buggs1a
join:2000-12-24
Seattle, WA
| reply to woody7
Re: Conyers is my hero
The government is NOT spying on US Citizens as you put it. I get so dang pissed at you people with your ignorant bull crud totally wrong attitudes. They are wiretapping etc on ONLY *suspected* terrorists and conversations to and from the Middle East or any other rogue nation.
Without this law there is a gap to what we can look into for protecting the US. If phone companies etc will be sued because they cooperate with the Government then they won't help out. Being immune from this possible lawsuit is a good thing because then the Government can access that info.
This is why the dems are utterly pathetic jerk off mother poopers! They just argue and do stupid stuff. The US governemt is so effed up and so greedy and they all want the power, their way is the only way and they hardly ever agree on anything. They're so dang divided. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  : Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from? from Fox News and the Republican party of course. duh. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to guitarzan
well said guitarzan!
--
edit to add " I thought I was alone in this debate. I'm not for destroying the telcos, but more along the lines of not wanting to give up my rights without kicking and screaming. These rights apply to what I have to say, and what the other side has to say. I just can't believe how naive that some people are, and how willing they are to give them up. Peace
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan :How much more can the American people take ... till they're marching on D.C. armed with rifles and demanding their rights to life and liberty? When that happens, say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment.
Welcome to the irrelevant fringe.
Mark |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :What part of it is illegal to spy on your own citizens without a warrant( even after the fact:FISA) don't you get? I agree Woody, however examine government from the fairly recent past. Ruby Ridge, then came Waco our government sent our own military "to save the kids", whether it was a religious cult or not. They were mostly American citizens, burnt to a crisp.
A Clinton White House showed it was willing to butcher its own citizens.
Under Bush, no sooner he got in office we got the Twin Tower bombings, the perfect excuse to start war in the Middle East over OIL. Time we stopped kidding ourselves.
Massive domestic spying. Last but not certainly not least, events after hurricane Katrina. The National Guard was sent in to confiscate ALL firearms from law abiding citizens.
ALL test and trial balloons to see how much intrusions and infringements government can get away with. They certainly did without having to pay a penalty for their actions.
The pathetic" if we don't fight the terrorists over there, we'll have to fight them here. News flash, Bush, OVER HERE we have home field advantage. I'd prefer to fight them here with closed borders.
said by woody7 :See that is what is great about the document, it still works. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have stood the test of time. This is all being done in secret, so no one has a clue what is actually going on. After all the revelations that are showing up in the news about misconduct by the FBI and probably illegal things, why would you trust this government to have any oversight of themselves? Government could NEVER and should never be trusted.
THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11 2 hr 18 min - Jan 1, 2001
»video.google.com/videoplay?docid···24486145
Please do not let the title fool you. As it has nothing to do with the bombing of the Twin Towers. No conspiracy theory's, no speculation, just facts explaining how we as a nation came to the state we are in today. This former L.A.P.D narcotics officer explains how corrupt this government is. Especially the Bush Administration's undermining of the Bill of Rights & Constitution, due to the passage of the Patriot act and Homeland security act.
Both of those acts destroyed more than the 4th Amendment, wiretapping destroyed the 5th Amendment, its gone. Want to honestly know how the 1st Amendment and all others are destroyed? Watch the video.
Any one who can say this guy is full of it and the facts he presents are lies, then, that person and anyone who defends Bush or any member of government is attempting to brainwash you. Because they themselves are BRAINWASHED and part of the corruption.
said by woody7 : Mind you contrary to what bush is saying the old law is still in effect. Which by the way he ignored most of the time anyway. That is the problem,a lot of people, not just "crack pot" liberals care no matter how "insignificant" the violation is. One is a "crack pot" or terrorist, WHEN you oppose Bush, thus the label un-patriotic.
said by woody7 :This administration doesn't want anyone to get in their way period.to them us getting upset about losing our rights seems to make us some kind of anti American.If no one knows what is going on, how do you know that they stopped anything? And the few things that they claimed they spoiled turned out to be bogus at best Not only that, Bush, proved he will go any length necessary to break, undermine all laws and the Constitution itself, like the spoiled little bratty rich kid he is, throwing a temper tantrum, while wandering off on some tangent.
If Bush & government, is innocent and has nothing to hide. Why all the secrecy and immunity? I can hardly wait to see who Bush pardons on the last day of the job.
said by woody7 : Those old scraps of paper are what has separated us from most of the other countries for quite a few years. They still could be, IF enough people decide to get off their lazy azz and take our Country back.
How much more can the American people take of this stuff till they're marching on D.C. armed with rifles and demanding their rights to life and liberty?
--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to ross
said by ross :Nevermind. You can parse every phrase of mine individually, Sorry, but it's that or throw a dart to pick a sentence within your disjointed and melodramatic ramblings. 
said by ross :I, and others, have simply tired of the struggle against the forces of oppression, And then:
said by ross :[We] are fed up with [your] cynicism. [Blink] [Blink] I think you're projecting.
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by ross :It is the individual opinions of the members of the court that politicians of late are concerned with. They have introduced partisan politics ... Did you see that quote about Douglas which I posted earlier? Do you consider 1939 "recent?" Mark Nevermind. You can parse every phrase of mine individually, take them out of context, and ignore the meaning conveyed by the body of my words to meander about the cul-de-sacs of your labyrinthian reasoning all you want, but the point remains; courts interpret and enforce the law, they do not make the law. Courts may even declare a law null and void, but that is not making law.
That partisan attempts to stack the court ideologically have been going on a long time, does not exclude the more recent, increasingly blatant, and dishonest attempts by contemporary politicos to do so. Perhaps I, and others, have simply tired of the struggle against the forces of oppression, and are fed up with the cavalier way you, and those who think like you, surrender your ethics, and discard the rule of law based on ill-informed cynicism. Be that as it may, your obstinate and poorly reasoned positions have become more than annoying. Kindly change your source from the Wikipedia article you are so enamored of to a more informed, and informing source. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ross
Re: Conyers is my hero
said by ross :It is the individual opinions of the members of the court that politicians of late are concerned with. They have introduced partisan politics ... Did you see that quote about Douglas which I posted earlier? Do you consider 1939 "recent?"
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :In your opinion, why is there so much emphasis placed upon the person holding the presidency and their ability to nominate Justices to the Court? If it's not like they have the effect of creating law, why does it matter? Is everyone confused? Mark Are you still confused about how laws are drawn up, voted on, and if passed, by the legislature, sent to the president for signature or veto? What does this process have to due with the courts, other than legislators and presidents have to be aware of the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution, and that their actions are subject to review by the courts through judicial review of laws they have passed.
It is the individual opinions of the members of the court that politicians of late are concerned with. They have introduced partisan politics into the appointment process of what is supposed to be a non-partisan, independent judiciary. The result is a court which may be manipulated to sustain constitutionally unsound law. A once lofty position of public trust has been reduced to a lifetime employment contract for intellectual frauds like Thomas, and Rehnquist before him, to accomplish political ends of transient worth. Pitiable, really. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ross
said by ross :Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law. I think that distinction would be lost on the 2k of African Americans lynched between 1866 and 1925 when the Supreme Court first recognized the 14th Amendment's intent (and the intent of to 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts).
said by ross :...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time... Isn't that principle applied to the legislative branch's activities? (Majority versus a minority?).
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.). It's a bit arbitrary how they do that. Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law. Mark While you may say it "is a lot like creating law", it is NOT the SAME THING.
As you may have noticed, justice is often portrayed as both blind and a woman. Hence, while it may seem arbitrary and capricious from time to time, somewhere divine orderliness must be conserved.
Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law. The filters which constitute the sieve of justice may not be so finely wrought that they do not occasionally pass the out-sized ordure, or with great difficulty expel it only after some duly respectful period has intervened and softened its impactedness.
...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to ross
said by ross :said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?). Mark Same message applies: The courts do NOT make the law, ... In your opinion, why is there so much emphasis placed upon the person holding the presidency and their ability to nominate Justices to the Court? If it's not like they have the effect of creating law, why does it matter? Is everyone confused?
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?). Mark Same message applies: The courts do NOT make the law, they interpret the law to decide if, and how, it may apply to a set of facts in evidence before them, which facts are not in dispute, but the application of law as befit them is. However, in no case does the court make law, rather, it interprets a law, or set of laws, and renders a judgment as regards applicability to the facts of a case before them, or, if the constitutionality of the law itself is in question, they may address that aspect of the law, as it is their mandate to do so. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ross
said by ross :its own rulings if precedent exists, You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.).
It's a bit arbitrary how they do that.
said by ross :and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down. Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law.
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :...How naive is that attitude? Of course, the courts make law. You say all they do is interpret the law. But the courts throughout US history have gone way beyond interpreting the law. They have made up laws and rights out of whole cloth. Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from? "Judicial activism" is a phrase born of hallucination, conjured up by right-wing wackos to describe the process whereby their periodic attempts to pervert and subvert our Constitution, abridge our civil rights, and privatize the public treasury are dashed asunder upon the inhospitable shores of bedrock reason (as pitiably constituted by the current USSC), and are thus dissipated and pacified.  The religio-righteous warrior's unbearable frustration has given rise to the term "judicial activism", to be used as a verbal shillelagh with which to beat the unsuspecting common man into mindless submission to their twisted will. 
For your review:
1) Laws are written and passed by the legislative branch, then passed along to the...
2) Executive branch, where laws are approved or disapproved...signed or vetoed.
3) If controversy over the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of a law occurs, the Judicial branch reviews and rules upon the facts of the case before them, taking into account our founding documents explicit, and implicit, language, as well as the legislative history, or purpose of the law as originally stated by legislative branch, its own rulings if precedent exists, and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down.
Or, at least that's the way it used to work before mein fuhrer, the chimp, took over...now we he just makes them up as he sees fit...depending on whether he is a decider that day, or the commander in chief, or a make believe pilot, or...a farmer, or a fireman, or just a good ol' boy slammin one down at the local bar with his friends, er, ah, u know, me and you, hiyuckyuckyuck!  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice: "You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections." Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1. Mark I had a Federal Judge for a teacher in Business Law in the MBA program I took. And he said basically the same thing - that most judges make a decision that they personally consider fair, and then look for legal precedent to back their personal decision. They don't enforce the law - they make it up as they go along. And there are so MANY conflicting laws and regulations that they can usually find something to back their personal decisions.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice:
"You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections." Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. With every ruling their will be winners and losers. Those who win will say "finally! The SC did the right thing instead of following their personal preferences." The losers will say "these days they worry too much about partisan politics."
It's been that way since 1791.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?).
Mark |
|
