|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524 |
That's all there is to say, isn't it. Rest. Finally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Yes, because she's been so active the last 15 years.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Neither the Schindlers nor Michael Schiavo behaved with the highest integrity and honor in this sad situation.
The Schindlers ended up accusing Michael Schiavo of all sorts of forms of cruelty, none of it corroborated. And now they have authorized the sale of the names, addresses, and email addresses of their supporters to a direct-mailing company who will bombard these supporters with sales requests.
Michael Schiavo wanted to honor Terri's wishes all the while moving on with his own life (initially encouraged by the Shindlers). Michael refused to allow Terri's parents to be present as Terri neared death. Even despite their years of what has become a bitter hatred, to deny them this is inhuman.
I hope they all get what they deserve, in this life or the next.
Her parents were the only ones saying he was abusing her, the nurses at the hospice said he was.
Oh and as to whether he was her ex husband, forgot who said that, he wasn't. They were sitll married, which is why the courst sided with him and not her parents, since he was then 'her legal gaurdien' so to speak.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Her parents were the only ones saying he was abusing her, the nurses at the hospice said he was.
I really don't blame you Batwoman for falling for all this misinformation. The people we all should blame is the mass media for only reporting the most lurid and sensational while completely missing the larger issues, whether Constitutional law, death with dignity, or the issue of bulimia. As for the nurses you mentioned:
Quote:
CNN, Fox featured ex-Schiavo nurse whose affidavit was dismissed as "incredible" by judge
On March 22, both CNN's Live From... and Fox News' Fox and Friends aired interviews with Carla Sauer Iyer -- a former nurse for Terri Schiavo who in 2003 submitted an affidavit with inflammatory accusations against Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo -- but failed to report questions about Iyer's credibility. Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible" and noted in a September 17, 2003, order that not even Terri Schiavo's parents sought her testimony in the case.
In both appearances, Iyer was presented as a former nurse for Terri Schiavo. Fox introduced her as a "registered nurse in Florida" who "cared for Terri for more than a year between '95 and 1996." In addition, on-screen text described Iyer as "Carla Sauer Iyer; Cared for Terri Schiavo." On CNN, Iyer was introduced as a "nurse who says that she cared for Terri Schiavo [for] more than a year in the mid-1990s." As with Fox, CNN's on-screen text described Iyer as "Terri Schiavo's former nurse." Another on-screen text line presented on CNN stated that Iyer "testified about Terri Schiavo's physical state." However, according to Greer's September 2003 order, Schiavo's parents had not subpoenaed Iyer to testify.
Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo." From Greer's decision:
The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.
Frankly, i'm sick of the media's poor handling of this whole thing. I'm sick of them giving nut jobs and camera hounds like Randall Terry and Jesse Jackson greater air time and emphasis than they did THE FACTS.
The issue of these 2 nurses only serves to reinforce what i'm talking about.
The lines in the sand were clearly drawn between the 'right to life' religous groups and everyone else. And anything went apparently. We were fed rumours of Terri eating, talking begging, being injected with insulin, being beaten by her husband, being a vegatable because he strangled her and on and on. And through it all was the mass media.
Apparently those who shout loudest are the story. The truth is simply an inconvenience that might be mentioned in passing if time and advert space permits.
The rank hypocrisy, the disregard for the American system of Government, and the mountains of minsinformation being disseminated for intended emotional outrage is simply beyond the pale.
Rest in peace Terri Schiavo.
And rest in peace Sun Hudson.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,813
I Am Groot 5000+ posts
|
|
I Am Groot 5000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,813 |
Quote:
rex said:
That was really gay.
There you have it,folks,proof positive that rex is the RKMBs' biggest jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
In regards to that GOP talking points memo:
First G-Man himself gleefully PM'ed me to inform me of some revelation:
Quote:
the talking points memo
From: the G-man
Stand by for news...
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
PaulWellr said:
Well.....In reading about this case, I read about a GOP Senate 'talking points' memo obtained by ABC news where they discuss just how they're going to exploit this issue for politcal gain over the Democratic Party.
"Vampires". Those who feast on dead flesh, is more than appropriate.
Looks like ABC may have followed in the footsteps of CBS and fallen for yet another forged document:
It's Rathergate all over again...
Very quietly, Senate Republican leadership aides to both Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. Mitch McConnell, as well as the Senate Republican Policy Committee, have been using the Senate recess break to reconstruct the purported distribution of a document that media outlets, including ABC News, the New York Times and a number of regional newspapers, identified as Senate "GOP talking points" on the Terri Schiavo fight that unfolded over the weekend.
Republican leadership staffers now believe the document was generated out of the Democratic opposition research office set up recently by Sen. Harry Reid, and distributed to some Democratic Senate staffers claiming it was a GOP document, in the hope -- or more likely expectation -- that it would then be leaked by those Democrats to reporters. In fact, the New York Times stated that it was Democratic staffers who were distributing the "talking points" document.
More on the "memogate" thread...
and then G-Man's parrot chimed in to tell me what's what:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
PaulWellr said:
Well.....
I've been trying to temper my own outrage over this but I may have betrayed that outrage by refering to these zealots as "vampires".
Now I could have simply used whatever expletive came to mind but...
 fuck.
In reading about this case, I read about a GOP Senate 'talking points' memo obtained by ABC news where they discuss just how they're going to exploit this issue for politcal gain over the Democratic Party.
"Vampires". Those who feast on dead flesh, is more than appropriate.
I would like to point out that this post was posted days after the document mentioned was demonstrated to be be a forgery. I know it makes you feel good to demonise the oposition. After all we are a bunch of gouls and vampires, but next time be carefull because in your rush to portray as as monsters you may make yourself look a bit of a fool. I'm sure however that there is NO sincerity fuling the right to lifers here (including Schiavo's parrents) so the generall picture your painting of evil Republicans and heroic Democrats still stands as legitimate.
Not so fast.....
Quote:
Author Of Schiavo Memo Steps Forward
Sen. Martinez's Counsel Cited Upside for GOP
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A01
The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.
Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.
Martinez said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."
Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of housing and urban development for most of President Bush's first term, said he had not read the one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who had worked with him on the issue. After that, other Senate aides gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and The Washington Post.
Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore the Florida woman's feeding tube. "He said these were talking points -- something that we're working on here," Harkin said.
The mystery of the memo's origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of a brain-damaged woman.
Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the memo, in some cases likening it to the discredited documents about Bush's National Guard service that CBS News reported last fall.
The staff of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, at the request of a Democrat, spent a week trying to determine the memo's origin and had come up empty, said an official involved in the investigation.
The unsigned memo -- which initially misspells Schiavo's first name and gives the wrong number for the pending bill -- includes eight talking points in support of the legislation and calls the controversy "a great political issue."
"This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy," the memo concludes.
It asserts that the case would appeal to the party's core supporters, saying: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."
The document was provided to ABC News on March 18 and to The Post on March 19 and was included in news reports about congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. Bush returned from an Easter vacation in Texas and signed the bill shortly after 1 a.m. on March 21.
At the time, other Senate Republican aides claimed to be familiar with the memo but declined to discuss it on the record and gave no information about its origin.
In a statement issued last night, Martinez said that Harkin asked him for background information on the bill and that he gave him what he thought was a routine one-page staff memo on the legislation. "Unbeknownst to me, instead of my one page on the bill, I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo that at some point along the way came into my possession,"  the statement said.
Harkin said that when he read the part about the politics of the case he thought that was "rather out of line," but he said he did not discuss the matter with Martinez. Harkin said he has no complaints about Martinez.
"I really worked in good faith with Senator Martinez on this issue and I found him to be a decent, caring person to work with on this, and so I have a lot of respect for him," Harkin said.
Martinez said Harkin called him about 5 p.m. yesterday and told him that the memo had come from his office. Martinez said he then called in his senior staff and said, "Something is wrong here." He said that Darling later confessed to John Little, Martinez's chief of staff, and that he said he did not think he had ever printed the memo.
"It was intended to be a working draft," Martinez said. "He doesn't really know how I got it."
Efforts to reach Darling last night were unsuccessful.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a member of the Rules and Administration Committee, wrote to the panel's leaders last week to ask for an investigation into the "document, its source, and how it came to be distributed."
"Those who would attempt to influence debate in the United States Senate should not hide behind anonymous pieces of paper," he said.
A Republican Senate official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not a committee spokesman, said yesterday that an informal inquiry began almost immediately and is likely to be concluded within a week. He said that conversations with senators, aides and reporters have turned up nothing definitive and that the inquiry is likely to end with a letter to Lautenberg saying just that.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview Friday that he considered it "ludicrous" to suggest that his party created the document and said Republicans were using such talk to divert responsibility.
"I guess the best defense is a good offense -- that's their theory," he said.
In interviews at the Capitol yesterday, senators from both sides said they find the case perplexing, and a sign of the intense partisanship that permeates the building. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said that the torrent of accusations reflects the bitterness over the life-and-death issues in the Schiavo case, which he said were a proxy on both sides for what provokes "every other ugly political conversation -- that's abortion."
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said he believed that the memo originated with the GOP because it is "totally consistent" with how the Republicans have operated for the past four years. "They just shouldn't lose their memos," he said.
You guys were saying?
SO THE SENATE REPUBLICANS LIED ABOUT THE MEMO!!!
Then in addition to using it to exploit Schiavo, once the story broke, they tried to deny it's very existance and then lied and accused in order to use the resulting controversy to blow back on the Democrats (and of course "the liberal media" for daring to report it)!
Conservative bloggers, FOX, Wash Times, Limbaugh and our own resident pundit G-Man, All promoted the bogus story that the memo was fake.
"vampires".
I'm curious monkey, does this revelation make THEM look like fools?
I know in your rush to talk shite and paint anyone who disagrees with either you or the far right wing as a fool, you may want to take a sober look at yourself and what you're believing and at your chosen party and just what astounding immorality and deception they're capable of nowadays in order to promote themselves and their agenda.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Yeah, I gotta admit they look a bit like fools now. Not necessarily liars, however. It looks, from this very article, the memo was not part of a coordinated GOP effort and even the complaining Democrat finds no ill intent: Quote:
Harkin said he has no complaints about Martinez.
"I really worked in good faith with Senator Martinez on this issue and I found him to be a decent, caring person to work with on this, and so I have a lot of respect for him," Harkin said.
Martinez said Harkin called him about 5 p.m. yesterday and told him that the memo had come from his office. Martinez said he then called in his senior staff and said, "Something is wrong here." He said that Darling later confessed to John Little, Martinez's chief of staff, and that he said he did not think he had ever printed the memo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
A bit  ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
and then G-Man's parrot chimed in to tell me what's what:
Y'know, I like liberals. I really do. I like some of the liberal posters on this board more than some of the conserivitives. In fact i can vouch for you when you insist that you're not Whomod, because I acctually liked the guy. You... not so much. You're one of these guys who makes things personal and probobly doesn't even know it. For the record I recently condemned a conservitive poster in another thread for insulting the opposition personally. And don't come back with "Get a sense of humor" or "I was only joking" because because it's obvious when jokes are peppered with venom. You'll notice how few people post here (and even fewer latey) well that's in part because of people like you (On both sides politically).
Quote:
SO THE SENATE REPUBLICANS LIED ABOUT THE MEMO!!!
Acctually as much as you hate the individuals on the other side there was nothing in that article to say they lied. They were stupid and this dfinately is a black eye and one I can't (and don't want to) defend, but you guys seem to have redefined the term "lied" in the last 4 years to fit your agenda.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
A bit ?
Wednesday. You musn't procrastinate. Procrastination is the thread-killer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
SO THE SENATE REPUBLICANS LIED ABOUT THE MEMO!!!
Acctually as much as you hate the individuals on the other side there was nothing in that article to say they lied. They were stupid and this dfinately is a black eye and one I can't (and don't want to) defend, but you guys seem to have redefined the term "lied" in the last 4 years to fit your agenda.
The basic facts in dispute were "was this a GOP memo or a Democratic fake plant?" A gop staffer wrote the memo for his boss, the same way all memos are written, likely had it vetted on staff, so who else was to blame?, and the boss took the memo, looked at it, disseminated it, and then denied it for weeks. You've lost SO badly on this one, it's practically not worth responding.
Now if you can stomach it, I want to take you on a media tour, complete with detailed quotes from the pundits, since that story initially came out.
Dissecting a right-wing smear: How conservatives used questionable evidence to blame Democrats for Schiavo memo
Sickening to say the least. Now since Sen. Martinez knew exactly where it came from (his office) and "At the time, other Senate Republican aides claimed to be familiar with the memo but declined to discuss it on the record and gave no information about its origin", then it's reasonable to say that quite a few people knew for certain that this memo did not come from the Democrats.
All that info sure didn't stop the smear coming from the Republicans and into the media. A smear that was so certain, intense, and so righteous.
Trying to guide this back to Paul as to put him on the defensive doesn't carry much weight. Considering it was you who angrily called him a "fool" for bringing it up.
Who's the foolish one now?
From Washington Times interview with DeLay:
Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?
Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Trying to guide this back to Paul as to put him on the defensive doesn't carry much weight. Considering it was you who angrily called him a "fool" for bringing it up.
Who's the foolish one now?
Angrily? I'm amazed that you can read beond my words and devine my intentions and emotional state, but I'm sorry to tell you, I'm really not that angry and it's been a long time since politics has been a sourse for me to get angry.
OK, Paul let me try to explain this in more simple terms. If you would go back and read teh post in wich I warned Paul about the risk of looking like a fool (wich considering that you want me to read page after page of a radically biased web site, it's the least you could do). You'll notice that in context I said that he would look like a fool in trying to demonise his opposition wich he continues to do and continues to make himself look the fool. Case in point you say that I can't giude this back at Paul (Jr.), wich would be true because this story is a 100% negative to the Republican side, but Paul Jr. insisted on taking it a step further and labeling cons as liars wich he could not substanciate. If he hadn't again tried to villify the opposition my face would simply be red, but allas even in this great "victory?" he insists on looking foolish and hate filled.
Oh I better add a smily lest you read this post assuming that I was screaming with rage while typing.... I wasn't 
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Angrily? I'm amazed that you can read beond my words and devine my intentions and emotional state,
Well, if your spelling were better, it would be easier...
All in good fun... 
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Angrily? I'm amazed that you can read beond my words and devine my intentions and emotional state,
Well, if your spelling were better, it would be easier...
All in good fun...
It's all a part of my deve...devio.....um, it's all a part of my evil plan!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
The story thus far:
Paul brings up a "GOP Talkings Points" memo in which a congressional staff member opines that the Schiavo case may be a political plus for the Republicans. Based on that memo, he calls them "vampires."
In response, I cite an article that says the memo MAY have been a forgery and the GOP leadership was investigating to see if that was case.
Several weeks later, a GOP Senator says one of his staffers wrote it. He fires the staffer (I think).
Paul uses this to scream "REPUBLICANS LIED."
The other Paul joins in with, basically, the same refrain.
I am, and have been, willing to admit that this makes the GOP look somewhat foolish. Some of the left will say very foolish. I can see their point, even if disagree to their degree.
However, if, as the Pauls claim the GOP knew they wrote the memo and knew it wasn't a forgery, why did they come clean now? And why participate willingly in an investigation to prove it was real?
That type of behavior just doesn't seem like liars as much as it seems like people that are willing to admit they are human, make mistakes and will cooperate with finding out the truth...even if makes them look a bit politically tone deaf in the process.
The problem, however, is that the Pauls of this world aren't ever content anymore to say "the other side is mistaken" or "the other side is misguided" or even "the other side is foolish."
Instead, it's a constant drumbeat of "LIARS!" "EVIL!" and, now "VAMPIRES!"
As noted on other threads, with such a constant level of histronics, is it any wonder their message of...dare I say it...hate... is getting tuned out?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
It's all a part of my deve...devio.....um, it's all a part of my evil plan!
It's good that you recognize your weaknesses, my son.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
It's all a part of my deve...devio.....um, it's all a part of my evil plan!
It's good that you recognize your weaknesses, my son.
What you view as weakness I view as stea.... strongness.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,524 |
*applause* Bravo, WBAM! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Glad they found out that it wasn't some fake memo from a Dem source as it was being alleged. I question how a staffer could be the only one responsible & why that possibility wasn't mentioned before. Those that suggested that the Dems were behind the memo hopefully learned a lesson. (actually a lesson for everyone to keep in mind when the next allegation makes the rounds)
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
I was in flames when I went to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Personally I think that she had been dead for years and it is hardly killing someone to stop unnaturally sustaining their life.
More importantly, I want to know if I am on wbams list of likable liberals!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Glad they found out that it wasn't some fake memo from a Dem source as it was being alleged. I question how a staffer could be the only one responsible & why that possibility wasn't mentioned before. Those that suggested that the Dems were behind the memo hopefully learned a lesson. (actually a lesson for everyone to keep in mind when the next allegation makes the rounds)
Yea, and hopefull those who claimed it was an official GOP publication learned a similar lesson.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Steve T said:
Personally I think that she had been dead for years and it is hardly killing someone to stop unnaturally sustaining their life.
More importantly, I want to know if I am on wbams list of likable liberals!
Oh, you're quite likable. Especially when you use quaint Brittish slang.
As far as unnaturally sustaining her. I ususally understand that, especially when the persoan is brain dead and thier heart is artificially pubped or thier made to breath, but what they were doing with Terry was just feeding her. She could still breath on her own.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...
Yea, and hopefull those who claimed it was an official GOP publication learned a similar lesson.
Who was making that claim?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...
Yea, and hopefull those who claimed it was an official GOP publication learned a similar lesson.
Who was making that claim?
Everyone Claiming that it was official Rep, Taliknign points, I don't know, everyone from Chris Mathews to PaulWuhulhuer.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
But were they saying it was an official memo? Considering that it did come from a republican & they were talking points, saying they were republican talking points wouldn't be lying. The only point of contention I see is that no republican Senator said they read it. Oddly even Senator Martinez hadn't seen it even though it was in his jacket pocket!?!
I would like to hear what this aid that resigned has to say about the matter.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
Before the GOP and its shills try to pass off the Schiavo memo as the work of "some staffer", note that: 1)The memo was penned by Martinez' Chief Legal Counsel -- a senior level position, not to mention a seasoned political pro; and 2) Martinez himself passed out copies of the memo And there's a DeLay connection Quote:
[Martinez flat out lied to reporters (A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her.) last month. The staff of Martinez was lying about it saying "we know we didn't produce it."
Now that Brian Darling of the Alexander Strategy Group has been penned as the author, it connects the dots to why Tom DeLay also used the talking points. The Alexander Strategy Group is a firm created by former DeLay chief of staff Ed Buckham (and yet another place from where DeLay's wife has cashed checks). Tom DeLay used the talking points at least on three occasions...
TP #3: This is an important moral issue...
DeLay on 3/18: House Republicans knew we had a moral obligation to act, and we did just that.
DeLay on 3/20: The legal issues, I grant everyone, are complicated, but the moral ones are not.
TP #8: This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.
DeLay on 3/18: Well, what we're doing in the bill that passed the Hours and a bill that passed the Senate is exactly what we're we would do for death row inmates.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/7/0825/82781
The right wing spent the last few weeks screaming bloody murder about the memo (which frankly I had forgotten about), claiming it was some sinister Democratic plot. They wanted to make a big deal about it, so let's make sure we oblige.
Margaret Carlson wrote a good peice the other day entitled " In Bushworld, the truth hurts" which pretty well summarized why I don't think you should expect any candor or honesty from anyone associated with the Republican party.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
PaulWellr said:
In reading about this case, I read about a GOP Senate 'talking points' memo obtained by ABC news where they discuss just how they're going to exploit this issue for politcal gain over the Democratic Party.
"Vampires". Those who feast on dead flesh, is more than appropriate.
As noted previously on this thread, it turns out that the memo was not part of actual endorsed GOP strategy, but a draft proposal by a staff member of one Senator.
Today, however, brings news that the official leader of the national Democrat party, Howard Dean, has come right out and promised that his party will exploit the Schiavo case for political gain:
Last night in West Hollywood, California, the Democratic National Committee chairman said the brain-damaged woman will affect the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Dean says Democrats will have an ad showing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He says the ad will ask, "Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not?"
I wonder if "Paul" plans on calling Dr. Dean and the rest of the Democrat party "vampires" also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
rex said:
I was actually going to start a thread about it, but I thought it would end up in a flame war.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
...I wonder if "Paul" plans on calling Dr. Dean and the rest of the Democrat party "vampires" also.
Isn't this more an exploitation of Delay & his own actions? Essentially holding him accountable (a hard thing to do these days) when it comes to election day?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
The only way for the GOP to have made it a political issue, in fact, the only effective way for any political party or politician to make anything a political issue, to to appeal to a block of voters by demonstrating that the other side is wrong on an issue and you are right.
So, if we believe Paul W, the GOP was going to exploit the issue by demonstrating that they were on the right side of the issue and the Democrats weren't.
Now, Dean says that his party plans to do that from their perspective.
If one is exploiting Schiavo, the other is also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
Since the Schiavo issue pretty much has run it's course, lets shift our attention to the opportunism and judicial battles left in it's wake. As for G-man, Matter Eater Man got it right. Dean wants to hold these overreaching far right conservatives accountable for using Schiavo in their efforts to unseat anyone, judges in this case, who disagree with their extremist agenda. Quote:
April 22, 2005
2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds
Taped at a private conference, the leaders outline ways to punish jurists they oppose.
Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
Frist and DeLay have not publicly endorsed the evangelical groups' proposed actions. But the taped discussion among evangelical leaders provides a glimpse of the road map they are drafting as they work with congressional Republicans to achieve a judiciary that sides with them on abortion, same-sex marriage and other elements of their agenda.
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters.
The leaders present at the March conference, including Perkins and James C. Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family, have been working with Frist to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations, a legislative tool that has allowed Senate Democrats to stall 10 of President Bush's nominations. Frist is scheduled to appear, via a taped statement, during a satellite broadcast to churches nationwide Sunday that the Family Research Council has organized to build support for the Bush nominees.
The March conference featuring Dobson and Perkins showed that the evangelical leaders, in addition to working to place conservative nominees on the bench, have been trying to find ways to remove certain judges.
Perkins said that he had attended a meeting with congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of stripping funding from certain courts was "prominently" discussed. "What they're thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them," Perkins said.
He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to "just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out there with nothing to do."
These curbs on courts are "on the radar screen, especially of conservatives here in Congress," he said.
Dobson, who emerged last year as one of the evangelical movement's most important political leaders, named one potential target: the California-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court," Dobson said. "They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone."
Robert Stevenson, a spokesman for Frist, said Thursday that the Senate leader does not agree with the idea of defunding courts or shutting them down, pointing to Frist's comments earlier this month embracing a "fair and independent judiciary." A spokesman for DeLay declined to comment.
The remarks by Perkins and Dobson drew fire from Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who charged that the two leaders were more brazen in such private encounters with supporters than their more genteel public images portray.
"To talk about defunding judges is just about the most bizarre, radical approach to controlling the outcome of court decisions that you can imagine," Lynn said.
Frist is expected to try as early as next week to push the Senate to ban filibusters on judicial nominations — a move so explosive that Democrats are calling it the "nuclear option."
Democrats have been using the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's appeals court nominees who they believe are too extreme in their views, but the skirmishes are considered a preview of a highly anticipated fight over replacing the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose retirement is considered imminent.
"Folks, I am telling you all that it is going to be the mother of all battles," Dobson predicted at the March 17 meeting. "And it's right around the corner. I mean, Justice Rehnquist could resign at any time, and the other side is mobilized to the teeth."
The remarks by Perkins and Dobson reflect the passion felt by Christians who helped fuel Bush's reelection last year with massive turnout in battleground states, and who also spurred Republican gains in the Senate and House.
Claiming a role by the movement in the GOP gains, Dobson concluded: "We've got a right to hold them accountable for what happens here."
Both leaders chastised what Perkins termed "squishy" and "weak" Republican senators who have not wholeheartedly endorsed ending Democrats' power to filibuster judicial nominees. They said these included moderates such as Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. They also grumbled that Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and George Allen of Virginia needed prodding.
"We need to shake these guys up," Perkins said.
Said Dobson: "Sometimes it's just amazing to me that they seem to forget how they got here."
Even Bush was not spared criticism. Dobson and Perkins encouraged their supporters to demand that the president act as aggressively on the judiciary as he has for his Social Security overhaul.
"These are not Bill Frist's nominees; these are President George W. Bush's nominees," Perkins said. "He needs to be out there putting pressure on these senators who are weak on this issue and standing in obstruction to these nominations," he said.
Dobson chided Frist, a likely 2008 presidential contender, for not acting sooner on the filibuster issue, urging "conservatives all over the country" to tell Frist "that he needs to get on with it."
Dobson also said Republicans risked inflicting long-term damage on their party if they failed to seize the moment — a time when Bush still has the momentum of his reelection victory — to transform the courts. He said they had just 18 months to act before Bush becomes a "lame-duck president."
"If we let that 18 months get away from us and then maybe we got Hillary to deal with or who knows what, we absolutely will not recover from that," he said.
Perkins and Dobson laid out a history of court rulings they found offensive, singling out the recent finding by the Supreme Court that executing minors was unconstitutional. They criticized Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion, noting that the Republican appointee had cited the laws of foreign nations that, Dobson said, applied the same standard as "the most liberal countries in Europe."
"What about Latin America, South America, Central America? What about China? What about Africa?" Dobson asked. "They pick and choose the international law that they want and then apply it here as though we're somehow accountable to Europe. I resent that greatly."
DeLay has also criticized Kennedy for citing foreign laws in that opinion, calling the practice "outrageous."
As part of the discussion, Perkins and Dobson referred to remarks by Dobson earlier this year at a congressional dinner in which he singled out the use by one group of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants in a video that Dobson said promoted a homosexual agenda.
Dobson was ridiculed for his comments, which some critics interpreted to mean the evangelist had determined that the cartoon character was gay.
Dobson said the beating he took in the media, coming after his appearance on the cover of newsmagazines hailing his prominence in Bush's reelection, proved that the press will only seek to tear him down.
"This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me look ridiculous," he said.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
More judges being attacked. This time Republican appointed Justice Kennedy.
Quote:
April 20, 2005
DeLay Criticizes Justice Kennedy
Sharpening his attack on 'judicial activists,' the House leader focuses on one particular judge.
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he had relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
DeLay said he thought there were a "lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists."
The No. 2 Republican in the House has criticized the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.
"Absolutely," DeLay told Fox News Radio's "The Tony Snow Show." "We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, but angered conservatives by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Still, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.
A transcript of the interview released by Fox showed DeLay was asked how the recent scrutiny has affected him.
"Well, it certainly has gotten me closer to God," DeLay said. "You don't like seeing this and it hurts your family. It hurts your staff…. But, you know, we're not going to take it. We're fighting back."
DeLay has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law giving Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in in federal court for a review of her case. All the federal courts, from the trial judge in Florida to the Supreme Court, refused to review the case. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement after Schiavo's death. He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.
Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," DeLay said.
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
DeLay has totally run amok and believes that anyone who disagrees with him should be removed from public discourse — including Supreme Court justices appointed by his own party!
DeLay has a complete disregard (and disrespect) for the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. DeLay led Congress' ill-conceived removal of Terri Schiavo's case from state courts to the federal court and then attacked the federal judges because they didn't interpret the law to his satisfaction.
This DeLay attack is another example of his outrageous conduct. After being rebuked three times by the House Ethics Committee, he had the Republican chairman removed. DeLay also attacked the Texas officials investigating DeLay's possible misuse of federal resources to intervene in the Texas redistricting dispute.
DeLay's conduct is beyond arrogance and an affront to American democracy. He acts as if he is above the law or that laws are subject to his interpretation. Our founding fathers fought to establish a nation ruled by law and not by the whims of man, including Tom DeLay.
His criticism of Justice Kennedy for doing "his own research on the Internet" made me laugh because it shows DeLay's ignorance about the Internet. These days, lawyers, judges and, yes, even Supreme Court justices can access the majority of sources for legal research most easily and efficiently via the Internet.
This reminds me of the time when the first President Bush did not know what a scanner was at the supermarket checkout line.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
As "Justice Sunday" approaches, I wanted to revive debate on the issues that were broken open into the political discourse after the Schiavo case. Sorry for piling on the articles but I've been out of town and coming back, I was surprised that these issues aern't being discussed AT all here (save for one posting in the Pope thread).
In that thread, Darknight brought up Ratzingers opposition to kerry during the election. An official religious intrusion on American politics. It's fair to note that Ratzinger had never before nor since made such pronouncments in any other countries elections. This "Justice Sunday" event is similiar in nature to Ratzingers ploy as right wing evangelicals mean to broadly paint all Democrats as godless heathens. Thankfully, there are Christians out there not falling for this.
Quote:
Frist Draws Criticism From Some Church Leaders
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 21 - As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestaant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."
Dr. Frist's participation has rekindled a debate over the role of religion in public life that may be complicating his efforts to overcome the Democrats' use of the filibuster, a parliamentary tactic used by Congressional minorities, to block President Bush's judicial nominees.
Dr. Frist has threatened to change the Senate rules to eliminate judicial filibusters, and in response Democrats have threatened a virtual shutdown of the Senate. A confrontation had been expected as early as next week, but it now appears that the showdown may be delayed.
Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.
Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.
"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."
A spokesman for Dr. Frist said his remarks, which are not yet available, would be consistent with previous statements about fair treatment for judicial nominees. "I would hope that he would read Dr. Frist's remarks," the spokesman, Bob Stevenson, said of Mr. Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Stevenson added that the timing of the confrontation on filibusters was not related to the criticisms that have been raised about the telecast, saying Dr. Frist still planned to propose a compromise to the Democrats.
Still, the Senate moved closer to a showdown on Thursday, when the Senate Judiciary Committee, voting along party lines, approved two nominees, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla R. Owen, who were blocked by a filibuster in the last Congress and are expected to be blocked again. Republican strategists consider the nominees - two women, one of whom is black - favorable choices for a filibuster fight.
There were signs, though, that Dr. Frist was planning to postpone the confrontation for at least another two weeks, when the Senate returns from a spring recess.
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said Dr. Frist had told him he would like to take up a transportation measure next week, an indication that he did not expect a filibuster fight before the Congressional recess. Polls, meanwhile, suggest a lack of public support for ending the filibuster. A recent survey conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that 50 percent of those polled believed that the Senate should retain the filibusters for judicial nominations, while 40 percent were against and 10 percent undecided.
The theme of the telecast, which is called Justice Sunday and will be broadcast to churches and Christian radio and television networks, is "The Filibuster Against People of Faith." Its sponsors argue that by blocking judicial nominees who oppose abortion rights on religious and moral grounds, Democrats are effectively discriminating against those nominees.
Dr. Frist has agreed to provide a four-minute videotaped statement for the event. Democrats are calling his participation evidence of Republican extremism.
"We're going to allow the majority leader to invoke faith to rewrite Senate rules, to put substandard, extremist judges on the bench?" Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential nominee, said Thursday on the Senate floor. Mr. Kerry added, "It's not up to us to tell any one of our colleagues what to believe as a matter of faith."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
I'm amazed how far some of these guys are willing to go to get the President's nominations in & the attacks on the judicial branch. To much power on one side already IMHO.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I think the telecast is diverting from what teh church should be focused on wich is faith rather than politics. Especially on Sunday. That acctually offends me because Sunday is the Lords Day and the curches focus should be on The Lord rather than politics, but that isn't to say they're wrong sbout everything they say. There is an attack on people of faith being apointed to teh juiciary. Not all people of faith mind you but people of any fath that doesn't see eye to eye with the radical left wing agenda. (that last term I only used to match the tone set by Paul Jr.)
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Since the issue of looking into International Law is an issue with judges in a couple of the articles posted here, you guys may find this interesting: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...ternational_lawQuote:
O'Connor Dismisses Ado Over Int'l Law
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Thursday dismissed growing criticism about the Supreme Court's use of international law in its opinions, saying it makes sense for justices to look at foreign sources when a point of law is unclear.
O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, participated in a lively one-hour discussion at the National Archives with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. She said if there is no controlling U.S. precedent or the viewpoint of states is unsettled, "of course we look at foreign law."
"This is much ado about nothing," she said in response to a question by moderator Tim Russert of NBC. "Our Constitution is one that evolves. What's the best way to know? State legislatures — but it doesn't hurt to know what other countries are doing."
O'Connor's comments come amid a growing divide on the court over the citation of international opinion to support decisions interpreting the Constitution. Last month, justices ruled 5-4 to outlaw the death penalty for juvenile killers, citing in part international sentiment against it.
O'Connor, who dissented in that ruling, wrote in a separate opinion that international law was relevant but in that case wasn't strong enough to justify striking down the practice since many state legislatures still allowed it.
Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay singled out Justice Anthony Kennedy's work as "incredibly outrageous" and "activist," citing his majority opinion in the death penalty case in particular because the Reagan appointee uses international law and "does his own research on the Internet."
Three of the justices — Scalia, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas — have said foreign law has no relevance. Scalia has been increasingly critical of the practice in recent months, pointing to decisions in recent years to decriminalize gay sex and ban the execution of the mentally retarded.
"I don't agree it's much ado about nothing," Scalia said in response to O'Connor. Regarding the death penalty case, he said the majority led by Kennedy "contradicted the view of the majority of the states."
"I don't see how international law is relevant. I don't know what a South Africa court will tell you about American law," he said.
Breyer countered: "It's appropriate in some instances to look at other places. It's not binding by any means. But if they have a way of working out a problem that's relevant to us, it's worth reading."
During the panel discussion, the three justices also said their typical work day consists mostly of reading — "on average 1,500 pages a day," according to O'Connor — and some writing.
In response to questions, the justices said they never horse-trade for votes, although at times they might seek a unanimous vote if possible in a particularly controversial case.
O'Connor, Scalia and Breyer also said they opposed live television coverage of their oral arguments, which are open to the public and available on audiotape several days afterward. They said sound bites could misrepresent the proceedings.
"For every one person who watches gavel to gavel to understand what's going on, 10,000 will see takeouts on network news I guarantee will be misinterpreted," Scalia said.
Breyer said the court prefers to avoid making a dramatic change that might prove to have unintended consequences, such as a distortion of the court's work.
"First go with the audio, and be very cautious. I think that would be my point of view," he said.
Thoughts?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Here's an editorial I came across, written by a columnist who seems to specialize in church/state issues. First, lemme give you the author's credentials (or whatever the term is) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050421.htmlMarci A. Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. An archive of her columns on church/state issues - as well as other topics -- can be found on this site. Professor Hamilton's book, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), will be published this June.Anyway, here's the editorial. Give it a fair chance and read it carefully. Quote:
Senator Frist and Representative DeLay's Claims of Supreme Court Judicial Activism and Anti-Religion Bias: Why They Aren't Persuasive
By Marci Hamilton
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist made headlines recently by charging that the Supreme Court and courts in general are both "activist" and opposed to religion. Now, DeLay is even implicitly threatening impeachment of judges who do not follow his predilections as he investigates "good behavior." Their leadership underlines the degree to which the Republican Party is now controlled by - and its identity defined by - the far right.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has been pilloried by the far right for being "activist" - while at the same time also being castigated by the far left for being "imperialistic." When these kinds of allegations are trotted out by both ends of the political spectrum, it is very good evidence that what the Court is doing is neither activist nor imperialistic.
In fact, this Court has navigated a jurisprudence that is quite moderate and is beholden to no one political or religious world view. That is as it should be.
The Far Right and Its Allegations of Judicial "Activism"
Because the Republican Party has been captured by the far right, its politics have been increasingly focusing on issues relating to sex and religion. And when those issues have landed in the courts, Republicans on the far right have ended up angrily attacking those courts and judges that do not reach results of which they approve - no matter how well-reasoned the judicial opinions at issue may be, and no matter what precedents exist.
Along these lines, the far right has tried to make opposition to abortion a litmus test for nomination to the federal courts. It has bellowed against the Supreme Court's holding, in Lawrence v. Texas, the states may not criminalize conduct that is within consenting adults' right of privacy, as interpreted to include a right to sexual autonomy. And it took strong exception to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts's Goodridge decision, holding that the state's marriage law violated its constitutional equality principles when it permitted heterosexual couples, alone, to marry.
The Schiavo Case: Trusting the Courts, Only to Turn on Them
DeLay catered to the far right when he led the charge to enact "Terri's Law," which enabled her parents to return to a federal court that had lacked jurisdiction to hear their case. (DeLay is as cynical as he is catering, however: An earlier version of the bill would have given the parents new rights, not just a forum. But DeLay and other Republicans compromised and agreed to remove those new rights from the bill in order to get it passed.)
Ironically but all too predictably, after entrusting the case to the federal courts, DeLay then turned on them. The courts had rightly found there was no existing constitutional ground raised by the Schindlers, Terri's parents, that would permit them to overturn the state court decision. In response, DeLay claimed this modest, lawful, and prudent call was "activist," and threatened that the courts would have to one day "answer for their behavior."
After some cooler head reminded him that he was directly threatening the political independence of the judiciary -- one of the pillars of the American constitutional system -- DeLay retracted these particular words, but hardly abandoned the message. Indeed, his new remarks were if anything, even more threatening: "We've got jurisdiction over the courts. We set up the courts, and we can unseat the courts." And just in case no one understood that he was threatening the courts, this Tuesday, DeLay pledged to investigate whether federal judges have complied with the Constitution's "good behavior" requirement in coming to the decisions they have reached.
This last threat, of course, is a joke of the highest order. Neither he nor any other member of Congress can unseat a sitting judge simply because he disagrees with the decisions reached. The cooler head recently mentioned needs to sit down with Mr. DeLay and engage in an elementary, maybe even remedial, course on the separation of powers.
In any event, the charge of "activism" couldn't have been farther from the mark. The federal courts - like every court from the beginning of the long litigation -- reached a conclusion based directly on the law: Florida law permits oral statements to be taken into account in these circumstances, so that Michael's testimony regarding his wife's intentions was both admissible and probative.
Far from being activist, then, the Schiavo decisions resolutely have followed the rule of law - even while all around urged the judges who issued them to follow, instead, their own religious and political beliefs.
Admirably, the judges did not see fit to bring their religious or political leanings into their decisions. That's because their job is to apply the law, not legislate it.
In the end, the Schindlers' problem was with Florida law, not with the courts. To demonize the courts now -- as DeLay is doing -- is nothing other than a shell game of political accountability.
DeLay is like a big brother who just broke mom's pitcher, who starts pointing to his hapless little brother -- just sitting there minding his own business -- and saying, "He did it. He did it."
Terri Schiavo lost her life, and her parents lost their case, because of the actions of the Florida legislature and because of Congress - which might have tried to change the outcome by granting the Schindlers, Terri, and others similarly situated new federal rights.
Trying to lay the blame on the doorstep of either state or federal courts -- which only applied the law as written -- is not only inaccurate, but morally wrong. The buck stops with the legislatures on this one, not the courts.
The Reason for the Filibuster Controversy: The Push for Evangelicals' Judges
Recently, in the Senate, there has been hot debate over the question whether the filibuster rules should be suspended during the judicial confirmation process. Again, this is evidence that the far right is the driving force behind the Party. Moderates would not object to the longstanding tradition of allowing the minority party to weigh in on nominees, and ensure they are moderate enough to garner bipartisan acceptance. What is truly sad about the current debate is that the Bush Administration has been so eager to place judges with a singular view of the world in judicial positions that the term "bipartisan" has dropped out of the process altogether.
Normally, because of the way the current filibuster rules operate, it takes 60 votes to approve a judicial candidate. The Republicans, who now have a bare majority in the Senate, want to change that rule so that only a bare majority of Senators have to approve a judicial candidate.
Religious conservatives have been eager to assist with this campaign. They know that their far right candidates are going to have tough sledding getting the votes of the moderate Democrats. Yet under current rules, those are the very votes they must obtain to be confirmed by the Senate. Amending those rules would be a radical step - thus, the step has been nicknamed the "nuclear option."
Majority Leader Sen. Frist has been eager and willing to help, once again, in the far right's efforts. On April 24, conservative evangelical Christians will hold "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith" -- an event sponsored by the ultra-conservative Family Research Council. Reports are that Frist will supply a videotaped speech supporting the so-called "nuclear option." He has also initiated a new political cry suggesting that a vote against a Bust Administration judicial candidate is a vote against religion.
Absurdly, Frist and his fellows charge that the Democrats are "anti-religion" -- despite the fact that the vast majority of them are in fact also people of faith. The issue plainly isn't really religion, per se; virtually everyone in this debate is religious. The issue, it appears, is the wish to control public policy from a narrow religious perch.
What upsets the "People of Faith" -- and the Republican party for now -- is not the lie that Democrats are anti-religion; they plainly are not. It is the truth that the courts have not followed the far right's own political and religious dictates. But if the far right is upset with this, that simply means it is upset with the Constitution. Indeed, its discomfiture goes well beyond specific constitutional issues to the very bedrock of American liberty and constitutionalism -- it is attacking the separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Establishment Clause's separation of church and state applies just as clearly to the judiciary as to the other branches: Secular judges apply secular law. It is for religious tribunals to apply religious law. If Terri Schiavo's husband were a Catholic, and the Church had chosen to excommunicate him because he would not save her life, then that would be the Church's right. For a secular judge, however, to apply his religious beliefs in Schiavo's case would have been deeply wrong, and unconstitutional.
The Republicans' claim that people of faith have been rejected because of their faith is simply factually false. The reasons for rejection have ranged from political world views, to an inclination to impose religious beliefs on secular law, to advocacy of the diminution of civil rights, and more. And all of these reasons have been made quite public.
Essentially, the far right ring of the Republican party that now controls the Bush White House is interested in appointing as many activist judges as it can to overturn Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and those decisions under the Religion Clauses -- the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause -- that have rightly precluded religious conservatives from dominating the schools, the courthouses, and public grounds. Inclusion is a right, but domination and coercion are Establishment Clause violations, and ones that often inhibit the Free Exercise rights of others.
As should be obvious by now, "activism" is a code word for results not desired by the speaker.
The Far Left and the Wrongheaded Charge of Judicial "Imperialism"
It's not only the right that's off the mark here, though. Beginning as early as 1995, or even earlier, the far left (largely led by the liberal legal academics) has taken loud, angry issue with the Court's re-establishment of modest limits embodying constitutional federalism -- limits written into the Constitution itself, that had been previously ignored for decades.
It was in 1995 that the Court decided Lopez v. United States. Lopez held that Congress exceeded its Commerce power when it enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Why? In no small part because Congress was so arrogant that it never even bothered to consider which of its limited powers, plainly enumerated in the Constitution, could possibly be the basis power to enact such a law.
In 1997, the far left cried out in pain again -- in response to another decision that simply tracked the contours of the Constitution on the federalism issue. The decision was Boerne v. Flores. There, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- the most expansive assertion of federal power over and against state laws in our nation's history -- exceeded congressional power. As I argued before the Court and in a prior column, that was exactly the right holding.
The Court's call to federalism, though long in coming, should have been welcomed by all when it came. It was an overdue reminder that the Constitution gives Congress explicitly enumerated powers, not plenary power.
The left's critique of the Court's decisions has, in essence, claimed that the Court has no business imposing any limits on Congress -- to do so, the left suggested, was not just wrong, but "imperial."
But to say this, is to ignore the Constitution. It is to claim that enumerated power actually means plenary power. And that is simply not the case.
If Congress had endless power, why in the world would the Framers have bothered to list its powers in the Constitution, one by one? History, too, shows that the transition from the loose association of the Articles of Confederation to the tighter federalism of the constitution did not negate the fact that the Constitution was a compact among the states, who were releasing some powers, but certainly not all.
The Left's Claim that the Sky Would Fall Turned Out to Be Utterly Inaccurate
The left claimed the Court's recognition of federalism was a kind of revolution, designed to undermine fundamental rights. The years that have passed have shown the absurdity of this claim. By now, it is absolutely clear that the Court has provided only the most minimal limits on Congress's enormous power.
The Court may have invalidated RFRA. But it upheld -- for example -- the Americans with Disabilities Act provisions that require state courthouses be made accessible to the disabled.
Meanwhile, the Court has said repeatedly that the Civil Rights Acts are secure. Finally, for every Act of Congress the Court has invalidated, there has been an impressive array of state laws that in fact provide the protection already; losing a redundant federal law is not much of a loss at all. The so-called civil rights "witch hunt" was far from it.
The Far Right and the Far Left Switch Positions: The Advent of Liberal Federalism
If one pays attention to the doctrine instead of the political spin, federalism is a policy-neutral principle that gives the minority political party fifty state portals to press for its political agendas. It's the very skeleton of the Constitution -- not some embellishment partisan politics engrafted.
Thus, it should be no surprise that once liberals became a political minority in Washington, they too discovered the virtues of federalism and state legislatures. They too have come to appreciate that federalism is an effective way to get their preferred social programs introduced as experiments in the various states. And so it is on the state level that they now push for the recognition of gay marriage, the provision of marijuana for medical purposes, and the right to assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
Conversely, as soon as Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and therefore held the concentrated federal power the federalism cases were intended to contain, they became considerably less dedicated to the principle of federalism. After all, they hardly need federalism to get their agendas into the political arena, now that they can go straight through the federal government themselves.
No wonder, then, the Bush Administration has used its position of power to try to force states to abandon their more liberal agendas. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken aim at both Oregon's law on assisted suicide and California's law on medical marijuana. (The latter is at issue before the Supreme Court this Term.)
At Least Get the Label Right: A Goldwater and Reagan Republican Court
Even if politics must define the Supreme Court -- and the truth is, law defines it far more -- then today's name-calling by both the far left and the far right misses the mark. This Court is, in fact, a Goldwater and a Reagan Republican Court.
The Goldwater Republicans, embodied by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, believed in individual rights, separation of church and state, and federalism. No wonder, then, that they believe that no single religious viewpoint should determine whether a woman could obtain an abortion.
Meanwhile, the Reagan Republicans were united under a single banner of smaller government (which translates into states' rights, or federalism).
These positions have been all but abandoned by the current Administration, but they were and are, above all, moderate ones. As I have argued above, federalism is not a partisan stance, but a constitutional basic. And the principle of separation of church and state, too, is no more partisan -- and no less part of our Constitution -- than, say, the fact that we have a bicameral legislature.
Of course, moderation is never appealing to extremists. Fortunately, though, it is a long American tradition. Americans consistently have valued pragmatism over formalism. So the political powers du jour can call the courts as many names as they choose -- and even rattle their legislative sabers, threatening to act against them -- but it would appear that the political independence of the courts remains healthy and sound nonetheless.
That's because an attack on the courts goes against the American temperament: We like the system we have, and are rightly loath to abandon judicial independence for political or religious mandate.
Americans, in general, are an independent-minded lot. But lately, labels affixed to various policies and laws by the two ends of the political spectrum have come to dominate American debate. That's unfortunate.
Consider judicial nominations. Plainly, the right solution is the moderate one -- and the commonsensical one as well. It is patently obvious that excellence and independence of judgment are the only qualities the Administration and the Senate should be seeking in our federal judges, who will serve for decades and face literally thousands of issues. But these qualities are antithetical to the one that is being sought by Frist and DeLay: the willingness to take orders, either from the political branches or a particular religious group.
Thoughts?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Since the issue of looking into International Law is an issue with judges in a couple of the articles posted here, you guys may find this interesting:
Thoughts?
The "international law" issue rose most prominently when the Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty for minors. What I found most ironic was that the loudest opposition and outrage was coming from these evangelical right groups who just a few weeks prior were going on about "the culture of life".
The death pentalty itself is pretty much seen as as barbaric everywhere in the world. The United states finds itself in some pretty abysmal company in it's beleifs on capital punishment. So in this regard, I don't see where it's a bad idea to look outward and see where you and your ideas trend internationally. Of course you're going to get some rhetoric about looking to"France" for consensus. But on the other side, does it really make people feel good to see the company we actually keep on this issue?
In 2004, there were at least 3,797 executions in 25 countries around the world. China, Iran, the United States, and Viet Nam were responsible for 94 percent of these known executions. The following countries executed defendants in 2004 (most figures are only of confirmed executions):
Most Executions in 2004
1. CHINA (At least 3,400 Executions)
2. IRAN (Approx. 159)
3. VIET NAM (Approx. 64)
4. UNITED STATES (59)
5. Saudi Arabia (33)
6. Pakistan (15)
7. Kuwait (9)
8. Bangladesh (7)
9. Egypt (6)
10. Singapore (6)
11. Yemen (6)
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
