 jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | reply to manfmmd
Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up! You are confusing the issue of which President recommended these Judges for elevation to the Federal bench and who subsequently appointed them to the FISA Court, I believe. AmeritecTech is correct with regards to the latter, which is all that he said.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
 manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·CMA Access
| said by jvmorris:You are confusing the issue of which President recommended these Judges for elevation to the Federal bench and who subsequently appointed them to the FISA Court, I believe. AmeritecTech is correct with regards to the latter, which is all that he said. I'm not saying that at all. It doesn't matter who elevated them or who appointed them. It is clear, since the beginning of record keeping, that judicial decisions are based on interpretation, which is based on political leanings. |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | Well, I'm glad that's clear to you. Please call up the ghost of Richard M. Nixon and inform him of your deductions.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to manfmmd
said by manfmmd:I would agree with you, except for, for the past 20 years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about the actions of "judges" because of their 'political' ties back to an administration. I don't have a solution for this, but as long as judges are political appointees, we will have a problem ( as we do with the abortion debate). said by manfmmd:It doesn't matter who elevated them or who appointed them. It is clear, since the beginning of record keeping, that judicial decisions are based on interpretation, which is based on political leanings. Why don't you stop injecting these god damn red herrings into this thread.
OK?
--
Sure, that'll work.. |
|
manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·CMA Access
| said by fatness:said by manfmmd:I would agree with you, except for, for the past 20 years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about the actions of "judges" because of their 'political' ties back to an administration. I don't have a solution for this, but as long as judges are political appointees, we will have a problem ( as we do with the abortion debate). said by manfmmd:It doesn't matter who elevated them or who appointed them. It is clear, since the beginning of record keeping, that judicial decisions are based on interpretation, which is based on political leanings. Why don't you stop injecting these god damn red herrings into this thread. OK? I would if it wasn't pertinent to the discussion. EVERYONE knows that judges are political appointees. And since there are people that wish to hang their trust on "judges", I was just reminding them. |
|
 EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
1 edit | said by manfmmd:EVERYONE knows that judges are political appointees. And since there are people that wish to hang their trust on "judges", I was just reminding them. Ah, you're starting to get it  Putting one's head in the sand and ignoring the fact that those comprising the leadership of any branch of government are politicians who want more power and fewer eyes on them only opens the door for those of which you speak.
Politicians inhabit all three branches of the government, and having any one of the branches subject to scrutiny by the other two greatly reduces the opportunity for mischief.
Maybe some would blindly trust Pelosi, Obama. Romney, Giulani, Edwards, "conservative" or "liberal" judges or any other possible future leader - right, center or left - to not abuse power or privilege, but I don't, and your above statement indicates you're starting to realize what we're talking about.
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007 |
|
