Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
Topic closed
- Index
- » Ministry of Free Thought
- » Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
#126 2006-07-08 4:17 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34106
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Say goodnight.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Offline
#127 2006-07-08 9:49 pm
- KingFred
- is enjoying his status as
- Royal Wombat
- Registered: 2002-05-09
- Posts: 7541
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Now say Good Morning.
Now that the trouble is taken care of, let's try to keep the discussion going.
Exploring the intertubes
Offline
#128 2006-07-08 11:08 pm
- The-Cynic
- Member
- Registered: 2006-07-07
- Posts: 135
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
I'd like to eat a caesar salad right about now.
Last edited by The-Cynic (2006-07-08 11:29 pm)
"Get It Done!" (Jay)
Offline
#129 2006-07-08 11:09 pm
- user
- Your plastic pal who's fun to be with
- From: I'm not getting you down, am I
- Registered: 2001-10-15
- Posts: 16013
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
dammit.
now the feds are gonna bust in.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.
Unless you become as little children, there's no way you will believe this crap.
Offline
#130 2006-07-09 12:17 am
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7006
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Don't you people know that Congressional and Judicial interference with the president caused Al Qaeda to stike on 11 September?
John Yoo wrote:
But here, unlike abortion, the Supreme Court does not have the last word. Congress and the president can enact a simple law putting the court back in its traditional place, allowing for the usual combination of presidential initiative and general congressional support. There is no other way to fight a successful war, as we learned Sept. 11.
yeah yeah, source
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#131 2006-07-09 11:42 am
- blank kludge
- 20 Minutes Into teh Future
- From: Hal9k --> Font/DA Mover
- Registered: 2006-02-21
- Posts: 525
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Lord.
That essay is a long form of this:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.mov
2.3 - What are "Blanks"?
Blanks are people who have either fallen off the information nets, or taken themselves off deliberately. Usually known and addressed by their first names with "Blank" as a title - Blank Reg, Blank Bruno, and Blank Dom(inique) are three we get to know well.
Offline
#132 2006-07-10 12:01 am
- Chickenhawk
- Snark Snark Snark Snark
- From: Being Snarky
- Registered: 2005-06-01
- Posts: 5792
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
he's been banned already.
The recent medical controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism reveals a habit of human cognition—thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not. -- Michael Shermer
Offline
#133 2006-07-10 12:15 am
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7006
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
blank kludge wrote:
Lord.
That essay is a long form of this:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.mov
broken link.
perhaps you meant this one
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#134 2006-07-10 2:10 am
- The-Cynic
- Member
- Registered: 2006-07-07
- Posts: 135
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
I didn't vote for him. I voted Nader.
"Get It Done!" (Jay)
Offline
#135 2006-07-10 10:30 am
- blank kludge
- 20 Minutes Into teh Future
- From: Hal9k --> Font/DA Mover
- Registered: 2006-02-21
- Posts: 525
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Jerwin -
Thanks. Don't know what happened to the link....same site, different post, but the RMN quote IS the essence of what I wanted to point out.
(ps - some folks are collecting links in an 'impeachment folder' in faves/bookmarks. I like the idea; starting one myself. FWIW+YMMV.)
2.3 - What are "Blanks"?
Blanks are people who have either fallen off the information nets, or taken themselves off deliberately. Usually known and addressed by their first names with "Blank" as a title - Blank Reg, Blank Bruno, and Blank Dom(inique) are three we get to know well.
Offline
#136 2006-07-22 12:22 pm
- gas huffer
- hegelian diuretic
- Registered: 2004-03-20
- Posts: 876
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
KingFred wrote:
Now say Good Morning.
Now that the trouble is taken care of, let's try to keep the discussion going.
mission accomplished?
"What's your favorite beer, son?"
Offline
#137 2006-07-25 8:11 am
- blank kludge
- 20 Minutes Into teh Future
- From: Hal9k --> Font/DA Mover
- Registered: 2006-02-21
- Posts: 525
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Arlen seems to have a 'magic bullet' ready for the signing statements problem the ABA Task Force of 38 panellsts UNANIMOUSLY denounced Bush.
Here's the ABA:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 … e-rule.php
PDF at the bottom has the whole screed.
---
Arlen's gonna use very constrained wording to sue, I'd bet. Cuts off wider questioning and how other suits will be treated. like EFF, ACLU and others. But, what do I know?
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/200 … 00817.html
2.3 - What are "Blanks"?
Blanks are people who have either fallen off the information nets, or taken themselves off deliberately. Usually known and addressed by their first names with "Blank" as a title - Blank Reg, Blank Bruno, and Blank Dom(inique) are three we get to know well.
Offline
#138 2006-07-25 12:02 pm
- gas huffer
- hegelian diuretic
- Registered: 2004-03-20
- Posts: 876
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
If you had actually read the "Blue Ribbon Task Force" recommendations you would have noticed that the corrective action is for Congress to pass new and specific legislation.
Congress does not have judicial review, as that would violate the very principal they are invoking.
How can Bush be "violating the Constitution" if the remedy is a suggestion to pass new laws - it would seem this is just more bellyaching over a strong Executive, "violating" a rule of law that does not yet exist?
So, the argument is that they are violating a law that does not exist, based upon an interpretation of the separation of powers.
And they claim this is about the importance of the rule of law?
pffft.
Interesting subject, though.
Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-25 12:07 pm)
"What's your favorite beer, son?"
Offline
#139 2006-07-25 2:11 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34106
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
The argument is that some of the signing statements (those that question whether or not certain parts of the law are constitutional or violate national security concerns) act as a 'veto' on certain parts of the bills.
I think the most notable issue exists with the McCain torture bill, which received a signing statement basically stating that the executive did not necessarily have to follow that portion of the bill.
If the Executive is acting by the order of the signing statements and not by the will of Congress, then there is certainly a problem.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Offline
#140 2006-07-25 2:19 pm
- blank kludge
- 20 Minutes Into teh Future
- From: Hal9k --> Font/DA Mover
- Registered: 2006-02-21
- Posts: 525
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
All the kewl kids are calling it: "Unilateral Executive".
It more clearly indicates the nature of the beast. Actions are based solely on no acknowledgement that the other branches share power OVER EACH OTHER. A unilateral move ignores the other two branches. Which is what we see in operation today. 'Extralegality' is defined by WH.
2.3 - What are "Blanks"?
Blanks are people who have either fallen off the information nets, or taken themselves off deliberately. Usually known and addressed by their first names with "Blank" as a title - Blank Reg, Blank Bruno, and Blank Dom(inique) are three we get to know well.
Offline
#141 2006-07-25 2:29 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7006
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
gas huffer wrote:
If you had actually read the "Blue Ribbon Task Force" recommendations you would have noticed that the corrective action is for Congress to pass new and specific legislation.
Congress does not have judicial review, as that would violate the very principal they are invoking.
Yes, but they can go to the Supreme Court. Very often, the court dismisses such lawsuits for lack of standing. However, Congress can establish standing through legislation.
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#142 2006-07-28 12:00 pm
- gas huffer
- hegelian diuretic
- Registered: 2004-03-20
- Posts: 876
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
blank kludge wrote:
All the kewl kids are calling it: "Unilateral Executive".
It more clearly indicates the nature of the beast. Actions are based solely on no acknowledgement that the other branches share power OVER EACH OTHER. A unilateral move ignores the other two branches. Which is what we see in operation today. 'Extralegality' is defined by WH.
Which means the Executive Branch is acting in its own interest. Which is what a branch in a system of separated and shared powers is expected to do and why we have a system of checks and balances in the first place.
The system is assumed to be in a constant state of disequilibria of factions seeking power, and not some utopian fairytale where we all hold hands all the time.
Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-28 12:07 pm)
"What's your favorite beer, son?"
Offline
#143 2006-07-28 2:30 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34106
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
gas huffer wrote:
The system is assumed to be in a constant state of disequilibria of factions seeking power, and not some utopian fairytale where we all hold hands all the time.
Yet when Congress attempts to reassert its authority over legislation, you throw a fit?
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Offline
#144 2006-07-28 3:05 pm
- gas huffer
- hegelian diuretic
- Registered: 2004-03-20
- Posts: 876
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
bratboy wrote:
gas huffer wrote:
The system is assumed to be in a constant state of disequilibria of factions seeking power, and not some utopian fairytale where we all hold hands all the time.
Yet when Congress attempts to reassert its authority over legislation, you throw a fit?
Yes, I am "throwing a fit" because the SCOTUS has stopped the President for Legislation that DOES NOT YET EXIST.
Is SCOTUS somehow an arm of the Legislature? Did I say "the Legislature cannot create law"?
Or, is this one branch asking another to gain control over the Exectuve based on an Internatinal Treaty? I don't like the Suprme Court sticking its nose in FOREIGN POLICY. I like it limited to the CONSTITUTION.
Let me know when you actually can understand what that means, mmmmm'kay?
"What's your favorite beer, son?"
Offline
#145 2006-07-28 3:19 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34106
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
gas huffer wrote:
Is SCOTUS somehow an arm of the Legislature? Did I say "the Legislature cannot create law"?
My mistake, I confused this thread with the one regarding signing statements.
Or, is this one branch asking another to gain control over the Exectuve based on an Internatinal Treaty? I don't like the Suprme Court sticking its nose in FOREIGN POLICY. I like it limited to the CONSTITUTION.
It has already been pointed out that those treaties entered into by Congress (and incorporated into our military code) are binding upon the Executive.
Let me know when you actually can understand what that means, mmmmm'kay?
I study the constitution and have a firm grasp on the prevailing interpretations of its meaning, thanks.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Offline
#146 2006-07-28 9:47 pm
- KingFred
- is enjoying his status as
- Royal Wombat
- Registered: 2002-05-09
- Posts: 7541
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
gas huffer wrote:
Let me know when you actually can understand what that means, mmmmm'kay?
Cut the crap, hear? Make your point in a civil tone sans this "sarcasm and satire" humor you seem to think you have.
I hope the request is clear and understood and won't need repeating.
Thank you and enjoy the space.
KF
Exploring the intertubes
Offline
#147 2006-07-29 9:36 am
#148 2006-07-29 9:56 am
- Farmerkev
- Official Dementor
- Moderator
- Registered: 2003-01-03
- Posts: 18600
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
Metacell wrote:
Aww, c'mon, he's just showing that he cares.
http://www.oldkewgardens.com/ps99/ps99-012-NS.jpg
About what, I have no idea.
KingFred wrote:
Cut the crap, hear? Make your point in a civil tone sans this "sarcasm and satire" humor you seem to think you have.
I hope the request is clear and understood and won't need repeating.
Thank you and enjoy the space.
KF
We might even make this a new rule stated in those exact terms.
Do your part to combat global warming.
Eat a cow.
Offline
#149 2006-07-29 10:25 am
- gas huffer
- hegelian diuretic
- Registered: 2004-03-20
- Posts: 876
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
first i am accuesd of "throwing a fit" by the moderator who then admits he's in the "wrong thread"!
the moderator as poster apologizes, and somehow then IT'S MY FAULT for being snide and you tell me to "cut the crap" abd be civil when i am responding to a completely off-base and assinigned post?
go smurf yourselves. but please, do it in a civil manner, you hear?
Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-29 10:27 am)
"What's your favorite beer, son?"
Offline
#150 2006-07-29 10:28 am
- Farmerkev
- Official Dementor
- Moderator
- Registered: 2003-01-03
- Posts: 18600
Re: Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
I would suggest you not go down this road.
Do your part to combat global warming.
Eat a cow.
Offline
Topic closed
- Index
- » Ministry of Free Thought
- » Evil liberal activist Supreme Court judges poke Bush in the eye
