Did he somehow set up their ability to hide HUGE amounts of debt while running the Texas Rangers?
You really need to sit down and take stock of your argument. Face it, the stock market was DESTINED to crash when VC decided back in the 90's it was "OK" for to finance companies with expenses in the 10s to 100s of millions/year while bringing in only a few hundred thousand a year. THAT is what caused the crash. Not a news flash "BUSH TAKES LEAD IN THE POLLS! PROMISES TO LOWER TAXES! NEWS AT 11!".
To blame the recession on Clinton or Bush is asenine. It was caused by greedy/stupid VC and criminal accounting. You can only fool the market for so long... it will ALWAYS correct itself in the end.
I will once again STRONGLY suggest you THANK this administration for following program (cut taxes, cut interest rates, provide incentives to businesses) so as to shorted the duration and severity of the recession.
You again attempt to take the discussion away from the CAUSE of the recession to something completely unrelated to the CAUSE -- and argueably related to the RESULT. First the deficit, and now the decline in the dollar.
In closing, I will once again point out yet another left-leaning source:
because the legislators haven't been representatives of the public for a long time now.
In this, I believe they are. In the US, a large majority do not WANT same-sex marriage. If you just extend the rights/privileges of marriage to same-sex "social unions", it's STILL weighted against that -- with a few state exceptions but much closer to the center.
Your comment "And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change" is a frightening prospect. One where the people no longer have the ability to make law -- through their representatives. One where law is FORCED upon them by a non-elected "enlightened" and "benevolent" federal ruling class. It's not their job. And to have them *DO* that job is to undermine our form of government.
I think it is a reasonable question to ask if the intent of the framers was to restrict marriage to that of a male/female monogamy
I think it is ALWAYS a reasonable question to ask the intent of the framers. Again, in this, it is not unreasonable to believe that the framers, who pretty much all were christian, would (A) not consider marriage anything but between a man and woman and (B) would object to any other such union.
The next question we need to ask ourselves, does this violate the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)? Many would say no -- as any gay man or woman who decided to marry (a woman or man, respectivly -- someone of the OPPOSITE sex) would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other man married to a woman or woman married to a man.
Marriage is a CHOICE, not an obligation and not defined by birth or incident. The individual chooses not to marry (i.e. take a spouse of the oposite sex).
Me personally, I would argue that same sex relationships should be provided the same rights/privilages of marriage -- yet I would object to calling it marriage. "Social Union" works for me. "Domestic Partnership" also works. They could also extend to non-gay relationships -- say two women or men living together in their old age.
We say "she" when refering to females... we say "he" when refering to males. Why would it be such a leap to say "marriage" for heterosexual legal unions and "domestic partnerships" for same-sex/plutonic legal unions? As a country BUILT on compromises (re: 3/5's compromise), I think that's a pretty damn good compromise.
None taken and you make an interesting observation. One with which I disagree.
Until recently, never in the history of american jurisprudence has "marriage" been defined as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman. It has been some courts which have decided to "expand" the definition beyond what was originally accepted to allow for social engineering from the bench.
This the very same mind-set which allowed a US District Court to declare the boy scouts a religious originization (on par with the Catholic Church, the Hare Krishna's, and Islam) because they require an affirmation of some deity -- ANY deity (say the "Earth Mother"). Then, once declared a religious orginization, the judge could "social engineer".
"Clarify" should not include re-writing definitions or apply arbitrary definitions or use the most openly BROAD interpretations to essentially "make" or "unmake" law. Part of the job of the federal appeals court (and state appeals courts) is to determain not just the LETTER of the law, but also the intent of the original FRAMERS of the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the RIGHTS ad PRIVILEGES enjoyed by married couples to NON married couples -- but to call that marriage is wrong. It's also wrong for the court systems to try and FORCE it down the throats of americans when it is most unwanted. Let the legislators (the representatives of the PUBLIC) make law should the people want it -- not justices forcing laws on people who DONT want it.
I read the UCLA study, and I don't think it takes those interest rate pressures into account. It was written before the magnitude of the Bush deficits was announced.
And what insight do you have that would cause you to "not think" that?
I'll give you some data that report DIDN'T take in to account:
9/11 Afganistan Iraq Department of Homeland Defence Airline Industry bailout Federalizing Airport Security Enron et. al. corporate fraud
All that AND the recession is STILL turning around it record time. This is pretty damn impressive.
I find it interesting that you first needed to blame Bush for the recession... Once we've established where the seeds of this recession were planted and WHEN it started to sprout, you some how CONTINUE to blame Bush because his POLL numbers started to show him in the lead back in 2000. Once pointed out how silly that was, you NOW turn the arguement AWAY from the recession and focus on the deficit. While you might be able to make an arguement for possible FUTURE problems, the deficit is NOT the cause of the recession, is it?
Further, you like tossing out numbers without any back-up material to support them or the meanings you attribute to them.
The conventional wisdom is our federal government deficit is too large. However, the empirical evidence suggests the deficit might be too small.
and
The lesson is clear, economic prosperity can continue, even if the federal government never balances its budget, provided it keeps government spending from growing as a percentage of GDP, and has an ongoing program of removing tax and regulatory impediments to growth.
Oh, sure, that can't possibly be relevent so we'll just throw out that data. *rolls eyes*
It's not relevent as we were discussing FEDERAL courts. Geez. The job of the FEDERAL appellate courts is QUITE different from the STATE court systems.
But just considering the rest of the circuits, they have 24/35 cases overturned, or 68%.
And the 9th has 18/24 cases overturned, or 75%. Higher than all the other federal courts combined - just ONE curcuit out of fourteen!. Over 70% of ALL cases heard come from just ONE circuit -- the 9th. And the 9th accounts for less than 18% of ALL appellet cases!
other than that your argument, based on a statistical lie, was bunk.
The numbers were valid. If you choose to call it a "lie", you are obviously living in a fantasy world. If you continue to try and argue that a single review/reversal case for a given circuit has any REAL statistical merit without taking in the WHOLE picture, you are delibertly trying to mislead.
From your cited article:
This means that, on average, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was more than twice as likely to be reviewed and produce a written decision by the U.S. Supreme Court than was a case from the other federal appeals courts.
In conclusion, your argument is baseless, as I suspected when you tried to disprove my conclusion with a statistical "blip".
Read it again. And disregard STATE cases. Look at the numbers. How often is the court overturned in total? When you have a court that has 2 or 3 reviews and all of them are reversed -- that means little or nothing compaired to 24 reviews (which is more than ALL state cases heard combined).
The 3/4's reversal rate has MEANING because there are so many cases heard. It wouldn't mean anything if it was only 2 or 3 cases.
*My* lie indeed. You deliberately try to mislead by stating that SOME courts had a 100% reversal (8th circuit, for example) -- yet fail to mention that it had *1* case heard and reversed. Thats ONE out of ONE. Big sample there.
The interesting points are (A) how often the 9th circuit appeals are heard and (B) how often they are reversed.
First, the material you cite makes no mention of anybody telegraphing ANYTHING in 2000, let alone april of 2000. In fact, it only lists 2002 figures and estimates for future expendatures. And you continue to suggest that somehow, the economy was WILLED into the tank by Bush, disregarding the dot-com bust, stock market crash et al. Face it -- the economy tanked at least partly, if not mostly, as a result of bad financial planning, poor business models and corporate corruption.
In inflation adjusted dollars, historically the deficit has been larger and the sky hasn't fallen.
And again, you fail to address the UCLA Anderson report I cited. Not only does this recession look to be ending quite fast, as predicted by the report, but it's doing so on the back of 9/11, Afganistan and Iraq.
Funny thing about recessions... when they end, interest rates rise! Imagine that!
It would also be interesting to note that such a judgement came from OUTSIDE the 9th circuit court -- from a less reviewed court. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia illustrating that if a decision is to fair, expect it not to come out of the 9th circuit.
*MY" big stinking lie, huh? I think you need to actually READ the articles you cite:
This means that, on average, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was more than twice as likely to be reviewed and produce a written decision by the U.S. Supreme Court than was a case from the other federal appeals courts. By contrast, a case from the second busiest circuit, the 5th, was nearly a third less likely to be reviewed and decided by the High Court than the average federal appellate case.
and
It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts... which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term. Yet these "complete" reversal rates are likely due to much less frequent review of those circuits by the U.S. Supreme Court.... Thus, the 9th Circuit's lower overall reversal rate does not demonstrate the justices' greater agreement with the decisions of the 9th Circuit, but is likely attributable to that circuit's much higher review rate.
Have a nicer day -- and maybe try to digest what you read.
That "slump" began almost exactly the same time as Bush started leading Gore in the polls.
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, or at least non causa pro causa. Geez. The "slump" also happened around the same time my son was born... is HE therefore the cause of the slump?
Please note that "GDP growth" is *not* the only measure of an economy -- it's one of many data points. You also completely fail to address the UCLA Anderson article I cited which basically PREDICTS the course of the recession and HOW it will be handled -- to the letter. Anderson doesn't use crystal balls -- they are a well established economic authority and they utilized MONTHS/YEARS of data and DECADES of history to make such predictions. And they did so 12/2000 -- with data mined WELL from within the Clinton administration years. Please also note that I cited ALL left-leaning sources.
Again, I suggest you thank the current adminstration for following the STANDARD procedures which, as predicted by Anderson, is causing this recession to be as short lived as it appears.
Is there some type of insecure NEED you have to place blame on Bush personally? Or is it just that you believe enough people saying it it will somehow be true? Realistically, this recession can no more be blamed on Bush and/or Clinton than it can be blamed on my son.
Awfully funny you cite an article nearly 3 years old (from a left-leaning source) -- when there's a wealth of more contemporary articles which point to the recession starting well before then.
"...changes to data by the Commerce Department now show the economy first contracted in the third quarter of 2000, rather than the first quarter of 2001."
Guess what. When an economy as large as ours starts a down-turn, it isn't instantaneous -- it starts with slowed growth.
You should be impressed that this administration has been able to start to turn things around so fast -- less than 3 years.
In december of 2000, several articles appeared which hailed the end of economic growth. Check SacBee (left leaning) archives. Data based on economists from UCLA's Anderson Forcast.
Are you going to suggest that they pulled data out of their hats in December 2000? Or more likely they had MONTHS of data on hand to make such a prediction (that looks AWFULLY familar with current facts). It looks like the "slump" started WELL within the Clinton admin.
However, it's silly to argue WHO started the recession. It's a flippin' HUGE economy. The Cookie Monster couldn't cause a slump in 2 months of office, let along GWBush. The "slump" was foreseen well within the Clinton admin, and the Bush admin followed program to turn it around.
Regardless of what partisans wish to say, it's not a Clinton thing and it's not a Bush thing. It's an ECONOMY thing. Economies go up and down. Thats life.
Props to the Dems for blocking the new right-wing judicial nominees who would rubberstamp all that crap.
As opposed to the reps blocking the new left-wing judicial nominees who would rubberstamp all THEIR crap.
It's WRONG for the legislative branch to do this -- on BOTH sides of the line. It's a violation of the separation of powers. I'm just surprised that the dems have taken it this far -- it's one thing to resort to this type of tactic now and then, it's another to use it as a means to STACK THE COURT. It's not THEIR job to do that. That power resides with the executive branch. If they don't like it, ammend the constitution. Don't be surprised that if this continues we see a case brought to the supreme court.
I wish I had mod points -- you are right on. It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution.
Outside of the MA court system, the 9th circuit is a prime example of this jucicial activism abuse. It's stacked liberal 2:1. That means any 3-judge panel is most likely going to end up 2:1 liberal. Talk about stacking the courts. They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
I'd also like to point out that it is NOT the job of the legislature to decide WHO gets to become a judge -- but to decide of they can/are qualified to do the job once nominated by the executive branch.
These are two outragous examples of two branches operating outside the separation of powers.
The 111 article UN charter was adopted in San Francisco June 25. 1945 -- the conference of which started just one WEEK after FDR died. It was ratified one year later, as read, after being ratified by a majority of nations.
Long dead. Yeah.
Aside from that "error" on your part, you missed the point of my post. The UN was Roosevelt's idea of a "League of Nations" done right. Didn't work. Hense "failed pipe dream".
Funny how people get so indignant when it's a "controlling multinational entity"
Funny how people consider the UN a "controlling multinational entity". It sure has a history of being able to govern and "control", huh? It sure follows through with all it's security council resolutions, huh?
Think about this. The way the UN is designed PREVENTS it from being able to do ANYTHING without unanimity. This was a problem for the US post revolution/pre constitution. The problem is if they hold a UN equivalent of a constitutional convention, any ability for this "multinational entity" to "control" would result in no nations signing the new charter.
People need to realize what the UN is -- a failed pipe-dream of Roosevelt. It's nothing but a place for countries to "vent". Any effort to do ANYTHING can take decades if it happens at all. Especially with immediate threats (re Angola, Somalia, Congo, etc).
I'm against term limits on general principle. I believe the actual problem lies with an ill informed (or uninformed) constituency. People just don't take the time to (A) keep up with ANY issues (local, state or national) and/or (B) ONLY look at the little letter after the name (R or D).
The crack-smoking councilmember who motioned that the LA City Council condemn the US invasion of Iraq should have been voted out of office the last election. How DARE they waste my tax dollars on topics irrelevant to their adgenda (the running and maintainance of our city). The problem is, he wasn't. Nor was any member who voted for it called to task.
The problem lies with the voter, not the office holder. We, as a group, get what we deserve. With the referendum, at least the "informed" have some venue.
They've got all the ideas they need. Our city government (I live in LA) has gone over the deep end. This is worse than their ban on "Lap Dances" at the local "mens clubs". The same solution used by the "Gentleman's Clubs" should work. Get enough signatures on a petition to force a ballot measure and FORCE the City Council to either spend dozens of millions of dollars to put it up for a vote or STFU about the issue.
Their job is to make sure the cops get paid and the street lights work. It is NOT to re-invent Think-Speak.
16 year olds can get driver's licenses. motor-voter legislation doesn't allow them to vote.
I think the difference here is "legal" vs. "possible". A 16 y/o can't "legally" vote -- yet one can break the law and vote anyway. Currently, there is very little change of this getting caught.
The PROBLEM is in ease of access to voter registration without any validation of eligibility -- or severe enough penalties for breaking these laws.
If just one person (any "individual" of "the People") on a certain two planes had been carrying a gun a couple of years ago, several hundred children would not have lost their parents in a heap of concrete and steel - and we very well would never have gone to war with Iraq.
This assumes that carrying guns would be permissible. If that's the case, it wouldn't be one-gun against guys with box-cutters... it would have been guns against guns.
In other words, the job of the hijackers would have been much easier. Are you, while holding a gun, going to wave it at a man holding a gun AND a hostage threating to KILL them if you don't drop the gun? My guess is that most people would drop the gun rather than risk getting someone else killed. End result: The exact same.
This of course, assumes that the passengers had no CLUE the hijackers planned to use the aircraft as missles.
As it stands, it's my belief that an aircraft full of unarmed people jumping a few men with box cutters and razors would be much more effective than an aircraft full of armed people having a fire-fight. I might point you to the shoe-bomber and Pennsylvania flights that were thwarted by a bunch of passangers jumping on terrorists. Albeit, the Penn ended in a crash -- but that was after the terrorists had taken the plane and before the passangers learned what their plans were. I doubt any hijackers would get that far today.
For the record, I hardly think you are a choice "critic" of "those who...do have the capacity for critical thought."
I'm sorry -- systems like diebold leave no audit trail. As a voter, this is unacceptable. There needs to be a way to verify the vote count.
The only way I can see that happening is if a verified (by the voter) paper receipt listing the voters choice going in to a balot box and stored. Let the machines tally. Audit random counties every election. Let recounts count the printed votes. At least this way a "crash" wont result in any lost votes.
I just dont trust anything that isn't transparent.
Slashdot Mirror
a radio tuner -- I've got one driven by your serial port if you want
"radio VCR" software. There's some free stuff out there.
There's even Linux Options.
Well, that settles it then. You said "Duh". You MUST be right!
We'll totally disregard the principle of the separation of powers. We'll ignore the constitution. We'll blow off Justice John Marshall regarding the judiciary's role in INTERPRETING the law. You said "Duh", for christsake! You MUST be right!
We'll ignore the last role the judiciary has played the first 200 years or so as one of strict constructionists in favor of the most recent swing to loose constructionists -- all because you said "Duh". Mighty powerful word, that "Duh".
The federal judiciary are appointed, not elected. If they stay within their defined roll as layed out in the constitution, this is a GOOD thing. When the principle of separation of powers begins to be violated, it becomes dangerous.
The legislators are elected directly by the people, both TECHNICALLY and ACTUALLY. I'm not sure how you can say that our legislators are not directly elected. Please explain.
Further are you are suggesting that the stock market crashed because they "feared" republican economics and completely unrelated to the poor business models of the dot-com era which could essentially be summed up with the following points:
Their business plan. While often "inspiring" or "revolutionary", they were never profitable.
They spent other people's money unchecked in an effort to gain market share as soon as possible
They had inexperienced teams whose only goal was the fastest possible growth of their company, not long term success.
Their company may have made it in the end, but because of the failure of so many others their investor capital was pulled.
(note: the above was taken verbatum from a left leaning source).
My God. Are you being deliberatly obtuse? Since when is news of a lower tax burden BAD news for the stock market?
The seeds of this recession were planted LONG before Bush came in to office -- predicted before Bush won the election, appears to be ending, as predicted, ON SCHEDULE dispite HUGE unforeseen and EXPENSIVE catastophies (9/11, Federal take over of airport security, Afganistan, Iraq, Corporate corruption etc.) which ALL took HUGE bites out of our economy. Is Enron Bush's fault, too? Did he somehow set up their ability to hide HUGE amounts of debt while running the Texas Rangers?
You really need to sit down and take stock of your argument. Face it, the stock market was DESTINED to crash when VC decided back in the 90's it was "OK" for to finance companies with expenses in the 10s to 100s of millions/year while bringing in only a few hundred thousand a year. THAT is what caused the crash. Not a news flash "BUSH TAKES LEAD IN THE POLLS! PROMISES TO LOWER TAXES! NEWS AT 11!".
To blame the recession on Clinton or Bush is asenine. It was caused by greedy/stupid VC and criminal accounting. You can only fool the market for so long... it will ALWAYS correct itself in the end.
I will once again STRONGLY suggest you THANK this administration for following program (cut taxes, cut interest rates, provide incentives to businesses) so as to shorted the duration and severity of the recession.
You again attempt to take the discussion away from the CAUSE of the recession to something completely unrelated to the CAUSE -- and argueably related to the RESULT. First the deficit, and now the decline in the dollar.
In closing, I will once again point out yet another left-leaning source:
The Falling Dollar - 12/15/2003
I'm not even going to bother quoting anything from it -- read it yourself. I'm done with you. Good day sir (or madam).
Your comment "And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change" is a frightening prospect. One where the people no longer have the ability to make law -- through their representatives. One where law is FORCED upon them by a non-elected "enlightened" and "benevolent" federal ruling class. It's not their job. And to have them *DO* that job is to undermine our form of government.I think it is ALWAYS a reasonable question to ask the intent of the framers. Again, in this, it is not unreasonable to believe that the framers, who pretty much all were christian, would (A) not consider marriage anything but between a man and woman and (B) would object to any other such union.
The next question we need to ask ourselves, does this violate the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)? Many would say no -- as any gay man or woman who decided to marry (a woman or man, respectivly -- someone of the OPPOSITE sex) would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other man married to a woman or woman married to a man.
Marriage is a CHOICE, not an obligation and not defined by birth or incident. The individual chooses not to marry (i.e. take a spouse of the oposite sex).
Me personally, I would argue that same sex relationships should be provided the same rights/privilages of marriage -- yet I would object to calling it marriage. "Social Union" works for me. "Domestic Partnership" also works. They could also extend to non-gay relationships -- say two women or men living together in their old age.
We say "she" when refering to females... we say "he" when refering to males. Why would it be such a leap to say "marriage" for heterosexual legal unions and "domestic partnerships" for same-sex/plutonic legal unions? As a country BUILT on compromises (re: 3/5's compromise), I think that's a pretty damn good compromise.
None taken and you make an interesting observation. One with which I disagree.
Until recently, never in the history of american jurisprudence has "marriage" been defined as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman. It has been some courts which have decided to "expand" the definition beyond what was originally accepted to allow for social engineering from the bench.
This the very same mind-set which allowed a US District Court to declare the boy scouts a religious originization (on par with the Catholic Church, the Hare Krishna's, and Islam) because they require an affirmation of some deity -- ANY deity (say the "Earth Mother"). Then, once declared a religious orginization, the judge could "social engineer".
"Clarify" should not include re-writing definitions or apply arbitrary definitions or use the most openly BROAD interpretations to essentially "make" or "unmake" law. Part of the job of the federal appeals court (and state appeals courts) is to determain not just the LETTER of the law, but also the intent of the original FRAMERS of the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the RIGHTS ad PRIVILEGES enjoyed by married couples to NON married couples -- but to call that marriage is wrong. It's also wrong for the court systems to try and FORCE it down the throats of americans when it is most unwanted. Let the legislators (the representatives of the PUBLIC) make law should the people want it -- not justices forcing laws on people who DONT want it.
Typo alert: Over 70% of ALL... should read: "Over 40% of ALL..."
I'll give you some data that report DIDN'T take in to account:
9/11
Afganistan
Iraq
Department of Homeland Defence
Airline Industry bailout
Federalizing Airport Security
Enron et. al. corporate fraud
All that AND the recession is STILL turning around it record time. This is pretty damn impressive.
I find it interesting that you first needed to blame Bush for the recession... Once we've established where the seeds of this recession were planted and WHEN it started to sprout, you some how CONTINUE to blame Bush because his POLL numbers started to show him in the lead back in 2000. Once pointed out how silly that was, you NOW turn the arguement AWAY from the recession and focus on the deficit. While you might be able to make an arguement for possible FUTURE problems, the deficit is NOT the cause of the recession, is it?
Further, you like tossing out numbers without any back-up material to support them or the meanings you attribute to them.
How about this (11/29/03):and
And the 9th has 18/24 cases overturned, or 75%. Higher than all the other federal courts combined - just ONE curcuit out of fourteen!. Over 70% of ALL cases heard come from just ONE circuit -- the 9th. And the 9th accounts for less than 18% of ALL appellet cases! The numbers were valid. If you choose to call it a "lie", you are obviously living in a fantasy world. If you continue to try and argue that a single review/reversal case for a given circuit has any REAL statistical merit without taking in the WHOLE picture, you are delibertly trying to mislead.
From your cited article:In conclusion, your argument is baseless, as I suspected when you tried to disprove my conclusion with a statistical "blip".
Read it again. And disregard STATE cases. Look at the numbers. How often is the court overturned in total? When you have a court that has 2 or 3 reviews and all of them are reversed -- that means little or nothing compaired to 24 reviews (which is more than ALL state cases heard combined).
The 3/4's reversal rate has MEANING because there are so many cases heard. It wouldn't mean anything if it was only 2 or 3 cases.
*My* lie indeed. You deliberately try to mislead by stating that SOME courts had a 100% reversal (8th circuit, for example) -- yet fail to mention that it had *1* case heard and reversed. Thats ONE out of ONE. Big sample there.
The interesting points are (A) how often the 9th circuit appeals are heard and (B) how often they are reversed.
Ok. I'm convinced. You're a crank.
First, the material you cite makes no mention of anybody telegraphing ANYTHING in 2000, let alone april of 2000. In fact, it only lists 2002 figures and estimates for future expendatures. And you continue to suggest that somehow, the economy was WILLED into the tank by Bush, disregarding the dot-com bust, stock market crash et al. Face it -- the economy tanked at least partly, if not mostly, as a result of bad financial planning, poor business models and corporate corruption.
In inflation adjusted dollars, historically the deficit has been larger and the sky hasn't fallen.
And again, you fail to address the UCLA Anderson report I cited. Not only does this recession look to be ending quite fast, as predicted by the report, but it's doing so on the back of 9/11, Afganistan and Iraq.
Funny thing about recessions... when they end, interest rates rise! Imagine that!
It would also be interesting to note that such a judgement came from OUTSIDE the 9th circuit court -- from a less reviewed court. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia illustrating that if a decision is to fair, expect it not to come out of the 9th circuit.
Please note that "GDP growth" is *not* the only measure of an economy -- it's one of many data points. You also completely fail to address the UCLA Anderson article I cited which basically PREDICTS the course of the recession and HOW it will be handled -- to the letter. Anderson doesn't use crystal balls -- they are a well established economic authority and they utilized MONTHS/YEARS of data and DECADES of history to make such predictions. And they did so 12/2000 -- with data mined WELL from within the Clinton administration years. Please also note that I cited ALL left-leaning sources.
Again, I suggest you thank the current adminstration for following the STANDARD procedures which, as predicted by Anderson, is causing this recession to be as short lived as it appears.
Is there some type of insecure NEED you have to place blame on Bush personally? Or is it just that you believe enough people saying it it will somehow be true? Realistically, this recession can no more be blamed on Bush and/or Clinton than it can be blamed on my son.
Huston Cron 12/10/2003 (left leaning)
Guess what. When an economy as large as ours starts a down-turn, it isn't instantaneous -- it starts with slowed growth.
You should be impressed that this administration has been able to start to turn things around so fast -- less than 3 years.
In december of 2000, several articles appeared which hailed the end of economic growth. Check SacBee (left leaning) archives. Data based on economists from UCLA's Anderson Forcast.
Anderson 12/2000 article
Are you going to suggest that they pulled data out of their hats in December 2000? Or more likely they had MONTHS of data on hand to make such a prediction (that looks AWFULLY familar with current facts). It looks like the "slump" started WELL within the Clinton admin.
However, it's silly to argue WHO started the recession. It's a flippin' HUGE economy. The Cookie Monster couldn't cause a slump in 2 months of office, let along GWBush. The "slump" was foreseen well within the Clinton admin, and the Bush admin followed program to turn it around.
Regardless of what partisans wish to say, it's not a Clinton thing and it's not a Bush thing. It's an ECONOMY thing. Economies go up and down. Thats life.
It's WRONG for the legislative branch to do this -- on BOTH sides of the line. It's a violation of the separation of powers. I'm just surprised that the dems have taken it this far -- it's one thing to resort to this type of tactic now and then, it's another to use it as a means to STACK THE COURT. It's not THEIR job to do that. That power resides with the executive branch. If they don't like it, ammend the constitution. Don't be surprised that if this continues we see a case brought to the supreme court.
-jhon
I wish I had mod points -- you are right on. It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution.
Outside of the MA court system, the 9th circuit is a prime example of this jucicial activism abuse. It's stacked liberal 2:1. That means any 3-judge panel is most likely going to end up 2:1 liberal. Talk about stacking the courts. They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
I'd also like to point out that it is NOT the job of the legislature to decide WHO gets to become a judge -- but to decide of they can/are qualified to do the job once nominated by the executive branch.
These are two outragous examples of two branches operating outside the separation of powers.
-jhon
ah... long dead, huh?
FDR died April 12, 1945.
The 111 article UN charter was adopted in San Francisco June 25. 1945 -- the conference of which started just one WEEK after FDR died. It was ratified one year later, as read, after being ratified by a majority of nations.
Long dead. Yeah.
Aside from that "error" on your part, you missed the point of my post. The UN was Roosevelt's idea of a "League of Nations" done right. Didn't work. Hense "failed pipe dream".
For the same reason why people watch sitcoms -- empty entertainment. For many people, entertainment means not needing to "think".
Think about this. The way the UN is designed PREVENTS it from being able to do ANYTHING without unanimity. This was a problem for the US post revolution/pre constitution. The problem is if they hold a UN equivalent of a constitutional convention, any ability for this "multinational entity" to "control" would result in no nations signing the new charter.
People need to realize what the UN is -- a failed pipe-dream of Roosevelt. It's nothing but a place for countries to "vent". Any effort to do ANYTHING can take decades if it happens at all. Especially with immediate threats (re Angola, Somalia, Congo, etc).
I'm against term limits on general principle. I believe the actual problem lies with an ill informed (or uninformed) constituency. People just don't take the time to (A) keep up with ANY issues (local, state or national) and/or (B) ONLY look at the little letter after the name (R or D).
The crack-smoking councilmember who motioned that the LA City Council condemn the US invasion of Iraq should have been voted out of office the last election. How DARE they waste my tax dollars on topics irrelevant to their adgenda (the running and maintainance of our city). The problem is, he wasn't. Nor was any member who voted for it called to task.
The problem lies with the voter, not the office holder. We, as a group, get what we deserve. With the referendum, at least the "informed" have some venue.
They've got all the ideas they need. Our city government (I live in LA) has gone over the deep end. This is worse than their ban on "Lap Dances" at the local "mens clubs". The same solution used by the "Gentleman's Clubs" should work. Get enough signatures on a petition to force a ballot measure and FORCE the City Council to either spend dozens of millions of dollars to put it up for a vote or STFU about the issue.
Their job is to make sure the cops get paid and the street lights work. It is NOT to re-invent Think-Speak.
Thank God for the referendum.
The PROBLEM is in ease of access to voter registration without any validation of eligibility -- or severe enough penalties for breaking these laws.
In other words, the job of the hijackers would have been much easier. Are you, while holding a gun, going to wave it at a man holding a gun AND a hostage threating to KILL them if you don't drop the gun? My guess is that most people would drop the gun rather than risk getting someone else killed. End result: The exact same.
This of course, assumes that the passengers had no CLUE the hijackers planned to use the aircraft as missles.
As it stands, it's my belief that an aircraft full of unarmed people jumping a few men with box cutters and razors would be much more effective than an aircraft full of armed people having a fire-fight. I might point you to the shoe-bomber and Pennsylvania flights that were thwarted by a bunch of passangers jumping on terrorists. Albeit, the Penn ended in a crash -- but that was after the terrorists had taken the plane and before the passangers learned what their plans were. I doubt any hijackers would get that far today.
For the record, I hardly think you are a choice "critic" of "those who...do have the capacity for critical thought."
I'm sorry -- systems like diebold leave no audit trail. As a voter, this is unacceptable. There needs to be a way to verify the vote count.
The only way I can see that happening is if a verified (by the voter) paper receipt listing the voters choice going in to a balot box and stored. Let the machines tally. Audit random counties every election. Let recounts count the printed votes. At least this way a "crash" wont result in any lost votes.
I just dont trust anything that isn't transparent.
-jhon