"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<33@nf3.org> wrote in message
:|news:1137123135.779508.222320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
:|> THE NEXT WEEK WILL DECIDE IF DEMOCRACY WILL SURVIVE
:|>
:|
:|Another way to put that
:|THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING.
:|
:|Sheesh!
The theocrats love you. They cherish the type of blind allegiance and
ignorance of realty you display.
They have accomplish that which they have accomplished because of idiots
like you.
The really comical thing is you have never supplied any information at all
to show that those opposite of you are incorrect.
We can supply all sorts of evidence showing we are correct, you can provide
none showing we aren't, so dude the laugh is on you
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
14 Jan 2006 12:32:43 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g66is117of8cjm62obiterdrtld9sh1edf@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<33@nf3.org> wrote in message
:|news:1137123135.779508.222320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
:|> THE NEXT WEEK WILL DECIDE IF DEMOCRACY WILL SURVIVE
:|>
:|
:|Another way to put that
:|THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING.
:|
:|Sheesh!
The theocrats love you. They cherish the type of blind allegiance and
ignorance of realty you display.
They have accomplish that which they have accomplished because of idiots
like you.
The really comical thing is you have never supplied any information at all
to show that those opposite of you are incorrect.
We can supply all sorts of evidence showing we are correct, you can
provide
none showing we aren't, so dude the laugh is on you
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we are
all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going on
for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on and
on.
The sad thing is that you point to stuff that isn't even law to suggest that
what we have been doing since the days of the Founding Fathers is against
that which the Founding Fathers even wanted for us.
The fact is, The System works pretty well. Conservatives make a few USSC
appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed and
needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
Unless you can find something seriously wrong with Alito, you're gonna have
to live with him. Kinda like we have to live with the likes of Ruth
Ginsberg. She is truly a left leaning justice, but she is eminently
qualified even if she renders decisions that conservatives don't like. Take
a deep breath, and hope your party wins the next election so you can get
your guy or gal on the USSC. That's the way it works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
14 Jan 2006 02:20:36 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we are
all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going on
for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on and
on.
If you read the book "Perilous TImes" it will confirm your position
what the rights of US citizens have been threatened at several
significant time points in US history. It concerns especially, those
times when the US has been at war or has been in a run-up to war.
The fact is, The System works pretty well.
The system *includes* people saying what you characterize as "the sky
is falling". At each of the previous junctures, it *took* people
standing up and saying so, to bring about an end to the threats.
Conservatives make a few USSC
appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed and
needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
THe Bush administration is not doing anything that previous
administrations did not want to do, and in fact did do. Adams,
Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson. It is the
combination of the Bush administration having a majority in congress
that can and will approve its nominees to the USSC, and being in a war
that cannot have a conventional end, that adds a special twist to the
situation.
Unless you can find something seriously wrong with Alito, you're gonna have
to live with him. Kinda like we have to live with the likes of Ruth
Ginsberg. She is truly a left leaning justice, but she is eminently
qualified even if she renders decisions that conservatives don't like. Take
a deep breath, and hope your party wins the next election so you can get
your guy or gal on the USSC. That's the way it works.
It works by doing more than hoping your party wins the next election.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
15 Jan 2006 06:03:13 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5nmis154iucufgd1dp5klcujh9out597au@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we
are
all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going
on
for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on
and
on.
If you read the book "Perilous TImes" it will confirm your position
what the rights of US citizens have been threatened at several
significant time points in US history. It concerns especially, those
times when the US has been at war or has been in a run-up to war.
The fact is, The System works pretty well.
The system *includes* people saying what you characterize as "the sky
is falling". At each of the previous junctures, it *took* people
standing up and saying so, to bring about an end to the threats.
Conservatives make a few USSC
appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed
and
needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
THe Bush administration is not doing anything that previous
administrations did not want to do, and in fact did do. Adams,
Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson. It is the
combination of the Bush administration having a majority in congress
that can and will approve its nominees to the USSC, and being in a war
that cannot have a conventional end, that adds a special twist to the
situation.
Sure. But, this is a mid-term election year (2006) and the balance can
change -- will it? Probably not. -- and this will throw things back in to
flux, possibly going the other way. Eventually, they will go the other way,
and the Liberals will get their guy on the court to keep the balance.
Unless you can find something seriously wrong with Alito, you're gonna
have
to live with him. Kinda like we have to live with the likes of Ruth
Ginsberg. She is truly a left leaning justice, but she is eminently
qualified even if she renders decisions that conservatives don't like.
Take
a deep breath, and hope your party wins the next election so you can get
your guy or gal on the USSC. That's the way it works.
It works by doing more than hoping your party wins the next election.
--- Jim07D6
Well, yes. One has to work to ensure their party wins. It works because
reasonable men and women -- whether you agree with them or not -- get
appointed and approved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 10:33:37 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5nmis154iucufgd1dp5klcujh9out597au@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we
are
all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going
on
for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on
and
on.
If you read the book "Perilous TImes" it will confirm your position
what the rights of US citizens have been threatened at several
significant time points in US history. It concerns especially, those
times when the US has been at war or has been in a run-up to war.
The fact is, The System works pretty well.
The system *includes* people saying what you characterize as "the sky
is falling". At each of the previous junctures, it *took* people
standing up and saying so, to bring about an end to the threats.
Conservatives make a few USSC
appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed
and
needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
THe Bush administration is not doing anything that previous
administrations did not want to do, and in fact did do. Adams,
Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson. It is the
combination of the Bush administration having a majority in congress
that can and will approve its nominees to the USSC, and being in a war
that cannot have a conventional end, that adds a special twist to the
situation.
Sure. But, this is a mid-term election year (2006) and the balance can
change -- will it? Probably not. -- and this will throw things back in to
flux, possibly going the other way. Eventually, they will go the other way,
and the Liberals will get their guy on the court to keep the balance.
To paraphrase Keynes, eventually we're all dead. And eventually there
won't be a USA. Or an Earth. We always have to deal with what is
happening now. Waiting for the tide to turn is not to be sneezed at --
I acknowledge that much. In point of fact, we (the USA) has been at
great peril before. Perhaps we *need* to get this question of the
Executive branch's power resolved, and the ACLU's legal case against
Bush re wiretaps might be a start on that. If the USSC decision is
that the executive branch has as much power as they seem to want, and
this is not acceptable to the US public then a constitutional
amendment will be pushed by the legislative branch and approved by the
states.
But, I repeat, times of war are times of fear, and at these times,
attempted executive branch power grabs are the rule, in US history.
They have been temporary so far. But this war on terrorism is
different. No surrender, no armistice, no peace treaty, no vanquished
state, in fact, no end to it is likely to be seen.
<...>
Well, yes. One has to work to ensure their party wins. It works because
reasonable men and women -- whether you agree with them or not -- get
appointed and approved.
I'd say it works "when" reasonable men and women...
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 11:30:59 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5nmis154iucufgd1dp5klcujh9out597au@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we
are
all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going
on
for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on
and
on.
If you read the book "Perilous TImes" it will confirm your position
what the rights of US citizens have been threatened at several
significant time points in US history. It concerns especially, those
times when the US has been at war or has been in a run-up to war.
The fact is, The System works pretty well.
The system *includes* people saying what you characterize as "the sky
is falling". At each of the previous junctures, it *took* people
standing up and saying so, to bring about an end to the threats.
Conservatives make a few USSC
appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed
and
needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
THe Bush administration is not doing anything that previous
administrations did not want to do, and in fact did do. Adams,
Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson. It is the
combination of the Bush administration having a majority in congress
that can and will approve its nominees to the USSC, and being in a war
that cannot have a conventional end, that adds a special twist to the
situation.
Sure. But, this is a mid-term election year (2006) and the balance can
change -- will it? Probably not. -- and this will throw things back in to
flux, possibly going the other way. Eventually, they will go the other way,
and the Liberals will get their guy on the court to keep the balance.
To paraphrase Keynes, eventually we're all dead. And eventually there
won't be a USA. Or an Earth. We always have to deal with what is
happening now. Waiting for the tide to turn is not to be sneezed at --
I acknowledge that much. In point of fact, we (the USA) has been at
great peril before. Perhaps we *need* to get this question of the
Executive branch's power resolved, and the ACLU's legal case against
Bush re wiretaps might be a start on that. If the USSC decision is
that the executive branch has as much power as they seem to want, and
this is not acceptable to the US public then a constitutional
amendment will be pushed by the legislative branch and approved by the
states.
But, I repeat, times of war are times of fear, and at these times,
attempted executive branch power grabs are the rule, in US history.
They have been temporary so far. But this war on terrorism is
different. No surrender, no armistice, no peace treaty, no vanquished
state, in fact, no end to it is likely to be seen.
<...>
Well, yes. One has to work to ensure their party wins. It works because
reasonable men and women -- whether you agree with them or not -- get
appointed and approved.
I'd say it works "when" reasonable men and women...
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 02:03:07 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary. But they did not do this. They
kept it inside the executive. They did not even inform the Senate
judiciary committee. THey approved the wiretaps 30 times in a row over
more than 3 years. How was Congress to revisit the question, if they
didn't know it was an issue? THe only Senators who were told were
sworn to secrecy and could not bring it to the floor, or to any
committee having appropriate powers.
The ACLU has brought a suit forward that may resolve the question.
Alito will probably be on the court. We will see if he restrains
himself from going beyond what you say his self-styled limits are.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 02:49:53 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
As we still do not know the details of the scheme, we don't really know
how it falls under FISA jurisdiction, if at all.
If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary.
If they believed the scheme to legal, they were not legally obligated to
submit the scheme to the judiciary. They were, because of the assets
employed, obliged to brief Congress in some manner. They did.
But they did not do this. They
kept it inside the executive. They did not even inform the Senate
judiciary committee. THey approved the wiretaps 30 times in a row over
more than 3 years. How was Congress to revisit the question, if they
didn't know it was an issue? THe only Senators who were told were
sworn to secrecy and could not bring it to the floor, or to any
committee having appropriate powers.
To the extent the senators were sworn to secrecy it was with regard to
those details of the scheme on which they were briefed. They could not
have been barred from bringing the existence of the scheme to the
leadership of the Congress if they believed the scheme illegal. Also,
should the scheme prove illegal, they would have been protected by
"whistle blower" statutes.
The ACLU has brought a suit forward that may resolve the question.
Alito will probably be on the court. We will see if he restrains
himself from going beyond what you say his self-styled limits are.
--- Jim07D6
I'm aware the ACLU has brought suit. What are they claiming is their
standing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 04:26:52 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
As we still do not know the details of the scheme, we don't really know
how it falls under FISA jurisdiction, if at all.
If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary.
If they believed the scheme to legal, they were not legally obligated to
submit the scheme to the judiciary. They were, because of the assets
employed, obliged to brief Congress in some manner. They did.
Wrong. If they *believed* the scheme to be legal, that is not enough.
to *be* legal.
And as to briefing Congress, you have not been keeping up. Do you
recall Barbara Boxer's letter? The issue about that?
But they did not do this. They
kept it inside the executive. They did not even inform the Senate
judiciary committee. THey approved the wiretaps 30 times in a row over
more than 3 years. How was Congress to revisit the question, if they
didn't know it was an issue? THe only Senators who were told were
sworn to secrecy and could not bring it to the floor, or to any
committee having appropriate powers.
To the extent the senators were sworn to secrecy it was with regard to
those details of the scheme on which they were briefed. They could not
have been barred from bringing the existence of the scheme to the
leadership of the Congress if they believed the scheme illegal. Also,
should the scheme prove illegal, they would have been protected by
"whistle blower" statutes.
They were so barred.
The ACLU has brought a suit forward that may resolve the question.
Alito will probably be on the court. We will see if he restrains
himself from going beyond what you say his self-styled limits are.
--- Jim07D6
I'm aware the ACLU has brought suit. What are they claiming is their
standing?
I have not seen that put forth.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 06:43:22 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
As we still do not know the details of the scheme, we don't really know
how it falls under FISA jurisdiction, if at all.
If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary.
If they believed the scheme to legal, they were not legally obligated to
submit the scheme to the judiciary. They were, because of the assets
employed, obliged to brief Congress in some manner. They did.
Wrong. If they *believed* the scheme to be legal, that is not enough.
to *be* legal.
Parse more carefully. Believing the program to be legal, they had no
obligation to consult with the judiciary. Whether the program is in fact
legal is a different question.
And as to briefing Congress, you have not been keeping up. Do you
recall Barbara Boxer's letter? The issue about that?
B.B. is a lying moron, and this I hear from her friends.
But they did not do this. They
kept it inside the executive. They did not even inform the Senate
judiciary committee. THey approved the wiretaps 30 times in a row over
more than 3 years. How was Congress to revisit the question, if they
didn't know it was an issue? THe only Senators who were told were
sworn to secrecy and could not bring it to the floor, or to any
committee having appropriate powers.
To the extent the senators were sworn to secrecy it was with regard to
those details of the scheme on which they were briefed. They could not
have been barred from bringing the existence of the scheme to the
leadership of the Congress if they believed the scheme illegal. Also,
should the scheme prove illegal, they would have been protected by
"whistle blower" statutes.
They were so barred.
Can't be for both legal and practical reason. Think it through. If they
believed the program to be illegal (a violation of the constitution) and
did not report it, they would be complicite. They are part of a
separate, equal branch of government, they also swore an oath to the
constitution, and that oath takes precedence over any secrecy or
security oaths.
The ACLU has brought a suit forward that may resolve the question.
Alito will probably be on the court. We will see if he restrains
himself from going beyond what you say his self-styled limits are.
--- Jim07D6
I'm aware the ACLU has brought suit. What are they claiming is their
standing?
I have not seen that put forth.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
17 Jan 2006 07:04:43 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
As we still do not know the details of the scheme, we don't really know
how it falls under FISA jurisdiction, if at all.
If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary.
If they believed the scheme to legal, they were not legally obligated to
submit the scheme to the judiciary. They were, because of the assets
employed, obliged to brief Congress in some manner. They did.
Wrong. If they *believed* the scheme to be legal, that is not enough.
to *be* legal.
Parse more carefully. Believing the program to be legal, they had no
obligation to consult with the judiciary. Whether the program is in fact
legal is a different question.
That is what I said. You said "If they believed the scheme to legal,
they were not legally obligated to submit the scheme to the
judiciary." But they could have been WRONG in their belief. You seem
to want to exonerate them on their belief. THis does not work when it
come to us common folk and our taxes, why should belief that you are
within the law apply to them? THey can claim belief, any time.
And as to briefing Congress, you have not been keeping up. Do you
recall Barbara Boxer's letter? The issue about that?
B.B. is a lying moron, and this I hear from her friends.
Oh, OK, never mind. Bye.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
18 Jan 2006 01:05:39 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
<...>
What didn't work this time was the purpose and intent of the Senate's
process of advice and consent. Informed consent was not obtained on
the subject of Alito's position on executive power. Or, we should
conclude, Alito wants to grant more power to the executive than he
wants the legislative to know.
--- Jim07D6
As Alioto suggested in his hearings, the job of the judiciary is not to
change law in response to change but to apply the law to changing
circumstances. Sometimes, the circumstances are so changed that the law
cannot be applied. In such cases, I would prefer the courts to "punt"
and for the legislative branch to address anything so novel.
The only circumstance that is different this time around (compared to
previous moments in history in which executive power to ignore laws
was asserted) is that we have a so-called "war on terror" for which
there is no definite indicator of victory. Therefore, we are on course
for a state of permanent war. This should only make the issue be of
far greater concern than any time in the past.
By the time all the facts of the "wire tapping" shakes out, I suspect we
will learn that FISA (as written) has some constitutional problems or a
loophole through which the "new" program can slip, or both. This won't
be the first time legislation was behind the technological curve or that
Congress didn't quite get the job done the first time. When this
happens, it would better if Congress spent it energy revisiting the
question rather than throwing tantrums in front of the nearest
microphone cluster.
The executive branch wants the Iraq use-of-force resolution to be
interpreted to grant it the power to conduct domestic wiretaps without
obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
As we still do not know the details of the scheme, we don't really know
how it falls under FISA jurisdiction, if at all.
If as you say (and if this is
Alito's view) it is the job of the judiciary to apply the laws to
changing circumstances, then the Bush administration should be happy
to submit the issue to the judiciary.
If they believed the scheme to legal, they were not legally obligated to
submit the scheme to the judiciary. They were, because of the assets
employed, obliged to brief Congress in some manner. They did.
Wrong. If they *believed* the scheme to be legal, that is not enough.
to *be* legal.
Parse more carefully. Believing the program to be legal, they had no
obligation to consult with the judiciary. Whether the program is in fact
legal is a different question.
That is what I said. You said "If they believed the scheme to legal,
they were not legally obligated to submit the scheme to the
judiciary." But they could have been WRONG in their belief. You seem
to want to exonerate them on their belief. THis does not work when it
come to us common folk and our taxes, why should belief that you are
within the law apply to them? THey can claim belief, any time.
Their accountability to the common folk was satisfied to some degree by
briefing members of congress, the body which the funding flowed.
And as to briefing Congress, you have not been keeping up. Do you
recall Barbara Boxer's letter? The issue about that?
B.B. is a lying moron, and this I hear from her friends.
Oh, OK, never mind. Bye.
You think I exagerate?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
16 Jan 2006 02:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The fact is, The System works pretty well. Conservatives make a few USSC
:|appointments, the liberals make a few.
Dear jeffy,
There are more then just conservatives and liberals as hard as that is for
you to grasp.
There is that odd things called moderates as well. You also have levels
within those three major divisions. For example O'Connor when appointed
to the USSC was a conservative. When she announced her retirement most felt
she was a moderate,. She was a moderate not because she had changed but
more because the court had moved further to the right of her.
There are no true liberals on the USSC not liberal as Marshall, Brennen,
Douglas and some other were. There hasn't been in a number of years.
Extremes on either side , ultra right or ultra left spells bad news and
even more so when one of the two major paries is in the grasp of a religion
and that party owns the government.
The Republicans control the executive legislature and judicial branch of
the U S Government and most of the state governments as well. Dude that
doesn't work well for this country.
:|Over time, the USSC's make up tends
:|to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
:|long run.
Sometimes that can be a very long log run.
:|Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
:|rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed and
:|needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
:|
:|Unless you can find something seriously wrong with Alito, you're gonna have
:|to live with him. Kinda like we have to live with the likes of Ruth
:|Ginsberg. She is truly a left leaning justice, but she is eminently
:|qualified even if she renders decisions that conservatives don't like. Take
:|a deep breath, and hope your party wins the next election so you can get
:|your guy or gal on the USSC. That's the way it works.
That is a very simplfied view, dude.
You see, since you are only referring to the court USSC, a particular court
can have a very lasting effrct can do a lot of damamge before that trend
is reversed.
You seem to over look that fact
What sort of government do you think these people would create?
Suprise me, actually answer.
http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/commandments/mccreary/conservativelegaldefensefund.pdf
[excerpts]
No. 03-1693
IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
________________
MCCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.,
Respondent.
________________
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit
________________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND, JOYCE MEYER MINISTRIES, COMMITTEE TO
PROTECT THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, LINCOLN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, AMERICAN HERITAGE PARTY, PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
RADIO LIBERTY, AND SPIRITUAL COUNTERFEITS PROJECT, INC. IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS
________________
HERBERT W. TITUS*
Attorneys for Amici Curiae WILLIAM J. OLSON
*Counsel of Record WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.
8180 Greensboro Drive
December 8, 2004 Suite 1070
McLean, VA 22102-3860
(703) 356-5070
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. “THIS CONSTITUTION ... SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND” . . . . . . . . .. 4
A. JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRES TEXTUAL FIDELITY . . 4
B. JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRES FIDELITY TO THE
ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. STARE DECISIS REQUIRES CONFORMITY TO THE
MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL
TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO
THE STATES . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE DOES NOT INCORPORATE ANY OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. NO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE OR
IMMUNITY HAS BEEN ABRIDGED IN THIS CASE . . . 23
ii
III. BY OATH BEFORE GOD, THIS COURT IS OBLIGED TO
CONFORM ITS WILL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT . . 27
CONCLUSION . . . . . . 30
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
THE HOLY BIBLE
Leviticus 19:15 . . . . . . 28
Deuteronomy 1:16-17 . 28
Deuteronomy 16:20 . . . 28
1 Samuel 10:24-25 . . . 28
2 Chronicles 19:8-10 . . . . . 28
Psalms 106:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Isaiah 33:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Romans 13:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . 28
U.S. CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2 . . . 26
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 3 . . . 26
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 . . 26
Article III, Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Article IV, Section 2 . . . 11, 26
Article V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Amendment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, passim
Amendment IV . . . . . 10
Amendment V . . . . . . . . . 10, passim
Amendment VI . . . . . . . . 10
Amendment VIII . . . . . . 10
Amendment X . . . . . 3, 10
Amendment XIII . . . . . . 10
Amendment XIV . . . . . . . 2, passim
Amendment XV . . . . . 10
FEDERAL STATUTES
28 U.S.C. Section 453 . . . . 4, 28
STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Constitution of Maryland (Nov. 3, 1776) . . . . . . . . 21
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
The amici curiae, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Joyce
Meyer Ministries, Committee to Protect the Family Foundation, Lincoln
Institute for Research and Education, American Heritage Party, Public
Advocate of the United States, Radio Liberty, and Spiritual Counterfeits
Project, Inc., are a coalition of nonprofit organizations, and a media
organization, sharing a common interest in the proper construction of the
Constitution and laws of the United States.1 Each of the amici is
tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), section 501(c)(4), or section 527 of
the Internal Revenue Code, except for Radio Liberty, an independent media
organization. Each of the amici is involved in informing and educating the
public on important issues of national concern, including questions related
to the original intent of the Founders and the correct interpretation of
the United States Constitution, and/or supporting organizations or causes
with such educational goals. The First and Fourteenth Amendment issues
presented in this case have a direct impact the right of organizations to
express their views on religious, educational, social, and political
issues, and are of great interest to these amici. In the past, most of the
amici have filed amicus curiae briefs in other federal litigation,
including matters before this Court. These amici seek to provide this Court
with a perspective that would not otherwise be presented.2
vii
C. Fairman, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of
Rights?,” 2 Stan. L. Rev. 5 (1949) . . . 16
M. Glendon and R. Yanes, “Structural Free Exercise,” 90 Mich. L. Rev. 477
(1991) . . . . 18
P. Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Harvard Press: 2002) . .22
P. Johnson, A History of the American People, (HarperCollins: 1997) . . .3
J. Kent, I Commentaries on American Law (O. Halsted,
New York: 1826) . . 9
W. Lietzau, “Rediscovering the Establishment Clause: Federalism and the
Rollback of Incorporation,” 39 DePaul L. Rev. 1191 (1990) . . . . . 3
Magna Charta of 1215 . . . . . 15
M. McConnell, “Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I:
Establishment of Religion,”44 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 2105 (2003) . . 21
E. Meese, “Perspective on the Authoritativeness of Supreme Court Decisions:
The Law of the Constitution,” 61 Tul. L. Rev. 979 (1987) . . . . 8
Note, “Rethinking the Incorporation of the Establishment Clause: A
Federalist View,” 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1700 (1992) . .. . 3, 27
Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties (ABA Found: 1972) . . .4, 15, 21
C. Rice, “The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation,” The Bill
of Rights (E. Hickock, Jr., ed., Univ. Press of Va.: 1991) . . . . 2
C. Stern, “The Common Law and the Religious
Foundations of the Rule of Law Before Casey,”
38 U.S.F.L. Rev. 499 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
L. Tribe, I American Constitutional Law (3d ed. 2000) . . 27
G. Washington, Farewell Address (1799) . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
E. White, “Reflections on the Role of the Supreme Court: the Contemporary
Debate and the ‘Lessons’ of History,” 83 Judicature 162 (1979) . .. 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
This Court has not entertained any serious challenge to that doctrine since
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), but, if a constitutional doctrine
proves to be erroneous, its longevity is no reason to keep it. See C. Rice,
“The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation,” The Bill of Rights
11 (E. Hickok, Jr., ed., Univ. Press of Va.: 1991). Each justice of this
Court has a continuing, sworn obligation to ensure that the Court’s
doctrines are consistent with the text of the Constitution. A line of
judicial precedents, no matter how long unbroken, must never “close” the
Constitution to reinspection, to ensure conformity to its text. See Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803).
Moreover, stare decisis is no bar to repudiation of this Court’s
Establishment separationist doctrine, even though embedded in a line of
precedents stretching back for 59 years. Indeed, this Court’s decisions,
which have transmuted the original historical purpose of the Establishment
Clause as a
[end of excerpt]
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
22 Jan 2006 07:39:06 PM |
|
|
<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4m0os1ddkv439ilt8qf49jk4dt77p80jab@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The fact is, The System works pretty well. Conservatives make a few USSC
:|appointments, the liberals make a few.
Dear jeffy,
There are more then just conservatives and liberals as hard as that is for
you to grasp.
There is that odd things called moderates as well. You also have levels
within those three major divisions. For example O'Connor when appointed
to the USSC was a conservative. When she announced her retirement most
felt
she was a moderate,. She was a moderate not because she had changed but
more because the court had moved further to the right of her.
There are no true liberals on the USSC not liberal as Marshall, Brennen,
Douglas and some other were. There hasn't been in a number of years.
Extremes on either side , ultra right or ultra left spells bad news and
even more so when one of the two major paries is in the grasp of a
religion
and that party owns the government.
The Republicans control the executive legislature and judicial branch of
the U S Government and most of the state governments as well. Dude that
doesn't work well for this country.
Agreed. But, just because one is liberal or conservative, or moderate, is
not qualification for or against being nominated for a seat on the USSC.
You may shudder to think that someone with views other than those you harbor
can be appointed, but unless you can show that they are consistantly on the
minority of the decisions they make, or have acted unlawfully in the past,
you can't do much about them. If they are consistantly on the 4-side of 5-4
votes, then perhaps they are not qualified for the USSC. but, when they are
on the 5-side and upheld on appeal, then they are qualified -- even if you
don't like the decision.
Sure, there are lots of liberal judges out there that harbor your views, but
so what? Any sitting President is going to nominate candidates for
judgeships that share HIS view, not your view. It may happen that the Prez's
view and your view are the same, but the Prez's view might not be your view,
and that's okay too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
22 Jan 2006 09:29:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:39:06 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Agreed. But, just because one is liberal or conservative, or moderate, is
not qualification for or against being nominated for a seat on the USSC.
The test isn't whether "conservative or liberal" Jeffy
it's the EXTREME positions of "literalists" when it
comes to interpretation of the constititon
There has never been a "strict construction" of the
constitution as doctrine.
The issue is that a narrow political ideology WANTS to
change the approach to interpreting law so that two
things will happen (maybe 3).
1. The wealth class will be protected. (why do you
think a mega billionare like Richard Scaife has poured
nearly $100 million into these rightwing causes in the
last 30 years?)
2 The government regulation of business will be
curtailed----to the extreme. (every USSC decision and
economic legislation coming out of Bush since 2000 has
been directed at protection of business---at the
expense of the the common person)
----which produces an elite ruling class that empowers
the upward flow of wealth
THis is exactly the kind of policy that led to the
horrific conditions of the 1st quarter of the 20th
century.
You may shudder to think that someone with views other than those you harbor
can be appointed, but unless you can show that they are consistantly on the
minority of the decisions they make, or have acted unlawfully in the past,
you can't do much about them. I
We can damn sure publicize he fucking harm they
did,---and WILL do, Jeffy
Sure, there are lots of liberal judges out there that harbor your views, but
so what
Don't you get it Jeffy?
"Liberal judges" interpret law that sides with most of
the people
"Conservative judges" have consistently ruled in favor
of the elite, wealthy, white and corporate interests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
22 Jan 2006 09:53:03 PM |
|
|
<laffs@'em-all.com> wrote in message
news:rsi8t1pln2kb2ivu72a802794q5na560ch@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:39:06 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Agreed. But, just because one is liberal or conservative, or moderate, is
not qualification for or against being nominated for a seat on the USSC.
The test isn't whether "conservative or liberal" Jeffy
it's the EXTREME positions of "literalists" when it
comes to interpretation of the constititon
Sorry, it doesn't APPEAR to be the extreme positions that exclude one from
being qualified.
There has never been a "strict construction" of the
constitution as doctrine.
The issue is that a narrow political ideology WANTS to
change the approach to interpreting law so that two
things will happen (maybe 3).
1. The wealth class will be protected. (why do you
think a mega billionare like Richard Scaife has poured
nearly $100 million into these rightwing causes in the
last 30 years?)
Don't know. Maybe he wants HIS agenda to be put on the front burner. I think
the same could be asked about Soros ...
2 The government regulation of business will be
curtailed----to the extreme. (every USSC decision and
economic legislation coming out of Bush since 2000 has
been directed at protection of business---at the
expense of the the common person)
----which produces an elite ruling class that empowers
the upward flow of wealth
THis is exactly the kind of policy that led to the
horrific conditions of the 1st quarter of the 20th
century.
That certainly is a concern, but we both know that any regulation of
business ebbs and flows with the leanings of the current court -- and
Administration.
You may shudder to think that someone with views other than those you
harbor
can be appointed, but unless you can show that they are consistantly on
the
minority of the decisions they make, or have acted unlawfully in the past,
you can't do much about them. I
We can damn sure publicize he fucking harm they
did,---and WILL do, Jeffy
Criticize all you want, but that doesn't change the qualifications.
Sure, there are lots of liberal judges out there that harbor your views,
but
so what
Don't you get it Jeffy?
"Liberal judges" interpret law that sides with most of
the people
Not true. They don't side with the majority, they side with what might be
easiest and most flexible. Sometimes the right way hurts, oh well.
"Conservative judges" have consistently ruled in favor
of the elite, wealthy, white and corporate interests.
To the extent that that is true, it can be a problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito---Scumbag loved by Jeffy |
23 Jan 2006 09:08:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:53:03 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The test isn't whether "conservative or liberal" Jeffy
it's the EXTREME positions of "literalists" when it
comes to interpretation of the constititon
Sorry, it doesn't APPEAR to be the extreme positions that exclude one from
being qualified.
Being "Qualified" isn't a pre-requisite for being on
the USSC, Jeffy
All Alito's "qualifications" are based on his legal
career. No such "qualifications" are required.
THat pretty much shoots down "qualifications"
Iespecially legal ones) argument.
There has never been a "strict construction" of the
constitution as doctrine.
The issue is that a narrow political ideology WANTS to
change the approach to interpreting law so that two
things will happen (maybe 3).
1. The wealth class will be protected. (why do you
think a mega billionare like Richard Scaife has poured
nearly $100 million into these rightwing causes in the
last 30 years?)
Don't know. Maybe he wants HIS agenda to be put on the front burner. I think
the same could be asked about Soros ...
a) Soros has no official standing in ANY venue, Jeffy.
His donations to causes is all he can do. OTOH,
Richard Scaife, (who is credited for funding the 1994
Takover of government and funding the operatons to
smear and impeach clinton) sits on a political policy
making arm of the GOP)
b) If you "don't know", THAT is the issue. "YOU" not
knowing---or swayed by the agitprop ***** of
conservatism is why "you don't know"
2 The government regulation of business will be
curtailed----to the extreme. (every USSC decision and
economic legislation coming out of Bush since 2000 has
been directed at protection of business---at the
expense of the the common person)
----which produces an elite ruling class that empowers
the upward flow of wealth
THis is exactly the kind of policy that led to the
horrific conditions of the 1st quarter of the 20th
century.
That certainly is a concern, but we both know that any regulation of
business ebbs and flows with the leanings of the current court -- and
Administration.
"We" Both know that history shows us what happens.
What is happening, is a "return" to a set of policies
right out of a century ago.
You don't think we should have learned from history?
You may shudder to think that someone with views other than those you
harbor
can be appointed, but unless you can show that they are consistantly on
the
minority of the decisions they make, or have acted unlawfully in the past,
you can't do much about them. I
We can damn sure publicize he fucking harm they
did,---and WILL do, Jeffy
Criticize all you want, but that doesn't change the qualifications.
Again, (so you get it into your head")
(legal) "Qualifications" aren't required, Jeffy
A USSC judge can be devoid of legal training. So,
Alito's "qualifications" aren't the issue---his
IDEOLOGY and approach to "interpretaton" and
"Construction" is.
Alito's past record of bad "reading" and "construction"
is a disqualifier.
Sure, there are lots of liberal judges out there that harbor your views,
but
so what
Don't you get it Jeffy?
"Liberal judges" interpret law that sides with most of
the people
Not true. They don't side with the majority, they side with what might be
easiest and most flexible. Sometimes the right way hurts, oh well.
"Conservative judges" have consistently ruled in favor
of the elite, wealthy, white and corporate interests.
To the extent that that is true, it can be a problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
16 Jan 2006 01:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
:|
:|You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we are
:|all doomed.
You forget your proof
:|The reality is most of what you complain about has been going on
:|for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet.
So you agree that the breaking of church state unions haven't done you any
harm at all?
:|There has been no
:|massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
:|falling,
Actually the sky is falling is your choice of words. I have never said
such. Life didn't end for all under the most horrible dictatorship, but
don't you dare try to talk for those that life drastically changed or who
lost loved ones under such dippy.
:|yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on and
:|on.
It is obvious you have a hard time telling the difference between what
you write and what another wrote. The sky is falling are your words dippy
..
No wonder you have earned the following reputation:
from so many intelligent people
But jeffy is famous for his ignorance
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
Yes, you do love to flaunt your ignorance
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/01961b0e44a090eb?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J49E320FB
:|The sad thing is that you point to stuff that isn't even law to suggest that
:|what we have been doing since the days of the Founding Fathers is against
:|that which the Founding Fathers even wanted for us.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
*****************************************************************
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
22 Jan 2006 07:30:44 PM |
|
|
<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0duns1hl55i6sg4rih3pjmce7cnif27r19@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
:|
:|You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we
are
:|all doomed.
You forget your proof
What proof, that the sky is NOT falling?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
27 Jan 2006 09:46:14 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
:|news:0duns1hl55i6sg4rih3pjmce7cnif27r19@4ax.com...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we
:|>>are
:|>>:|all doomed.
:|>
:|> You forget your proof
:|>
:|
:|What proof, that the sky is NOT falling?
No stupid, the "sky is falling" is your phrase, not one I have ever said.
It is your attempt to find a sound bite that will enable you to side step
actually have to confront any single item or the total of what I have
presented pertaining to the Theocrats, the dominions, reconstructionists
attempt to establish their agenda which would be a radical changing of our
system of government, the Constitution, laws of this nation, etc.
Evidence none of this is true dude
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
which you try and hide away with your sky is falling *****
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992) .
.. .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
18 Jan 2006 01:25:38 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
:|
:|You provide nothing other than assertions that the sky is falling and we are
:|all doomed. The reality is most of what you complain about has been going on
:|for 225 years and very little bad has come from it yet. There has been no
:|massive encroachment on public life that warrants cries that the sky is
:|falling, yet your constant refrain that the sky is falling continues on and
:|on.
:|
:|The sad thing is that you point to stuff that isn't even law to suggest that
:|what we have been doing since the days of the Founding Fathers is against
:|that which the Founding Fathers even wanted for us.
:|
:|The fact is, The System works pretty well. Conservatives make a few USSC
:|appointments, the liberals make a few. Over time, the USSC's make up tends
:|to change its balance back and forth and we get a pretty even keel in the
:|long run. Occasionally we get a ruling that makes sense when it was
:|rendered, but after a while we see that the ruling was inherently flawed and
:|needs to be revisited -- Plessy comes to mind.
:|
:|Unless you can find something seriously wrong with Alito, you're gonna have
:|to live with him. Kinda like we have to live with the likes of Ruth
:|Ginsberg. She is truly a left leaning justice, but she is eminently
:|qualified even if she renders decisions that conservatives don't like. Take
:|a deep breath, and hope your party wins the next election so you can get
:|your guy or gal on the USSC. That's the way it works.
:|
January 2006
Editorials
Why The U.S. Senate Should Not Confirm Court Nominee Alito
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7756&abbr=cs_
[excerpt]
In a case last year, O’Connor wrote, “At a time when we see around the
world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by
government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for
constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while
allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would
renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a
difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well
for one that has served others so poorly?”
Why indeed? Our fear is that if Alito is confirmed, he will join the
Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas axis that is hostile to church-state
separation. By pulling in Anthony Kennedy, whose church-state views are at
best erratic, and new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a man personally
vetted by the Religious Right, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will have an
operational majority to begin tearing down the church-state wall on some
key issues.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sam Alito |
16 Jan 2006 02:49:44 PM |
|
|
Just for you jeffy a present
There are currently eleven numbered circuits, and one for the District of
Columbia that decides appeals from the district court in Washington, D.C..
There is also a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
which does not have any geographical circuit, but hears appeals from any
District Court in cases relating to patents. It also decides appeals from
the specialized trial courts in a few areas, including federal claims,
international trade, and veterans' rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Title Name Duty Station
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born Term of Active Service Term of Service as Chief
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Term of Senior Service Appointed by
===================================================
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL
===================================================
1ST CIRCUIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit
25 Chief Judge Michael Boudin Boston, MA G.H.W. Bush
21 Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella San Juan, PR Reagan
22 Circuit Judge Bruce Marshall Selya Providence, RI
Reagan
27 Circuit Judge Sandra Lea Lynch Boston, MA 1946
1995 – present — — Clinton
28 Circuit Judge Kermit Victor Lipez Portland, ME 1941
1998 – present — — Clinton
29 Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard Concord, NH 1955
2002 – present — — G.W. Bush
17 Senior Circuit Judge Frank Morey Coffin Portland, ME
1919 1965 – 1989 1972 – 1983 1989 – present L. Johnson
18 Senior Circuit Judge Levin Hicks Campbell Boston, MA
1927 1972 – 1992 1983 – 1990 1992 – present Nixon
23 Senior Circuit Judge Conrad Keefe Cyr Portland, ME
1931 1989 – 1997 (none) 1997 – present G.H.W. Bush
26 Senior Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl Boston, MA
1931 1992 – 2001 (none) 2001 – present G.H.W. Bush
Total 10
3 Appoinrted by dems
7 appointed by rep
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
2ND CIRCUIT
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-second-circuit
Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. New Haven, CT 1940 1989 –
present 2000 – present — G.H.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Dennis G. Jacobs New York, NY 1944 1992 –
present — — G.H.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi New Haven, CT 1932 1994 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Jose Alberto Cabranes New Haven, CT 1940 1994 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler Syracuse, NY 1938 1998 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub New York, NY 1937 1998 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Robert David Sack New York, NY 1939 1998 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor New York, NY 1954 1998 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann New York, NY 1953 1999 –
present — — Clinton
Circuit Judge Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr. Stamford, CT 1944
2001 – present — — G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Reena Raggi Brooklyn, NY 1951 2002 – present —
— G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley Geneseo, NY 1949 2003 –
present — — G.W. Bush
Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall Rutland, VT 1948 2004 – present —
— G.W. Bush
Senior Circuit Judge Wilfred Feinberg New York, NY 1920
1966 – 1991 1980 – 1988 1991 – present L. Johnson
Senior Circuit Judge James Lowell Oakes Brattleboro, VT
1924 1971 – 1992 1988 – 1992 1992 – present Nixon
Senior Circuit Judge Thomas Joseph Meskill 1928 1975 – 1993
1992 – 1993 1993 – present Ford
Senior Circuit Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse 1937 1979 – 2002
(none) 2002 – present Carter
Senior Circuit Judge Jon Ormond Newman Hartford, CT 1932
1979 – 1997 1993 – 1997 1997 – present Carter
Senior Circuit Judge Richard J. Cardamone Utica, NY 1925
1981 – 1993 (none) 1993 – present Reagan
Senior Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr. New Haven, CT 1935
1981 – 2000 1997 – 2000 2000 – present Reagan
Senior Circuit Judge Roger Jeffrey Miner Albany, NY 1934
1985 – 1997 (none) 1997 – present Reagan
Senior Circuit Judge Joseph Michael McLaughlin 1933
1990 – 1998 (none) 1998 – present G.H.W. Bush
Senior Circuit Judge Pierre Nelson Leval 1936 1993 – 2002
(none) 2002 – present Clinton
Total 23
11 appointed by Dems
12 appointed by Reps
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
3RD CIRCUIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit
44 Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica Philadelphia, PA
1940 1987 – present 2003 – present — Reagan
38 Circuit Judge Dolores Korman Sloviter Philadelphia, PA
1932 1979 – present 1991 – 1998 — Carter
47 Circuit Judge Samuel Alito Newark, NJ 1950 1990 –
present — — G.H.W. Bush
48 Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth Wilmington, DE 1935
1991 – present — — G.H.W. Bush
50 Circuit Judge Theodore Alexander McKee Philadelphia, PA
1947 1994 – present — — Clinton
52 Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell Philadelphia, PA
1947 1997 – present — — Clinton
53 Circuit Judge Maryanne Trump Barry Newark, NJ 1937
1999 – present — — Clinton
54 Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro Wilmington, DE 1949
2000 – present — — Clinton
55 Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes Newark, NJ 1946
2000 – present — — Clinton
56 Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith Duncansville, PA
1951 2002 – present — — G.W. Bush
58 Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher Pittsburgh, PA 1944
2003 – present — — G.W. Bush
59 Circuit Judge Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen Easton, PA
1941 2004 – present — — G.W. Bush
— Circuit Judge (vacant - seat 1) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
(n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
— Circuit Judge (vacant - seat 7) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
(n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
28 Senior Circuit Judge Ruggero John Aldisert Santa Barbara, CA
1919 1968 – 1986 1984 – 1986 1986 – present L. Johnson
32 Senior Circuit Judge Max Rosenn Wilkes-Barre, PA
1910 1970 – 1981 (none) 1981 – present Nixon
35 Senior Circuit Judge Joseph Francis Weis, Jr. Pittsburgh,
| | |
