Filed under: Judicial Activism
Question:
More crap from the phony scare artist There is no corroboration of any of this, just Anni’s drivel reprinted and repackaged. If it were true, she would have a real cite.
<snip — "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
Ah Vashti, When shall we three meeet again? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rosenberg claimed: Oh YES, and I am a disbarred attorney from New York I doubt that … The question was are you related to Laura Rosenberg … who worked with your Quack Team for the BIF front group that failed ? Surely you mean Guildenstern? Or was it Rosencrantz? Guildenstern: Rosencrantz? Rosencrantz: What? Guildenstern: Guildenstern? Rosencrantz: What? Guildenstern: Don’t you discriminate at all? … Guildenstern: A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself. Rosencrantz: Or just as mad. Guildenstern: Or just as mad. Rosencrantz: And he does both. Guildenstern: So there you are. Rosencrantz: Stark raving sane. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100519/ Vashti
– "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
Ah Vashti, When shall we three meeet again?
<notes lack of ominous weather Do you mind awfully if we skip the screeching and cackling bit, I think I hurt my throat last time. Anyway, according to my schedule I’ve got a slot next Tuesday evening, would that do? Only I’m in a bit of a rush so could you make sure the fire’s out properly before you set off? Thanks ever so much! 
Vashti
Response:
Oh YES, and I am a disbarred attorney from New York practicing electroshock in Montana with cattle feed Crawl back in your hole. Teddy boy … you related to "Laura Rosenberg" … one of the monitors for the disastrous BIF front group of Barrett/Polevoys?
– "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
More Ilena crap
<huge mwaningless bunch of crap snipped SURE you and Betty can quote yourselves and your friends but that whole post contained not one singlr verifiable public source. — "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
Rosenberg claimed: Oh YES, and I am a disbarred attorney from New York
I doubt that … The question was are you related to Laura Rosenberg … who worked with your Quack Team for the BIF front group that failed ?
Response:
Rosenberg claimed: Oh YES, and I am a disbarred attorney from New York I doubt that … The question was are you related to Laura Rosenberg … who worked with your Quack Team for the BIF front group that failed ?
Surely you mean Guildenstern? Or was it Rosencrantz? Guildenstern: Rosencrantz? Rosencrantz: What? Guildenstern: Guildenstern? Rosencrantz: What? Guildenstern: Don’t you discriminate at all? … Guildenstern: A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself. Rosencrantz: Or just as mad. Guildenstern: Or just as mad. Rosencrantz: And he does both. Guildenstern: So there you are. Rosencrantz: Stark raving sane. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100519/ Vashti
Response:
More Ilena crap <huge mwaningless bunch of crap snipped SURE you and Betty can quote yourselves and your friends but that whole post contained not one singlr verifiable public source.
Betty??? and *MY* friends?? Er, I think not, but I did look up a bit of YOUR posting history. Mostly you were being called a troll and then you were using filthy language.. Guess you have a bone to pick. The case has a number, it DID happen. Jan A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic. -Dresden James – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
More Ilena crap If it were true, she would be able to point to a REAL web reference not a scam one but "true" and "Illena" are rarely congruent. I on;y know that a check of public records doesn’t turn anything up AN a pathalogical liar claims that it is true http://www.breggin.com/juryawards.htm
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Followup-To: alt.activism.d Loss Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability www.ahrp.org FYI Below is a press release by Linda Andre, president of Committee for Truth in Psychiatry (CTIP) about the first ever lawsuit in which a jury found a psychiatrist who referred a patient for intensive electroshock procedures (practitioners prefer to call it, electroconvulsive treatment ECT) that left her permanently impaired. The patient, Peggy S. Salters is a 60 year old former pshychiatric nurse. She was subjected to 13 electroshocks within the span of 19 days. The defense expert psychiatrists–one who testified, the other who was not called to testify but was deposed under oath–justified the "treatment" and failure to inform the patient about the risks. The jury found that her loss of 30 years of memory and cognitivie impairment–which are demonstrable symptoms of brain damage–was due to ECT. The reason that patients have been unable to convince a jury until now that ECT-induced brain damage, is that the powerful psychiatric profession has succeeded in manipulating the perception that the testimony of psychiatric patients does not qualify. Although the doctor who actually administered the electroshocks was not found guilty, the referring psychiatrist was. This should send a warning to physicians who refer patients for ECT without a thought about their own liability, in the event of harm. Many of you may not even be aware that each year, 100,000 patients in the US undergo electroshock–many against their will. There is concern among patient advocates that the tarnished reputation of the antidepressants which have been scientifically proven not significantly more effective for the treatment of depression than a sugar pill, that psychiatry will attempt to rehabilitate ECT, a procedure that, to some degree, causes brain damage. In the case of Peggy Salters–ECT wiped out a lifetime of memory, including her 30 year marriage and the birth of her children. As this case demonstrates, the practice of ECT, like the irresponsible over prescribing of psychotropic drugs, is dissociated from the body of evidence confirming its harmful effects on cognitive function and memory for a significant number of patients. ECT causes persistent cognitive impairments and long-term memory loss in 25% – 30% of patients, while its efficacy in relieving depression is admittedly short lived-about four weeks–at most, six months of mood improvement. ECT practitioners constitute the most zealous fraternity within the psychiatric establishment: Max Fink, MD and Richard Abrams, Ph.D stated in 1998: "For over 50 years we clinicians have administered electro-convulsive therapy with little to guide us in deciding whether or not a particular induced seizure is an effective treatment." [1] A confounding problem for psychiatry especially is the profession’s failure to examine its therapeutics from patients’ perspectives–and psychiatry’s failure to put its therapeutic armamentarium to a meaningful scientifically valid, unbiased test that would determine the risk / benefit–and, therefore, the legitimacy of exposing patients to its interventions. Current ECT promoters claim that the introduction of oxygen and anesthesia made ECT safe: "nothing equal to it in efficacy or safety in all of psychiatry." [3] However, where memory loss and cognitive function are the issue, practitioners’ claims about the safety of "improved" ECT have not been substantiated. Indeed recent UK studies and meta-analyses found no evidence of reduced memory loss with current ECT methods: "At least one-third of patients reported persistent memory loss. Levels were between 29% and 79%." [4] A meta-analysis published in The Lancet confirms the poor quality of ECT clinical trials and validate ex-patients’ complaints about cognitive impairment: "the limited randomized evidence on efficacy of ECT.does not prove a clear quantitative estimate of the degree of short-term cognitive impairment associated with present methods of ECT;" or "for how long it may persist after symptomatic recovery." Most importantly, the authors confirm that: "very little randomized evidence exists on the possible long-term cognitive effects of ECT;" and "existing trials rarely use primary outcomes that directly inform clinical practice and do not investigate what might reasonably be considered good practice." [5] ECT is dominated by medical cowboys who push the limits of intensity of electric shock as they please. When questioned under oath, they acknowledge no safety standards by which practitioners can be held accountable. In his deposition (May 24, 2005) in Peggy Salters’ case, Dr. Fink defended the administration of 13 intensive ECT in 19 days which caused her permanent memory loss stating: "There are no absolute limits on the low side or to the high side if you’re going to give a patient a treatment… I have personally treated patients twice a day. And there was a time when I gave patients eight treatments in one sitting, you know, on an experiment that we did many years ago. So, yes, I have treated patients with eight seizures in a morning up to eight. … It was called multiple monitored ECT. It was a government supported project in an effort to find out if we can speed up the response." [2] Just as psychiatry has justified aggressive prescribing of psychotropic drugs by claiming they were "safe and effective," they have justified all manner of brain damaging procedures–including lobotomies. ECT practitioners justify any amount of electroshock by making unsubstantiated claims about their safety and efficacy. Like psychopharmacology, ECT is a lucrative business. Leonard Frank outlined the economics of ECT succinctly in testimony : "ECT is a money-maker. An in-hospital ECT series can cost anywhere from $50,000-75,000. Using a low figure of 100,000 Americans who are electroshocked annually, most of who are covered by private or government insurance, ECT brings in $5 billion a year." ECT promoters are its stakeholders-they include device manufacturers, hospitals and practitioners. [6] See: 1. Fink, M and Abrams, R. EEG Monitoring in ECT: A Guide to Treatment Efficacy, Psych Times, May 1998, Vol. XV Issue 5 at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980570.html) 2. Deposition of Max Fink, MD, Hauppauge, NY, May 24, 2005, pp 40-41 in Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Richard County, South Carolina Case: 03-CP-40-4797 3. Max Fink quoted in Boodman, SG, Shock therapy: It’s back, The Washington Post, September 24 1996, Page Z14. 4. Rose D, Fleischmann P, Wykes T, Leese M, Bindman J: Patients’ perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. British Medical Journal: 326 (7403), 1363-1367, 2003, June 21. 5. UK ECT Review Group, Efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 2003 (March 8); 361: 799-808. 6. Testimony of Leonard Roy Frank at a Public Hearing on Electroconvulsive "TREATMENT" before the Mental Health Committee of the New York State Assembly, 18 May 2001 at http://www.stopshrinks.org/files/ny_hearing051801lfrank.htm Coda: Dr. Fink’s website states that he is working on a book, History of Convulsive Therapy, with two co-authors: "the Toronto (Canada) Professor of History of Medicine, Edward Shorter and the Reader in Psychopharmacology David Healy of Wales UK." His choice of Edward Shorter as co-author is a no brainer. Professor Shorter has already written the praises of ECT with glowing enhusiasm, calling ECT "A treatment of proven safety and reliability." He has fully endorsed Fink’s position, and in a recent article in Psychiatric Times, "The History of ECT: Unsolved Mysteries," Shorter bemoaned ECT’s fall from grace in the 1960s and 1970s, blaming its decline on the impact of One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest. Shorter suggests that the move away from using ECT as a first-line treatment of depression in the 1940s and 1950s, when it was relegated to "merely an approach to treatment-resistant depression in the 1990s" is a medical calamity: "It is as though penicillin had entered a fallow period because of opposition from Christian Science." But what, one wonders, is David Healy’s role in co-authoring a book whose objectivity is undermined by the conviction of two of its authors that ECT should be applied much more widely. Linda Andre is writing a critical history of ECT in which she examines the scientific evidence that ECT practitioners fail to acknowledge or cite, and she provides documented testimony of patients. She is looking for a publisher. Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav 212-595-8974 Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Followup-To: alt.activism.d Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print |
… read more »
Response:
Teddy boy … you related to "Laura Rosenberg" … one of the monitors for the disastrous BIF front group of Barrett/Polevoys?
Response:
Interesting findings: Dr. Breggin, according to the AMA website, lists his office address: Peter Roger Breggin MD Location: PMB 112 101 E STATE ST Ithaca, NY 14850 His website: 101 East State Street, PMB 112 Ithaca, New York 14850-5543 A reverse address search: MAIL BOXES ETC 101 E State St Ithaca, NY 14850 UPS STORE 101 E State St Ithaca, NY 14850
Response:
http://www.breggin.com/juryawards.htm Jury Awards $635,000 in Shock Suit In June 2005 in Columbia, South Carolina, a jury awarded $635,000 in a malpractice suit against a psychiatrist who referred a patient for electroshock treatment. The hospital had previously settled for a small amount and the doctor who administered the treatment was not found negligent. The plaintiff, Peggy Salters, is a former nurse who lost her memory for many years of her life, including her professional training and the raising of her children. Her cognitive abilities remain impaired for new learning as well. She was found permanently disabled by the shock treatment. Mrs. Salters viewed the jury award as a victory for all victims of electroshock. It is probably the first jury award in an electroshock malpractice case. The fact that the referring physician was found negligent may encourage greater caution on the part of physicians who refer their patients to "shock doctors" for treatment. Dr. Peter Breggin was the medical expert on behalf of Mrs. Salter’s. The attorney was Mark Hardee (phone 803 799 0905).
Response:
Quackwatch ‘Guerrilla’ Tactics … Probert is just one of Barrett’s Guerrillas: Quoth Stephen F. Barrett, writing in AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud: "By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we’ve gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven’t been able to lay their hands on. …Really, we’re a bunch of guerrillas – we’re not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we’re the only such group in the country."
Response:
More Ilena crap If it were true, she would be able to point to a REAL web reference not a scam one but "true" and "Illena" are rarely congruent. I on;y know that a check of public records doesn’t turn anything up AN a pathalogical liar claims that it is true – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.breggin.com/juryawards.htm Jury Awards $635,000 in Shock Suit In June 2005 in Columbia, South Carolina, a jury awarded $635,000 in a malpractice suit against a psychiatrist who referred a patient for electroshock treatment. The hospital had previously settled for a small amount and the doctor who administered the treatment was not found negligent. The plaintiff, Peggy Salters, is a former nurse who lost her memory for many years of her life, including her professional training and the raising of her children. Her cognitive abilities remain impaired for new learning as well. She was found permanently disabled by the shock treatment. Mrs. Salters viewed the jury award as a victory for all victims of electroshock. It is probably the first jury award in an electroshock malpractice case. The fact that the referring physician was found negligent may encourage greater caution on the part of physicians who refer their patients to "shock doctors" for treatment. Dr. Peter Breggin was the medical expert on behalf of Mrs. Salter’s. The attorney was Mark Hardee (phone 803 799 0905).
– "…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook
Response:
Question:
The next Presidential Debate is Wednesday, YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD… BOB SCHIEFFER IS LISTENING… God has given us the privilege to vote.
We have the responsibility to vote because the collective will of the people to defend our Constitution and our liberties. President Bush can win California if those Christians who want CONSERVATIVE JUDGES and Politicians that will respect our beliefs in office.
Antonin Scalia has been quoted supporting orgies. He’s G Bush’s favorite judge. PLEASE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, especially every Evangelical Christians, EVERYONE YOU KNOW, TO GET OUT AND VOTE NOVEMBER 2ND !!!
You should especially encourage those Evangelical Christians who can not bother to go to church, like G bush, to vote. JohnN
Response:
The next Presidential Debate is Wednesday, YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD… BOB SCHIEFFER IS LISTENING… God has given us the privilege to vote. President Bush can win California if those Christians who want CONSERVATIVE JUDGES and Politicians that will respect our beliefs in office. PLEASE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, especially every Evangelical Christians, EVERYONE YOU KNOW, TO GET OUT AND VOTE NOVEMBER 2ND !!! I heard you say you are receiving quite a few emails with suggestions of questions to ask, and that you are "framing" your questions based on some of what people are asking you. Here’s my thoughts on what many Americans might like to know about our candidates…. Perhaps this first one might be one that you consider for yourself, or might ask: 1. What is truth?… How do you define truth? How do the candidates define truth? Can you really get at truth? (73,00 websites below ask the same question). 2. How would the candidates define "WHO THEY ARE, instead of what they’ve done?" 3. We obviously know exactly President Bush’s positions, hopefully you might have Senator Kerry BETTER DEFINE some of his positions (like abortions, marriage, and does his faith play a role in his decisions ? 4. Is marriage between a man and a woman a worthwhile goal for society? WHY OR WHY NOT? If so, what should the Federal Government do to insure it is or remains a worthwhile goal? How can we stop Judicial activism? How do you explain previous votes or positions on these issues? HOW WOULD EACH DEFINE WHEN "A LIFE BEGINS" IN ORDER THAT GOVERNMENT THEN HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IT? 5. Is it more important for Government to provide incentives for ownership of homes, businesses, investments, retirement plans, OR, is it more important for government to provide stop gaps for those who can’t provide for themselves? (OR IS IT OF EXACTLY EQUAL IMPORTANCE?) 6. What/who was responsible for the recession at the end of the Clinton Administration, and what/who is responsible for our recovery from that recession that President Bush inherited? 7. Should any consideration be given to the fact there have been no further terrorists attacks since 9/11 at home? Does President Bush get any credit for that? If not, then why should it even be an issue to discuss for this election. 8. Is there any point that government should not fund science that destroys life for research? In order words, do you have any point that you would define where life begins? 9. President Clinton lied under oath over a "sexual" matter. Was this a "serious crime", or a minor mistake to be overlooked? 10. Assuming there is standard for a way to determine "truth", should filmmakers like Michael Moore be subject to government penalties for distorting the truth about America, worldwide, during a time of war? Alan Gluck FYI, email addresses for news organizations www.pete-online.us/Images2/MediaEmailAddresses2004b.htm www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1228326/posts
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody. You mean paternity would not enter into it????? Wow. That’s gotta be new, isn’t it?
Apparently not, according to the majority of the US Supreme Court. It’s a completely bizarre ruling. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
So the Supreme Court should not have heard Bush’s case in the Florida elections?
Who had custody of Gore anyway? William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance. Quotes were called for to diferenciate between "standing" as the legal term, and "standing issue" as the point of the case. Take the quotes out and see if you can be sure what I was saying. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter.
And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag.
True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody.
You mean paternity would not enter into it????? Wow. That’s gotta be new, isn’t it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government. It dob’t think (c) is irrelevant: it depends who is saying and doing it. One of the individuals was daddy Bush, saying atheists shouldn’t be citizens and couldn’t be patriotic. He refused to retract it and his spokesman said atheism was bullshit – so this was the official policy of his candicacy in 1988.
Yep, but he was subject to the constitution. We did not elect a dictator. William R. James
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance.
Quotes were called for to diferenciate between "standing" as the legal term, and "standing issue" as the point of the case. Take the quotes out and see if you can be sure what I was saying. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all.
Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law.
See my previous post. The courts, in order to avoid their duty, have usurped the parental rights of all non-custodial parents. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. False statement. This issue was clearly evident (or should be, anyway).
Evident only to those who want the courts to ignore the constitution if it suits their own agendas. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support? Irrelevent appeal to emotion, false analogy. "Regarding his daughter" is superficial, shallow. Specifically, the issue is whether or not he could sue on behalf of his daughter when the custodial relationship is questionable. This was a legal technicality that is clearly evident (or should be, anyway).
Nonsense. He was not estranged from his daughter. It’s not like he had abandoned her and his parental rights terminated. It seems that if it helps them avoid taking a stand on a contravercial issue, however, the USSC is willing to rule that unless you get custody, you have no rights. As I said before (* sigh *), this was a legal technicality, and they’ll be back. Dave Simpson
Yes, and I wonder who the courts will step on next time in order to avoid doing their job. William R. James
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie.
Maybe we have different version of the First Amendment it does not allow the mixing of Religion and Government and there is that whole not establishing any religion. When someone like say Congress inserts a religous phrase specificly for the purpose of push religion over none religion it is unconstitutional perhpas you should look at the history of the pledge sometime. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. Dave Simpson
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie.
But this dispute is not about state or fedearl use of religious text or symbols. It’s about [1] whether the government has a right to use the public schools for religious indoctrination and [2] whether that is what is going on. If you read what was put forward when the legislation authorizing the change to the pledge was put forward, it is clear that the INTENT to indoctrinate was there, and that is clearly an establishment of religion, thus the authorizing legislation itself may have been unconstitutional. But at the time, if you hadn’t voted for it you’d have been labelled an atheist and — what’s worse — a Communist so your career would be through. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
(I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue.
Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it.
False statement. This issue was clearly evident (or should be, anyway). A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support?
Irrelevent appeal to emotion, false analogy. "Regarding his daughter" is superficial, shallow. Specifically, the issue is whether or not he could sue on behalf of his daughter when the custodial relationship is questionable. This was a legal technicality that is clearly evident (or should be, anyway). As I said before (* sigh *), this was a legal technicality, and they’ll be back. Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law.
So the Supreme Court should not have heard Bush’s case in the Florida elections? No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
It was written: Another legally dumb Atheist kicked in the teeth.
Note that the ruling itself was one of the best conceivable examples of a phrase you hear often, overused, but is completely correct here: a legal technicality. (The plaintiff doesn’t have uncontested legal custody of his daughter at this time, so he cannot file suit on behalf of her.) "Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court." "In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child–which both California law and the First Amendment recognize–and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&inv… This issue is far from settled. It is good that along with this technicality, the merits of the argument itself were also referenced and at least three Justices said they see nothing wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. (This includes O’Connor as well as Rehnquist and Thomas; it’s not some right-wing troika that the Left will make into myth.) Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was written: Another legally dumb Atheist kicked in the teeth. Note that the ruling itself was one of the best conceivable examples of a phrase you hear often, overused, but is completely correct here: a legal technicality. (The plaintiff doesn’t have uncontested legal custody of his daughter at this time, so he cannot file suit on behalf of her.) "Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court." "In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child–which both California law and the First Amendment recognize–and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&inv… This issue is far from settled. It is good that along with this technicality, the merits of the argument itself were also referenced and at least three Justices said they see nothing wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. (This includes O’Connor as well as Rehnquist and Thomas; it’s not some right-wing troika that the Left will make into myth.) Dave Simpson
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. William R. James
Response:
a legal technicality. It was a cowardly ruling…
The concept of standing is a centuries old doctrine that is explicitly written into the U.S. Constitution. One who calls a ruling on the basis of standing (or lack thereof) a "technicality" shows a glaring ignorance of how the law works in the U.S. (or the western world, for that matter). Three justices disagreed with the standing ruling, and went on to discuss the underlying question, but that doesn’t mean the majority was cowardly. They were just doing their job. If you disagree with the standing decision, let’s hear your analysis. (And you might want to explain this, while you’re at it: "contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well" … ?)
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed.
There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) Dave Simpson
Response:
The concept of standing is a centuries old doctrine that is explicitly written into the U.S. Constitution. One who calls a ruling on the basis of standing (or lack thereof) a "technicality" shows a glaring ignorance of how the law works in the U.S. (or the western world, for that matter).
I called it a "legal technicality," and I was correct. The ruling was on a technical issue of law rather than on the plaintiff’s complaint or demand itself. Three justices disagreed with the standing ruling, and went on to discuss the underlying question, but that doesn’t mean the majority was cowardly. They were just doing their job.
Correct. Activists might not like it (any more than they might dislike a dismissal or refusal to hear the case because it wasn’t printed on the right kind of paper, for example), but this wasn’t cowardly, the activists will be back (there must be an ocean of willing people in this country who do have standing to sue — activists cannot count on every court behaving as the Ninth Circus Court does, and expect to get away with, or be rewarded by, all they could hope for, and they should not have been negligent in this case), but the ruling was not cowardly, simply technical rather than addressing the complaint itself. And as you also correctly noted, three justices did discuss the issue. Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
On the contrary, it’s anti-family in that the Court said the father as a non-custodial parent has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to try to protect his daughter from what he sees (perhaps wrongfully) as the intrusive power of the State. (And who gets to decide which is the custodial parent? The State!) This case will become a precedent in family law, not in 1st Amendment rights! Rather than this unfortunate approach, the Court should have summoned up some moral courage (I hear they bottle that in Tennessee) and told us whether or not the words in the Pledge amounted to an establishment of religion. It’s still unclear, and the case will be back with a different plaintiff. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) Dave Simpson
I’m hardly someone people generally consider to be on the left. Use google if you doubt that. It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support? William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20%
True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government.
It dob’t think (c) is irrelevant: it depends who is saying and doing it. One of the individuals was daddy Bush, saying atheists shouldn’t be citizens and couldn’t be patriotic. He refused to retract it and his spokesman said atheism was bullshit – so this was the official policy of his candicacy in 1988. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -William R. James
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it.
The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance. A father has no standing regarding his daughter?
As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all.
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. Dave Simpson
Response:
Question:
This means that it is all about homosexuality being unacceptable to you, and not about homosexuals being able do what they want just as long as they aren’t allowed to marry. It’s the homosexuality itself that you can not abide.
Possibly, if you’re really that illogical, but that’s not my problem. Marriage has always been about a man and women and the legitimacy of sexuality and child-bearing. That’s even true with polygamy, and for all I know, polyandry where that happens, too. That’s the way marriage is, and should continue to be. What it is about, to those of us who aren’t illogical or have special political motives such as you may have, that override logic, is that there is a norm and tradition, and what we now see with San Francisco is deliberate flouting of the law (compounded by scummy judicial activism, and that even after the fact, after the violations started!), and everything I have said has been correct, and in fact is being considered, just as polygamists have begun to sue for legitimacy given the sodomy ruling, and no doubt will do so if some scumbag activist "invent-a-new-law" judge decides to throw out the existing law, which has no defects with it whatsoever. I could just as easily argue for intruding into the other sex’s restroom facilities and locker rooms and shower facilities as with marrying. That, unlike your response, remains fully logical. As to what I believe, I’m straight (heterosexual), homosexuality is alien to me, but as long as someone doesn’t hit on me or do what is offensive even when done in public by straight couples — what’s private should not be overtly displayed or performed in public — I’ve never had a problem with homosexual people, and in fact if you care to do some research you can look up my name and find the word "gay" in its contemporary colloquial sense used by me along with the analogy of left-handedness versus right-handedness insofar as what it really amounts to in many ways, and how it may be seen by more people in the distant future. (They’re alien to us, while we’re alien to them. Next issue!) Dave Simpson
Response:
Actually, it refers clearly to a male and female couple. But lets assume that we want to change it to make everything "equal". Why only two? Do threesomes, foursomes, etc, not have equal rights? And what about concenting adults? Are two or three or 10 soblings over 18 not consenting adults?
You and I remain on issue, and extend the logic of the argument made by the law-flouters, unlike illogical Jane. So you would deny the same rights to a brother and sister than you would grant to two brothers or two sisters? What happened to the gender argument? I thought you were saying it was about consenting adults and genders didn’t matter! Are you changing that now?
She was being silly in bashing polygamy, while going into the issue of incest and harping on taboos (while not being more grown-up, not only in acknowledging the near-universality of taboos as well as much fundamental morality, but with the generic hazards of inbreeding), and trying to build up something of a straw man (a moralist) that in fact, compared to her, is iron rather than her butter. Laws change with prevailing social attitudes. When enough people think that marrying a duck (or your sister, or your fax machine) is ok, then it will become law. True. More likely is a constitutional amendment preventing the changing of definition.
What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :)
She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Dave Simpson
Response:
It was written: Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults.
Sez who? Adultist! Speciesist! Animalist! Left-wing activists should have the "right" to marry a tree or even a rock, or the Earth, if they want, by the logic of you and the activists in San Francisco. Dave Simpson
Response:
Why go to the Moon or Mars, lefties, when you can marry it. Then you can sue the Bush administration for trying to exploit your spouse, and demand punitive damages for pain and suffering on behalf of you both! Dave Simpson
Response:
That what they said when Inter-racial marriage was originally approved.
Apples and oranges. It’s a man and woman. There’s also hypocrisy with the lefties, in related things, such as demanding that (often-voyeuristic) women get admitted to male athletes’ locker rooms, while men were prohibited from the corresponding women’s facilities. But that’s another episode, another vice of the Left… [additional quips, including equivocation using "married" and Jesus, deleted] Dave Simpson
Response:
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is.
Answer: Since the Left took up gay marriage as the cause du jour. The organized crime (law-violation) and attempted scummy judicial activism has happened, as is common in such causes du jour. Dave Simpson
Response:
While the losers hate seeing SFO called on the carpet for its scummy behavior, more substantial minds wonder: Why doesn’t the Left try to get the UN to perform the marriage ceremonies and claim they trump any authority within the United States (or anywhere else, except in nations that opposed the war with Iraq)? Dave Simpson
Response:
Hmmm — What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies?
Why doesn’t the Left try to get the UN to perform the marriage ceremonies and claim they trump any authority within the United States (or anywhere else, except in nations that opposed the war with Iraq)? Perfect: Have the UN marry leftists and Gaia, while fellow lefties shed tears of joy. Dave Simpson
Response:
That what they said when Inter-racial marriage was originally approved. Apples and oranges. It’s a man and woman.
Actually, apples and oranges again. It is two thinking, caring, feeling, human beings at stake here. There’s also hypocrisy with the lefties, in related things, such as demanding that (often-voyeuristic) women get admitted to male athletes’ locker rooms, while men were prohibited from the corresponding women’s facilities.
I agree, we should correct this. :) But that’s another episode, another vice of the Left… [additional quips, including equivocation using "married" and Jesus, deleted]
Too bad, they are insights into the very institution that your perspective claims to originate from…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Answer: Since the Left took up gay marriage as the cause du jour. The organized crime (law-violation) and attempted scummy judicial activism has happened, as is common in such causes du jour.
Wrong. There are actually rulings in America, to that affect. And they had nothing to do with gays, at the time… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
<snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe).
Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries,
Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society.
Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was written: Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. Sez who? Adultist! Speciesist! Animalist! Left-wing activists should have the "right" to marry a tree or even a rock, or the Earth, if they want, by the logic of you and the activists in San Francisco.
We covered this, already… A tree is not cognizant, there is no "Mutual Assent". Same with the rock, and the earth… and dogs and cats, and even Kids… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually, it refers clearly to a male and female couple. But lets assume that we want to change it to make everything "equal". Why only two? Do threesomes, foursomes, etc, not have equal rights? And what about concenting adults? Are two or three or 10 soblings over 18 not consenting adults? You and I remain on issue, and extend the logic of the argument made by the law-flouters, unlike illogical Jane. So you would deny the same rights to a brother and sister than you would grant to two brothers or two sisters? What happened to the gender argument? I thought you were saying it was about consenting adults and genders didn’t matter! Are you changing that now? She was being silly in bashing polygamy, while going into the issue of incest and harping on taboos (while not being more grown-up, not only in acknowledging the near-universality of taboos as well as much fundamental morality, but with the generic hazards of inbreeding), and trying to build up something of a straw man (a moralist) that in fact, compared to her, is iron rather than her butter.
Her consistant inconsistancy should be apparent to her. Laws change with prevailing social attitudes. When enough people think that marrying a duck (or your sister, or your fax machine) is ok, then it will become law. True. More likely is a constitutional amendment preventing the changing of definition. What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe).
True, but that technique has been the basis of liberal politics for a generation now. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her.
Why do so few liberals have a sense of humor? Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Dave Simpson
Agreed. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture.
That’s why it’s intentionally difficult to change the constitution. If you want to do something so radical, it takes far more than simply a majority favoring it. This is NOT a democracy, never was and hopefully never will be. The monority has the same constitutional rights as the majority. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon.
The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job. William R. James
Response:
<snip Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job.
Well, it is, in a way. When a judge "rules" he in effect interprets law…. not creates it. But, interpretations, to an extent, create law.. Someone online here did a wonderful research on it, tracing it back to the Common English Law in Origin.. But, when a Judge rules a law unconstitutional, it isn’t actually creating -new- law, just over-throwing bad old ones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon. The problem with activist judges is they they legislate. They make laws where no laws exist. That’s not their job. Well, it is, in a way. When a judge "rules" he in effect interprets law…. not creates it. But, interpretations, to an extent, create law..
Wrong. Interpretation is accurate translation. It is not making changes. It’s not common, but there have been supreme court rulings overturning previous supreme court runing on the same constitutional questions. Both "interpretations" cannot be correct. Someone online here did a wonderful research on it, tracing it back to the Common English Law in Origin..
English common law had no constitution. The federal corts are subject to the constitution. Their duty is to the constitution, NOT their opinions, their feelings, ot their political agendas. But, when a Judge rules a law unconstitutional, it isn’t actually creating -new- law, just over-throwing bad old ones.
See, that’s the problem. Your statement presumes the judge is a god, incapable of error or evil intent. Would you say that if the Supreme court ruled that there is no right to free speech? When you give absolute power to any party, don’t be surprised when that power if used against you. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip What Jane sadly neglects is the dual problem of open flouting of the law, which is a law that is based on prevailing social attitudes, as well as the additional illegitimacy of having the judiciary invent new laws or strike down unpleasant laws, to secure results that wouldn’t stand a chance of being passed by a lagislature and made into the law the legitimate way — because they so go against the prevailing social attitudes (as opposed to the trivial fringe). Hold on there, prevailing social attitudes, may not be right. A religious right group attempted a poll to prove that very stance, and when it hit 60% approved of Gay Marriage, they trashed it. As long as it backed their views, they were willing to sponsor it, as soon as it didn’t… they spiked it. So, all in all, "prevailing" becomes a rather unsupported, shaky posture. You apparently confuse "fear" with "humor". :) She’s confused about humor, and when she replies foolishly, the joke’s on her. Along with going against the great majority of people and the norm for centuries, Who also supported Slavery, and beat their wives, and children, BTW… Jane fails to acknowledge the illegitimacy of openly flouting the law, plus then seeking a judge to go around the legislature, which is the practice of less honorable of the losers of our society. Actually, in America, there stands some ruling about a law being unconstitutional, that it "unmakes" the law, all the way back to its inception. If you would like I could go look up the cite, for you. It, actually, is the grounds these Judges are standing upon.
There is a vast difference between ruling a law unconstitutional and making new law by judicial fiat. Yes, the SCotUS can rule a law unconstitutional, however, they must stop there. They cannot, I repeat, CANNOT rewrite that law in their ruling. That is judicial activism, and as a concept is more repugnant to the Constitution than almost anything. That is a major difference between Conservative (or constructionist) and Liberal judges. The Conservatives either uphold or strike down laws, the Liberals like to also rewrite them. Raz —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? Julia Butterfly Hill once "adopted" a tree, which she named Luna. Can she now claim she has the "right" to marry Luna the tree and go to San Francisco to get the marriage performed (regarding Luna, "in abstentia")? What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies? Dave Simpson
I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Raz —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? Julia Butterfly Hill once "adopted" a tree, which she named Luna. Can she now claim she has the "right" to marry Luna the tree and go to San Francisco to get the marriage performed (regarding Luna, "in abstentia")? What’s next, marrying Gaia, and in mass ceremonies? Dave Simpson I am just curious as to when exactly marriage became a right, rather than just the privilege that it actually is. Raz
I think of more as punishment. I want the same protection from it that the homos have! :) William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The San Francisco lunacy only makes us wonder what’s next. As someone else has said, if any two people can marry, then it’s time to accept polygamy, incest, and why can’t someone marry a duck? This means that it is all about homosexuality being unacceptable to you, and not about homosexuals being able do what they want just as long as they aren’t allowed to marry. It’s the homosexuality itself that you can not abide. To you, being attracted to, expressing joy, love and affection for another human being (and wanting to enter into lifelong partnership with that other person), no matter what their sex, is equivalent to: 1) another species, 2) a member of your immediate family, 3) a religious cult. Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. That eliminates animal lovers marrying pigeons. Two have to enter the contract (you want covenant of marriage, do it in a church)
Question:
To denote your professional, semi-professional, or even just hobby status, your shop needs a sign. Here are a few examples to get you started, if you don’t already have one. This list even gave me the inspiration to maybe finally get the sign up on the doors of my shop. It will say "F— Off" in pseudo-Chinese. (*) On the menu of a Swiss restaurant: "Our wines leave you nothing to hope for." (*) In a Copenhagen airline ticket office: "We take your bags and send them in all directions." (*) In a Norwegian cocktail lounge: "Ladies are requested not to have children in the bar." (*) In an Acapulco hotel: "The manager has personally passed all the water served here." (*) In a hotel in Athens: "Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours of 9 and 11 a.m. daily." (*) Outside a Hong Kong tailor Shop: "Ladies may have a fit upstairs." (*) At a Budapest zoo: "Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty." (*) In a Bucharest hotel lobby: "The lift is being fixed for the next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable." (*) In a Leipzig elevator: "Do not enter the lift backwards, and only when lit up." (*) In a Paris hotel elevator: "Please leave your values at the front desk." (*) In the lobby of a Moscow hotel across from a Russian Orthodox monastery: "You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian and Soviet composers, artists and writers are buried daily except Thursday." (*) In a Rhodes tailor shop: "Order your summers suit. Because is big rush we will execute customers in strict rotation." (*) A sign posted in Germany’s Black Forest: "It is strictly forbidden on our black forest camping site that people of different sex, for instance, men and women, live together in one tent unless they are married with each other for that purpose." (*) In a Czechoslovakian tourist agency: "Take one of our horse-driven city tours–we guarantee no miscarriages." (*) In a Swiss mountain inn: "Special today–no ice cream." (*) On the door of a Moscow hotel room: "If this is your first visit to the USSR, you are welcome to it." (*) In a Vienna hotel: "In case of fire, do your utmost to alarm the hotel porter." (*) Outside a copier shop in India: "We make photocopies in all languages." (*) From a Japanese information booklet about using a hotel air conditioner: "Cooles and Heates: If you want just condition of warm in your room, please control yourself." (*) In an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist: "Teeth extracted by the latest Methodists." (*) On the box of a clockwork toy made in Hong Kong: "Guaranteed to work throughout its useful life." (*) From the Soviet Weekly: "There will be a Moscow Exhibition of Arts by 15,000 Soviet Republic painters and sculptors. These were executed over the past two years." (*) From a Tanzanian newspaper ad: "Mt. Kilimanjaro, the breathtaking backdrop for the Serena Lodge. Swim in the lovely pool while you drink it all in." (*) In a butcher shop in Nahariyya, Israel: "I slaughter myself twice daily." (*) In a barber shop in Tokyo: "All customers promptly executed." (*) In a clothing shop in Brussels: "Mourning and sportswear." (*) In a barber shop in Zanzibar: "Gentlemen’s throats cut with nice sharp razors." (*) In the window of a travel agency in Barcelona: "Go away." (*) In The Restaurant des Artistes, Montmarte, France: "We serve five o’clock tea at all hours." (*) In a bakery in Vale of Kashmir: "First-class loafer." (*) In a shop window in Kalambaka, Greece: "Germany we spoken here." (*) In front of a New Hampshire restaurant: "Now serving live lobsters." (*) On the menu of a restaurant: "Blackened Bluefish." (*) In a Maine restaurant: "Open seven days a week and weekends." (*) In a New Jersey restaurant: "Open 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. midnight." (*) On the wall of a Baltimore estate: "Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. — Sisters of Mercy." (*) On a long-established New Mexico dry cleaning store: "Thirty-eight years on the same spot." (*) In a New York drugstore: "We dispense with accuracy." (*) In a New York medical building: "Mental health prevention center." (*) On a New York convalescent home: "For the sick and tired of the Episcopal church." (*) In a funeral parlor: "Ask about our layaway plan." (*) In a clothing store: "Wonderful bargains for men with 16 and 17 necks." (*) Outside a country shop: "We buy junk and sell antiques." (*) In a Tacoma, Washington, men’s clothing store: "15 men’s wool suits- $100- They won’t last an hour!" (*) In a Massachusetts parking area reserved for birdwatchers: "Parking for birds only." (*) In the vestry of a New England church: "Will the last person to leave please see that the perpetual light is extinguished." (*) In a laundry room: "Do not put wet clothes in dryers, as this can cause irreparable damage." (*) A sign seen on a restroom dryer at O’hare Field in Chicago "Do not activate with wet hands." (*) In a New Hampshire Jewelry store: "Ears pierced while you wait." (*) Disclaimer at the end of a London, Ontario newspaper ad announcing job openings for firefighters: "The City of London is an equal opportunity employer. We also provide all of our employees with a smoke-free work place." (*) In a New York Restaurant: "Customers who find our waitresses rude ought to see the manager." (*) A sign in an Asian seafood store in Madison, Wisconsin: "Crap – 79/lb." (*) In a Florida maternity ward: "No children allowed." (*) In the offices of a loan company: "Ask about our plans for owning your home." (*) At a number of U.S. military bases: "Restricted to unauthorized personel." (*) On a display of ‘You are my one and only’ valentine cards: "Now available in multi packs." (*) In the window of an Oregon general store: "Why go elsewhere to be cheated, when you can come here?" (*) In a Pennsylvania cemetery: "Persons are prohibited from picking flowers from any but their own graves" (*) On the grounds of a private school: "No trespassing without permission." (*) In a library: "Blotter paper will no longer be available until the public stops taking it away." (*) On a Tennessee highway: "Take notice: when this sign is under water, this road is impassable." (*) In front of a New Hampshire car wash: "If you can’t read this, it’s time you wash your car." (*) On a poster on a telephone pole in Oregon: "Are you an adult that cannot read? If so, we can help." (*) A sign on top of a San Francisco drug store located across the street from the Transbay bus terminal: "Terminal Drugs." (*) From the safety information card in America West Airline seat pocket: "If you are sitting in an exit row and can not read this card, please tell a crew member." (*) On a delicatessen wall: "Our best is none too good." (*) On a roller coaster: "Watch your head." (*) On a Maine shop: "Our motto is to give our customers the lowest possible prices and workmanship." (*) In downtown Boston: "Callahan tunnel /No end." (*) A sign seen on a front yard in York, Maine: "Inexpensive, Quality Daycare – Openings Day and Night." JOAT No sense in being pessimistic – it wouldn’t work anyway. Life just ain’t life without good music. – JOAT Web Page Update 13 Jan 2003. Some tunes I like. http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/JOATorJackOfAll/page4.html
Response:
(*) A sign in an Asian seafood store in Madison, Wisconsin: "Crap –
79/lb." I nearly crapped myself!! HA!
Response:
YOUR SHOP NEEDS A SIGN, FOR CREDIBILITY I have a sign with my mission statement: "When in trouble, when in doubt/Run in circles, scream and shout." It’s done in an attractive needle point in panicky colors and framed in an old toilet seat. — I like Blacks. How much for that one? – Judge Chas. Pickering –
Response:
What kind of signature is that? Please explain yourself.
YOUR SHOP NEEDS A SIGN, FOR CREDIBILITY I have a sign with my mission statement: "When in trouble, when in
doubt/Run in circles, scream and shout." It’s done in an attractive needle point in panicky colors and framed in an old toilet seat. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — I like Blacks. How much for that one? - Judge Chas. Pickering –
Response:
Paul, I like your sign, however, can I offer two pieces of advice. You might want to turn off the html in your message. A lot of people get hacked off when people post using html. Personally, I don’t care. The bigger issue is youir sig. You may want to rethink the wisdom of posting a message with the quote you are using. Just my .02$ Jeff P.
YOUR SHOP NEEDS A SIGN, FOR CREDIBILITY I have a sign with my mission statement: "When in trouble, when in doubt/Run in circles, scream and shout." It’s done in an attractive needle point in panicky colors and framed in an old toilet seat. — I like Blacks. How much for that one? – Judge Chas. Pickering –
Response:
(*) A sign in an Asian seafood store in Madison, Wisconsin: "Crap – 79/lb." I nearly crapped myself!! HA!
I figured, why pay 79
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -WANT TO DO SOMETHING? In fascist countries, when the votes, the will of the people, go against the newly-elected dictator, one of the first things the dictator does is to destroy the evidence or at least prevent the citizens from looking at the evidence. If you think this could not happen in the United States, think again. Although Florida has laws that provide access to the ballots after the election, Republican Governor Whitman of New Jersey has already proposed in public that the Florida votes be sealed for an undetermined period of time. This would prevent citizens from looking at the ballots and, say, counting them to see who really won the 2000 presidential elections. In the days to come, more Bush backers will propose sealing those votes from the people. In the days to come, steps should be taken to insure that those votes are neither lost nor destroyed. If you believe the Florida votes should remain safe and open to scrutiny by U.S. citizens, as the law indicates, you might want to let your elected officials know it. — Politex, 12/10/00
Sounds like someone’s just mad that his favorite canidate didn’t win Tony Kimmell Normal, IL "Injection is nice, but I’d rather be BLOWN" 90 GMC K1500 79 Ford F-250 84 VW Rabbit diesel
Response:
*I* kinda hope Muskie is getting paid for all this… i mean, if he isnt, well, nah, never mind… He’s gotta be gettin paid!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well Muskrat, you’ve finally run out of your own thoughts and can’t do anything but copy the wild rhetoric from the far left fringes. At one time you use to try to contribute your own viewpoint as a green offroader. Now you’re just another useless troll.
Response:
WANT TO DO SOMETHING? In fascist countries, when the votes, the will of the people, go against the newly-elected dictator, one of the first things the dictator does is to destroy the evidence or at least prevent the citizens from looking at the evidence.
< article snipped Jesse Jackson already has plans for them. He’ll make sure the "final" count goes to Gore. Just ask him. I think risk of tampering is the main reason to seal them up. — Cheers, Steve SSOA F00-1363 CCSD #204 00 Camaro SS Lt. Pewter, neutral leather, M6, Hurst, PEG2, ASR, defogger SLP chrome rims, D-D exhaust, Bilstein, Castrol, cover, mats, fobs BMR STB, SLP !CAGS, AAM diff cover, Zaino Dyno’d at 312 RWHP 321 FtLbs RWT 96 K1500 SWB Silverado 350 5 speed 3.73 axles Z71 G80 etc. The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent those of my employer or any one else. "It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave…" Moody Blues
Response:
HEY STUPID, if your not going to talk about 4×4’s or vehicle question GET
Response:
Well Muskrat, you’ve finally run out of your own thoughts and can’t do anything but copy the wild rhetoric from the far left fringes. At one time you use to try to contribute your own viewpoint as a green offroader. Now you’re just another useless troll.
Response:
WANT TO DO SOMETHING? In fascist countries, when the votes, the will of the people, go against the newly-elected dictator, one of the first things the dictator does is to destroy the evidence or at least prevent the citizens from looking at the evidence. If you think this could not happen in the United States, think again. Although Florida has laws that provide access to the ballots after the election, Republican Governor Whitman of New Jersey has already proposed in public that the Florida votes be sealed for an undetermined period of time. This would prevent citizens from looking at the ballots and, say, counting them to see who really won the 2000 presidential elections. In the days to come, more Bush backers will propose sealing those votes from the people. In the days to come, steps should be taken to insure that those votes are neither lost nor destroyed. If you believe the Florida votes should remain safe and open to scrutiny by U.S. citizens, as the law indicates, you might want to let your elected officials know it. — Politex, 12/10/00 BALLOTS TO STAY IN FLORIDA FOR NOW Craig Waters, spokesman for the Florida Supreme Court, has announced that the Scalia Supreme Court has not requested that the 12,000 Florida contested ballots be sent to Washington nor is that being done. They will remain in the posession of the Florida Supreme Court for now. All of the other papers regarding the recent Florida directive to begin counting the undervotes have been sent to the Scalia Supreme Court. The question of the safty and availability of the ballots as noted above remains. For example, on yesterday’s "Capitol Gang" Republican U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn endorsed Governor Whitman’s idea of sealing the ballots to prevent inspection by American citizens. –Politex, 2 p.m. ET, 12/10/00 WILL SCALIA COURT TAKE FLORIDA BALLOTS? This previous report was in error… "TALLAHASSEE, Fla.–The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that more than 12,000 Florida ballots contested by Al Gore be sent to Washington along with other legal papers in the case of Bush vs. Gore…. Bush lawyer Phil Beck said that "it’s routine for [the Supreme Court] to get all the exhibits and it so happens that in this case the ballots from these cases are exhibits."… Gore lawyer Laurence Tribe, however, saw the request for the ballots as hardly typical. He said he had heard a Florida Supreme Court clerk joking with a counterpart at the U.S. Supreme Court about the possibility of taking the ballots off of Florida’s weary hands. But he was surprised to learn that such an order actually had been issued. "Mr. Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, said that while he "wouldn’t ordinarily speculate" about the future of the ballots should the U.S. high court reverse the Florida court, "the opinion of Justice [Antonin] Scalia invites it." Five justices, including Justice Scalia, ordered the counts stopped, at least until the high court hears arguments on Monday. In a separate opinion only he signed, Justice Scalia said that counting the votes threatens "irreparable harm to [Mr. Bush], and the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." "Given that, Mr. Tribe said, "you wouldn’t have to call it too elaborate a conspiracy theory if the court were to conclude that no legitimate purpose can be served by counting them" — ever. That would prevent any future embarrassment to a possible Bush presidency should a later count show that Mr. Gore got more votes. "It does seem to be the view of five members of the court that there’s something illegitimate about counting them," Mr. Tribe said, and those justices may wish to head off "the specter of having them counted after the inauguration by some doctoral candidate from Michigan State armed with a Freedom of Information request." today’s Wall Street Journal, 12/10/00 SCALIA HAS TAKEN THE LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS Antonin Scalia, one of George W. Bush
Question:
"Actually, I agree with the decision to remove the 10 Commandments form the court room, but I think it was terrible for the judge who gave the order to accept an award and then publicly comment on the matter. He should have just kept up a chorus of "no comments" until he retired and he could write a book on the whole affair." I think he was due some recognition, considering that he had put his family and himself in physical danger because of his judicial decision. Don’t forget he lived in an area where his decision was considered blasphemy by a large majority of his neighbors. He went through hell. We need to know about this type of event, and in this case, give public accolade, since his decision turns out to have been a very courageous one – whence: Profiles in Courage. Those who insist that this is a Christian country and that there should be no separation twixt Church and State reminds one of countries where this *is* the case, and where subsequently most of the rights we cherish, simply do not exist. That’s why I think it’s so important to keep events like these in the public consciousness. I don’t begrudge this judge’s little public moment in the least. We need more like him, and more public moments like these. Nex
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : ANN 5-31-97 : : OpEd : : Circuit Court Judge Charles Price, Montgomery, Alabama has just : made a terrible decision outside the courtroom. For a ruling in his court : Judge Price has accepted "The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award" at : the JFK Library in Boston from members of the Kennedy family. : : A 5-31-97 UPI story reportedly states "The award is given annually : to an elected official who shows political courage in the face of strong : opposition". AP reportedly quotes Judge Price as saying "courage comes : from the soul, if you have the strength to do what is right". In his : acceptance speech he spoke of his admiration for civil rights leaders who : convinced his generation they could set about to "putting the country on : the right track" and used quotes like "courage is the sum total of a mans : principle". He also quoted Hemmingway "courage is grace under pressure" : and alluded to his desire to be seen in that light. : : Reality however is quite to the contrary. By accepting any award, : in this case a blatantly political award for his ruling in a case, Judge : Price has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of sound judgement, courage, : grace or strength of character. His acceptance of the award calls into : question the legitimacy of the controversial decision which in effect : ordered another Judge to remove the "Ten Commandments" from prominent : display in that judges courtroom. : : The decision itself is not the issue here. That will be determined : by the appellate process as well as in the political and social arenas. : The issue is one of propriety and independence. That a sitting Judge has : accepted an award (has been rewarded) for his ruling on any case betrays : the principle of judicial independence. His subsequent banal and self : aggrandizing comments betray the political nature and motivation of the : decision. To make judicial decisions with such motivations and in such a : manner is wrong, period. : : The actions of Judge Price also provide "grist for the mill" to : those who decry judicial activism and scant cover for those who deny the : existence of such a problem. His actions further provide Americans with a : disturbing insight into the minds of judges who according to so many of : their critics from both the left and right have "lost their way". : : Just as the independence of the Washington Press Corps has been : compromised by their notorious habit of socializing with the rich and : powerful in and out of government, Judge Price’s decision and independence : has been compromised by accepting an award for his ruling. This holds true : regardless of the decision and is not terribly difficult to comprehend. : Judge Price’s failure to do so must be viewed as ignorant at best and : malfeasance at worst. : : We can only hope that Judge Price in any attempt to "unring this : bell" does not follow further in the footsteps of other "political : leaders" from the two principle parties by trying to "return" the Award. : He has done enough damage already, having forever tainted his decisions : and the results of his court. : : : William Reichenbach : Editor ANN : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Activism in the furtherence of the Constitution is not activism with a slant. It is you who very obviously have an agenda, sir. Nex
Actually, I agree with the decision to remove the 10 Commandments form the court room, but I think it was terrible for the judge who gave the order to accept an award and then publicly comment on the matter. He should have just kept up a chorus of "no comments" until he retired and he could write a book on the whole affair.
Response:
: : : ANN 5-31-97 : : OpEd : : Circuit Court Judge Charles Price, Montgomery, Alabama has just : made a terrible decision outside the courtroom. For a ruling in his court : Judge Price has accepted "The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award" at : the JFK Library in Boston from members of the Kennedy family. : : A 5-31-97 UPI story reportedly states "The award is given annually : to an elected official who shows political courage in the face of strong : opposition". AP reportedly quotes Judge Price as saying "courage comes : from the soul, if you have the strength to do what is right". In his : acceptance speech he spoke of his admiration for civil rights leaders who : convinced his generation they could set about to "putting the country on : the right track" and used quotes like "courage is the sum total of a mans : principle". He also quoted Hemmingway "courage is grace under pressure" : and alluded to his desire to be seen in that light. : : Reality however is quite to the contrary. By accepting any award, : in this case a blatantly political award for his ruling in a case, Judge : Price has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of sound judgement, courage, : grace or strength of character. His acceptance of the award calls into : question the legitimacy of the controversial decision which in effect : ordered another Judge to remove the "Ten Commandments" from prominent : display in that judges courtroom. : : The decision itself is not the issue here. That will be determined : by the appellate process as well as in the political and social arenas. : The issue is one of propriety and independence. That a sitting Judge has : accepted an award (has been rewarded) for his ruling on any case betrays : the principle of judicial independence. His subsequent banal and self : aggrandizing comments betray the political nature and motivation of the : decision. To make judicial decisions with such motivations and in such a : manner is wrong, period. : : The actions of Judge Price also provide "grist for the mill" to : those who decry judicial activism and scant cover for those who deny the : existence of such a problem. His actions further provide Americans with a : disturbing insight into the minds of judges who according to so many of : their critics from both the left and right have "lost their way". : : Just as the independence of the Washington Press Corps has been : compromised by their notorious habit of socializing with the rich and : powerful in and out of government, Judge Price’s decision and independence : has been compromised by accepting an award for his ruling. This holds true : regardless of the decision and is not terribly difficult to comprehend. : Judge Price’s failure to do so must be viewed as ignorant at best and : malfeasance at worst. : : We can only hope that Judge Price in any attempt to "unring this : bell" does not follow further in the footsteps of other "political : leaders" from the two principle parties by trying to "return" the Award. : He has done enough damage already, having forever tainted his decisions : and the results of his court. : : : William Reichenbach : Editor ANN : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Activism in the furtherence of the Constitution is not activism with a slant. It is you who very obviously have an agenda, sir. Nex
Response:
ANN 5-31-97 OpEd Circuit Court Judge Charles Price, Montgomery, Alabama has just made a terrible decision outside the courtroom. For a ruling in his court Judge Price has accepted "The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award" at the JFK Library in Boston from members of the Kennedy family. A 5-31-97 UPI story reportedly states "The award is given annually to an elected official who shows political courage in the face of strong opposition". AP reportedly quotes Judge Price as saying "courage comes from the soul, if you have the strength to do what is right". In his acceptance speech he spoke of his admiration for civil rights leaders who convinced his generation they could set about to "putting the country on the right track" and used quotes like "courage is the sum total of a mans principle". He also quoted Hemmingway "courage is grace under pressure" and alluded to his desire to be seen in that light. Reality however is quite to the contrary. By accepting any award, in this case a blatantly political award for his ruling in a case, Judge Price has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of sound judgement, courage, grace or strength of character. His acceptance of the award calls into question the legitimacy of the controversial decision which in effect ordered another Judge to remove the "Ten Commandments" from prominent display in that judges courtroom. The decision itself is not the issue here. That will be determined by the appellate process as well as in the political and social arenas. The issue is one of propriety and independence. That a sitting Judge has accepted an award (has been rewarded) for his ruling on any case betrays the principle of judicial independence. His subsequent banal and self aggrandizing comments betray the political nature and motivation of the decision. To make judicial decisions with such motivations and in such a manner is wrong, period. The actions of Judge Price also provide "grist for the mill" to those who decry judicial activism and scant cover for those who deny the existence of such a problem. His actions further provide Americans with a disturbing insight into the minds of judges who according to so many of their critics from both the left and right have "lost their way". Just as the independence of the Washington Press Corps has been compromised by their notorious habit of socializing with the rich and powerful in and out of government, Judge Price’s decision and independence has been compromised by accepting an award for his ruling. This holds true regardless of the decision and is not terribly difficult to comprehend. Judge Price’s failure to do so must be viewed as ignorant at best and malfeasance at worst. We can only hope that Judge Price in any attempt to "unring this bell" does not follow further in the footsteps of other "political leaders" from the two principle parties by trying to "return" the Award. He has done enough damage already, having forever tainted his decisions and the results of his court. William Reichenbach Editor ANN
Response:
Question:
Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article <33235937.7…@express-news.net> wrote:
[...] >I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life. I >just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children.
It’s called terminating a pregnancy, Jack, and it’s a woman’s constitutional right. A pity you can’t make each woman’s decision for them. It’s obvious you would like to do so. [...]
Response:
trul…@albany.net wrote: > Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article > <33235937.7…@express-news.net> wrote: > [...] > > Papa Jack wrote: > > I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life. I > > just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children.
================================================================= > David Truland wrote: > It’s called terminating a pregnancy, Jack,
================================================================ Papa Jack comments: Another euphemism, David. ABORTION KILLS UNBORN CHILDREN THERE IS NO WAY TO "TRERMINATE THE PREGNANCY" WITHOUT KILLING THE UNBORN CHILD. Why do you scramble so desperately to dissemble, David? You are supporting the mass slaughter of millions of unborn children. If you don’t have the stomach to admit what it is you support, perhaps you should reexamine your position. ================================================================ > David Truland wrote: > and it’s a woman’s constitutional right.
================================================================ Papa Jack comments: What part of the constitution gives a woman the right to abort a child? I’ve read the entire constitution several times recently and I don’t remember even seeing the word "abortion." If you’re talking about Roe v. Wade, please quote the specific part of the decision that says abortion is a constitutional "right." ================================================================ > David Truland wrote: > A pity you can’t make each woman’s decision for them. It’s > obvious you would like to do so. > [...]
================================================================ Papa Jack comments: Why are you so terribly desperate to squeeze me into your distorted little stereotype, David? You should have figured out by now I just don’t fit. Have a nice day. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.express-news.net/papajack "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -trul…@albany.net wrote: > Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article > <331FB3CD.3…@express-news.net> wrote: > >Papa Jack comments: > >Your reply below, David, is simply unsatisfactory. That is > >why I so seldom reply to your posts. Your reply below, David, > >is simply unsatisfactory. That is why is so seldom reply to > >your posts. You want to quibble over what YOU think I meant > >when I wrote something — not for the purpose of advancing the > >discussion but rather for the purpose of flaming me. To be > >truthful, I’m not that interested in your flames. > >Another point that make you look bad, David, is the fact that > >you cut and sliced significant portions of my post with only > >unsubstantiated remarks that they did not address your point. > >You hide what I wrote and you say it doesn’t address the point, > >but you fail utterly to explain why. That does give the apperance > >of dishonesty.
=============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > Here are the facts Jack: > In article <331C3A8B.4…@express-news.net> you stated that > "A major factor in [Roe v. Wade] was the assertion that the > Supreme Court was the primary source of governmental > control over people’s day-to-day lives." > In article <331d5afe.1846…@news.albany.net> I responded: > "Could you please cite this passage for us ‘Papa?’" > Since then you have not posted a thing which supports your > assertion.
=============================================================== Papa Jack replies: That is a bald-face lie, David. What you should say if you had any integrity is that you don’t like what I posted. First, I quoted Justice Rehnquist, then Justice Blackmun, and finally Judge Bork. All three of these esteemed judges were very critical of judicial activism. =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > I suppose your repeated failed attempts are due to a basic > misunderatanding. Here’s a clue: defining freedoms from the meaning > the constitution (the Supreme Court’s function) is not even remotely > related to "governmental control over people’s day-to-day lives."
=============================================================== Papa Jack replies: It is when the courts supplant the legislatures in designing laws as the Supreme Court clearly did in Roe v. Wade. Let’s look to The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the U.S., pp.740-741: …Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion properly pointed out that this invocation of substantive due process meant that the Court was enforcing a right not spcifically spelled out int the Constitution. [...] …Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist, in separate dissents, criticized the Court for enforcing a right not specified in the Constitution to overturn statutes that were no more restrictive than those widely in forve when the 14th Amendment was adopted. In addition, they criti- cized the Court or the trimester framework, which, in their view, was arbitrary. If the state had an interest in protec- ting the potential life of the fetus, that interest existed, and was equally strong, through the entire pregnancy. Further, they said, the Court’s balancing of competing interests and careful laying out of what doctors could do in various circum- stances resembled a statute. [...] …for the flaws of Blackmun’s privacy analysis, employing a newly discovered constitutional "right" were widely noted after Roe was decided. [...] …Critics also pointed out that, given the acknowledged impact of abortion on the fetus and the medical dimensions of the technique, it was silly to treat the case as one involving "privacy" in the way that "Griswold," which was abourt the use of contraceptives, involved actions performed in the privacy of the home. =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > For instance: The Griswold decision you refer to struck down a > Connecticut law prohibiting contraceptive sales. Now just who do you > suppose was exerting "control over people’s day-to-day lives." the > State of Conn. or the Supreme Court?
=============================================================== Papa Jack replies: As Justice Potter Stewart called it, Griswold involved "an uncommonly silly law." One does not have to support the silly law to criticize the poor legal reasoning that was involved in the uncommonly silly but insidious decision written by Justice Douglas. This was the decision which gave us famous sentence: "THE FOREGOING CASES SUGGEST THAT SPECIFIC GUARANTEES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAVE PENUMBRAS, FORMED BY EMANATIONS FROM THOSE GUARANTEES THAT HELP GIVE THEM LIFE AND SUBSTANCE." This is clearly a license given by the Supreme Court to itself to find a whole host of new and creative "rights" that the Founding Fathers never intended. In short, it’s an invitation for the SC justices to impose their own morality on the nation. And, they have been doing so in case after case ever since. In the Griswold case, Justice Black, with whom Justice Stewart joined, dissented, in part: I REPEAT SO AS NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT THIS COURT DOES HAVE POWER, WHICH IT SHOULD EXERCISE, TO HOLD LAWS UNCONSTI- TUTIONAL WHERE THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. MY POINT IS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVISORY AGENCY OVER ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT’S BELIEF THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE, UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR IRRATIONAL. THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A LOOSE, FLEXIBLE, UNCONTROLLED STANDARD FOR HOLDING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IF EVER IT IS FINALLY ACHIEVED, WILL AMOUNT TO A GREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT OF POWER TO THE COURTS WHICH I BELIEVE AND AM CONSTRAINED TO SAY WILL BE BAD FOR THE COURTS AND WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY. SUBJECTING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS TO SUCH AN UNRESTRAINED AND UNRESTRAINABLE JUDICIAL CONTROL AS TO THE WISDOM OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WOULD, I FEAR, JEOPARDIZE THE SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS THAT THE FRAMERS SET UP AND AT THE SAME TIME THREATEN TO TAKE AWAY MUCH OF THE POWER OF STATES TO GOVERN THEMSELVES WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PLAINLY INTENDED THEM TO HAVE. =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > No, Jack, it’s people like you who want to exert "governmental control > over people’s day-to-day lives" by telling people what they can and > can’t do with their reproductive lives.
=============================================================== Papa Jack replies: I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life. I just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Stopping slaughter is not an unreasonable interferrence in lives. =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > If I were you Jack, I’d go back to not responding to my posts.
=============================================================== Papa Jack replies: Frankly, I think you’re correct. I sort of feel like a big boy beating up on a little boy. You haven’t learned how to defend yourself yet. Have a good day. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.express-news.net/papajack "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Question:
FROM THE DERANGED ORIGINAL POSTER hIMSELF: in fact, i was being sarcastic. it is interesting though, that some folks perceived it as sincerity. basically, all i did was spout ludicrous rhetoric that did nothing but echo g.will’s ludicrous rhetoric. i can’t blame anyone for a lack of humor, though: rather, i’d point my crabby finger at the notable lack of substance in the rhetoric of those i was mocking. when sarcasm becomes unintelligible from supposedly reasoned debate, something has gone fighteningly wrong.
Well, I didn’t think it was much like sarcasm or reasoned debate. That’s why I didn’t respond to it. It seemed more like a gibberish or random disconnected thoughts to me. Sarcasm is a very blunt tool, anyway, so care in its use is advised. George Will, though I often disagree with his conclusions, does not suffer from an inability to make himself clearly understood. On that count, at least, he has an advantage over you and your dismemberment of his article. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA
Response:
FROM THE DERANGED ORIGINAL POSTER hIMSELF: in fact, i was being sarcastic. it is interesting though, that some folks perceived it as sincerity. basically, all i did was spout ludicrous rhetoric that did nothing but echo g.will’s ludicrous rhetoric. i can’t blame anyone for a lack of humor, though: rather, i’d point my crabby finger at the notable lack of substance in the rhetoric of those i was mocking. when sarcasm becomes unintelligible from supposedly reasoned debate, something has gone fighteningly wrong.
Yep, I’d say so. Your post sounded at least as serious as some of the net.spew I’ve seen here lately. It may have been intended as sarcasm, but if so it wasn’t *nearly* exaggerated enough. Plenty of folks have said things *much* more outrageous than anything in your original post in complete sincerity. IMHO, most forms of hyperbole are wasted on any news.group that gets regular dumps from people like Steve Chaney. [...] and as to my hypothetical derangement: of course i am. purely in self-defense, though.
Around here, who’s to notice? peace, dave liebman
Chuck No .sig, no frills, no foolin’ — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Response:
] ] ] Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the ] `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, ] obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. Not since WaterGate have I seen so Valiant and NOBLE and Heroic a Defense of the Right to Protect Persons from themSelves….. Now that we have Ended this Silly Notion of the ‘right of privacy’ hopefully we can follow along with the State Courts in Florida, {in the case where they ruled that the State Interests in the welfare of Children over ruled both MEDICAL ETHICS, and religious Freedom, in the matter of Transfussions for Jehovah’s Witness.} { Not To Mention their Current Policy to OutLaw Bungiee Jumping as it is Dangerous, and someone, somewhere got killed doing it } And its Legislature, and Start FINALLY protecting the Citizens from their OWN DANGEROUS SELF!!!! We can Now Start Monitoring them for the times when they Might ThinkWrongThoughts, and For the Welfare of the Children, protect them From Subsequent WrongThoughts. Oh Thank You Generic Fellow for Leading Us Forward into the NewAgeOfGoldenEnlightenMentAndProtectionFromWrongThinking!!!! ciao drieux ps: I do feel so much safer now knowing that the state will no longer worry about silly things like Privacy, when it seeks to ReachOutAndTouchSomeOne. — I Do Not Believe in .sig files as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth, And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice. But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Response:
Now that we have Ended this Silly Notion of the ‘right of privacy’ hopefully we can follow along with the State Courts in Florida, {in the case where they ruled that the State Interests in the welfare of Children over ruled both MEDICAL ETHICS, and religious Freedom, in the matter of Transfussions for Jehovah’s Witness.} { Not To Mention their Current Policy to OutLaw Bungiee Jumping as it is Dangerous, and someone, somewhere got killed doing it }
Not to mention Thong bathing suits, because it causes eyestrain in all the old fogeys and there aren’t enough of them to go around and be nice to all the old biddies anyway, for heaven sake. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA
Response:
] ] ] Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the ] `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, ] obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation.
[much sarcasm deleted] i too was being sarcastic. trying to. dave (generic fellow) — The Twisted Banana BBS, Ithaca, NY
Response:
some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992):
[ Deleted. ] Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? — — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Response:
ANY lawyer who tries to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship should be charged with practicing medicine without a license, tortured, then executed. America’s main problem is: Too many lawyers, too many cops, not enough teachers. Alan Kirk
Response:
Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay?
What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother? Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA
Response:
Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother?
No, just a careful reader. Why, what are your qualifications? Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached.
Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor. Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
– — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Response:
America’s main problem is: Too many lawyers, too many cops, not enough teachers.
I’d ammend that to "not enough teachers who aren’t members of the NEA." Belonging to a group that is a champion of mediocrity and stifler of excellence doesn’t help… — Serfs up — Spartacus
Response:
Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother? No, just a careful reader. Why, what are your qualifications?
None. But I just reported what it sounded like to me. You claimed to know what he was thinking. Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor.
Good point. That’s probably why I didn’t respond to his. Responding to yours was fun, though. You didn’t seem too far deranged, just overreaching and very slightly arrogant. That’s a target within range. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA
Response:
FROM THE DERANGED ORIGINAL POSTER hIMSELF: Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother? No, just a careful reader. Why, what are your qualifications?
in fact, i was being sarcastic. it is interesting though, that some folks perceived it as sincerity. basically, all i did was spout ludicrous rhetoric that did nothing but echo g.will’s ludicrous rhetoric. i can’t blame anyone for a lack of humor, though: rather, i’d point my crabby finger at the notable lack of substance in the rhetoric of those i was mocking. when sarcasm becomes unintelligible from supposedly reasoned debate, something has gone fighteningly wrong. Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor.
hm, i disagree. bringing forth coherent attacks on arguments like will’s (someone, i can’t recall who, wrote an excellent rebuttal that relied on legal precedent, rather than ideological statement — it’s around here somewhere) is extremely important. if even one single neoconservative fool happens to read such a rebuttal, something (perhaps small) has been accomplished. and as to my hypothetical derangement: of course i am. purely in self-defense, though. peace, dave liebman
Response:
some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992): [quoting from Roe vs. Wade] “ `The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendement’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ In that Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, the court announced a `fundamental’ right to abortion. That right is a subsidy of the `privacy’ right that the court discovered in 1965. As for attaching those two rights to a particular part of the Constitution’s text, the court treated that as a trivial detail, almost a matter of taste. You say the Ninth Amendment, I say the Fourteenth. You say Tomato, I say Tomahto. How suitable that the decision later defended by ‘pro- choice’ rests on a judicial invitation to choose where you say the Constitution contains the `fundamental’ right to abortion.” Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication. The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. As Will points out: “…[t]he `undue burden’ test [which the Court offered as a principle for determining a state's right to impose restrictions on abortion] is just another flight of judicial legislation.” It must be evident that the high court’s willingness to make rulings of such an _absurdly precise and definitive_ nature represents a shameless transgression of the court’s Constitutional authority. Furthermore, the plaintive cries forthcoming, no doubt, from `pro-choice’ that the court’s undue-burden criteria represents a violation of `fundamental rights’ should be taken as yet another demonstration of vapid liberalism — yet another attempt to batantly disregard what Will calls “the process of persuasion and accomodation, sometimes called democracy.” The court was quite clearly responding to the hidden agenda of over half of the nation’s citizens; the danger that lies in this subversion of democracy is unmistakable. er, dave liebman
Response:
Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication. The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation.
You must be one of those fellows that thinks that if a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist. Go back and read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments — they were written just for you, Bunky. —
Response:
some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992):
Hey, I thought you’d post some political logic of the highest caliber. Instead you post George Will’s comments. What gives? :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [quoting from Roe vs. Wade] “ `The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendement’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ In that Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, the court announced a `fundamental’ right to abortion. That right is a subsidy of the `privacy’ right that the court discovered in 1965. As for attaching those two rights to a particular part of the Constitution’s text, the court treated that as a trivial detail, almost a matter of taste. You say the Ninth Amendment, I say the Fourteenth. You say Tomato, I say Tomahto. How suitable that the decision later defended by ‘pro- choice’ rests on a judicial invitation to choose where you say the Constitution contains the `fundamental’ right to abortion.”
This is silly. All the court has to do is provide constitutional support for their argument (which they did siting the 14th A). Whether the 9th *also* covers the privacy issue is a question that does not need to be answered inorder to to rule on the central question before the court. As Justice O’Conner pointed out in her dissent in Rust-v-Sullivan a basic concept of judicial restraint is that the court should only address issue central to the case. To address issues not central to the case before the court is judicial activism. Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication.
1) the court based their decision on only one amendment (the 14th). There is no basis for your contention that the court used two amendments to support their decision. 2) the court did not have to rule on the issue of the 9th A because the 14th A is enough to cover the issue. 3) amendments can overlap in their protection. For example, the governemnt taking your property could violate the 5th A (takings clause) and the 14th A ("nor shall the states deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). Clauses within amendments can overlap (free speech and religion in the 1st). It is not uncommon for lawyers to claim that several amendments were violated, knowing that they only need the court to agree with one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. As Will points out: “…[t]he `undue burden’ test [which the Court offered as a principle for determining a state's right to impose restrictions on abortion] is just another flight of judicial legislation.” It must be evident that the high court’s willingness to make rulings of such an _absurdly precise and definitive_ nature represents a shameless transgression of the court’s Constitutional authority. Furthermore, the plaintive cries forthcoming, no doubt, from `pro-choice’ that the court’s undue-burden criteria represents a violation of `fundamental rights’ should be taken as yet another demonstration of vapid liberalism — yet another attempt to batantly disregard what Will calls “the process of persuasion and accomodation, sometimes called democracy.”
Cool rhetoric, but lacking substance. From PP-v-Casey: BLACKMUN: "I join parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI of the joint opinion… What has happened today should serve as a model for future Justices and a warning to all who have tried to turn this Court into yet another political branch." "[W]hile I believe that the joint opinion errs in failing to invalidate the other regulations, I am pleased that the joint opinion has not ruled out the possibility that these regulations may be shown to impose an unconstitutional burden. The joint opinion makes clear that its specific holdings are based on the insufficiency of the record before it." "Under [the strict scrutiny] standard, the Pennsylvania statute’s provisions requiring content-based counseling, a 24-hour delay, informed parental consent, and reporting of abortion-related information must be invalidated." "By restricting the right to terminate pregnancies, the State conscripts women’s bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care. The State does not compensate women for their services; instead, it assumes that they owe this duty as a matter of course. This assumption-that women can simply be forced to accept the -natural- status and incidents of motherhood-appears to rest upon a conception of women’s role that has triggered the protection of the Equal Protection Clause." "In my view, application of [the trimester] framework is no less warranted than when it was approved by seven Members of this Court in Roe. Strict scrutiny of state limitations on reproductive choice still offers the most secure protection of the woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions, free from state coercion… [T]he Roe framework is far more administrable, and far less manipulable, than the -undue burden- standard adopted by the joint opinion…. [W]hile a State has -legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child… legitimate interests are not enough. To overcome the burden of strict scrutiny, the interests must be compelling." "Application of the strict scrutiny standard results in the invalidation of all the challenged provisions. Indeed, as this Court has invalidated virtually identical provisions in prior cases, stare decisis requires that we again strike them down." To satisfy the "strict scrutiny" standard (as used in Roe), the State would have to demonstrate a Constitutitonal basis for their restrictions. The state did not demonstrate that basis. What the court did was reduce abortion (as covered by the right to privacy) from a "fundamental right" to a "liberty interest". As a "liberty interest" the state has a lower standard in which to base their state interest. The majority ruled that the state met that lower standard so the upheld the PA law (except for one provision). The court was quite clearly responding to the hidden agenda of over half of the nation’s citizens; the danger that lies in this subversion of democracy is unmistakable.
This is a *Constitutional Democracy*. The intent of the founding fathers was/is to "subvert" democracy. The fact that a ballot initiative on whether to kill you would be unConstitutional is also a "subversion of democracy", but that "subversion" is a good idea. er, dave liebman
– Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect EX-Twins’ Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Response: