First, there was no reason for a personal attack. Nothing detracts from a positive discussion like attacks another's personal status, whether it be race, sexuality or education. You OBVIOUSLY understood me fine, in your ability to respond, so the personal attack just debases your point, not enhances it, especially because a lawyer posted the original article, and you did not choose to attack him as such.
I don't recall any personal attacks directed at you or the author of this particular article. In fact what I was attacking was the manner in which you stated your opinion or lack there of on the matter by constantly recalling your stated opinion by saying that you hadn't reviewed the material and as such had no opinion on the matter.
Now, I'm speaking on the summary here and not on my own personal perusal of the documents, but the issue was less on religious freedoms or government powers destroy it, and more on the power of a taxpayer to sue based on laws, rulings or spending they disapprove of. The court historically has shied away from such discussions, because of judicial efficiency. Simply put, the system could not handle the strain if everyone who hates how money is spend either sued, or, as the case in "Stranger than Fiction,' people just chose not to pay for what they didn't like. This seems to be just a further extension of that principal, especially since the President and his policies are even further removed from the system than the Legislators. The proper balance to the Legislator are their constituents and the courts, and the proper balance to the president in such matters are the Legislators and the courts.
As I stated in my opening paragraph
Is anyone else frightened shitless by the fact that with the courts help we the people have lost yet one more point of control over the Executive branch of our government. With the decision to remove our ability to hold the Executive branch accountable for decisions made on approving religious or faith based organizations for government funding this country is heading farther down the dark path toward loss of our religious freedom or freedom from religion all together. I may be stretching a bit far on that one but with Mr. Bush's track record and his open and blatant statements about his religious beliefs is it really that hard to imagine?
I did not say that the issue at hand was a matter of religious freedom or lack there of.. What I said was in effect that by setting this precedence the court had opened up the ability of the Bush administration to use that position to further blur the lines in the separation of church and state. In fact I even offered that I may be stretching a bit far on that particular chain of events.
I can't show you on the current administration, just as you cannot show how it has helped. They have just started their tenure, and have a long time to start showing their own "true" agendas, especially since a new president is just 2 Januaries away. The proper context is look to the history of the court. I refer you to Nixon's nomination of what he thought was a Anti-Warren Strict Constructionist Burger to Chief Justice. The same one who continued Warren policies and fancied a little case known as Roe v. Wade. Ops. and also ruled against Nixon's try to invalidate the need for a search warrant and 4th amendment rights for domestic surveillance. Double ops.
To say because Bush nominated them that they somehow killed the court, and do not obey the lay is silly. And they never served the people, the Legislative and Executive branches do. They serve the Constitution, at least in theory.
I think that the case in question is proof enough that the current administrations agenda has been "helped" by the courts decision. Bush has openly stated in the past that he favors faith based programs and has also stated that he looks to his faith and to God in making decisions on matters of state. I don't recall his exact words and don't have time to search for them at the moment but I recall him saying something along the lines of asking God for direction at some point on the war in Iraq. The point being that the administrations agenda of promoting religion and faith based organizations has been boosted by this particular ruling.
In rebuttal to your statement that a new president is only 2 Januaries away and to use your own argument of Chief Justice Burger's "fancying" Roe v. Wade. You should know that once precedence has been set it is very difficult to reverse said precedence. Certain members of our current administration would love nothing more than to overturn Roe v. Wade and yet abortion whether you or anyone else likes it or not is still legal. Why would it be so much easier for a new administration to overturn any other decision?
The current administration also has found certain loopholes in the 4th amendment. As I stated before, they have authorized wire taps without warrants. Sneak and Peek time limits prior to obtaining search warrants have also been extended under the current administration. The rights of Due Process and Speedy Trial have also been suspended in cases of suspected terrorism and other enemies of the state. This is something that I would think you as a lawyer would be particularly interested in.
I never stated that they killed the court or that they did not obey the law. What I said was that their opinions or interpretation of the law could be swayed by political pressure or gain. Also, perhaps my statement about the Judicial branch serving the people was worded incorrectly. You are correct in that they serve the Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect the people, at least in theory.
This is a lot of stuff that I do not think pertain to the discussion, and would need to read the decision to see if they do.
It does...trust me...do some reading.
They were under no obligation to select any of them. they could have rejected them until the sun didn't shine anymore in Allah's or Jesus' or Buddah's bright blue sky. While the vote was close "historically" for justices at 78-22, it shows more of the shameful polarization of our country than anything else; 22 of 44 democrats voted him in with confidence. Alito was even closer, so if anything your idea of 'bad apple' would solely apply to him. However, even 1 'bad apple' would not spoil this bunch, and be thankful that if a Democrat wins the presidential election, the odds are good that they can throw in their own 'bad apple' to offset it; there is hardly any times that a president doesn't get to put one justice in.
You are correct that they were under no obligation to select any of them. Considering that during Mr. Bush's two terms in office he has replaced a majority of the executive staff with under qualified or down right unqualified people because they are loyal to his agenda and because of the fact that they graduated from Oral Roberts University, do you honestly think that he wouldn't keep coming up with list after list of potential justices? I don't particularly care who the "bad apple" in this bunch is. I know there is one and that is enough. It's clear by the recent history of this court that it only takes one to sway the decision.
The argument here is not whether the president should or should not have an agenda and do the very best that he can to pull it through. The argument here the way I see it is the blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of the people in this country by the current administration.
You're mother is a fucking whore. Filthy slut.
Did that add to the discussion? Nope. I have a thick skin, and have battled with the best of them on different forums, but I am trying to turn over a new leaf. Not everything needs to revolve around e-peen stroking. I *could* have responded to him tin numerous "just as insulting" ways, but I chose to be the bigger man. Sorry if that displeased you.
On your statement about faith being the issue decided, it wasn't. The case was about standing. As such, the rest is "just noise."
I don't believe that anyone ever said that faith was the issue being decided. In _____ statement he is saying that the decision of the court removes our ability to sue the Executive office in matters of decisions relating to faith based or religious organizations receiving government funding or "sponsorship". Your taking his statement out of context.
Good luck with the bar sir and may you never be insulted in court. Sticks and stones my man....."sticking tongue out and blowing raspberries in your general direction."
steveanaco
Anacortes, WA
June 2006
JUN 28, 2007 11:07 PM