0
   

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 05:11 am
So if it was a blatant crime, why didnt any Republican whatsoever, apparently, bother to bring it up to the Ethics committee?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 01:17 pm
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Also,Jim McDermott committed a CRIME,in the legal sense ,AND the ethical sense,but the dems rallied around him and wont even let him be brought the ethics committee.
Why is that?


I repeat the same questions. If it was a crime in 1996 why has the GOP never once brought it up to the ethics committee in 8 years?.

As for the "crime", I think you need to learn what a civil suit is first of all. Then you need to read the entire piece you posted. Try this part...

Quote:
the federal statute does not prohibit the receipt of an illegally obtained recording.


Then your post again...
Quote:
First off,its ILLEGAL to record a phone call without permission of the parties on the phone.
They turned the tape over to Jim McDermott,and he then turned it iver to the NYT.
By accepting the tape,he was guilty of abetting a crime,and by giving it to the NYT he was guilty of another crime.

McDermott didn't record the conversation so he didn't commit a crime there.
No federal crime against recieving the tape so he didn't commit one there.
I don't see any fed crime in turning a tape over to a reporter either.

Let me repeat my question.. What crime?

You might want to pay attention to the reporting in the story you posted.
The case of McDermott is pretty close to the 3 points that USSC ruled on in Bartnicki
Quote:
In holding that the First Amendment right to disseminate information was the more weighty interest, the court noted three important facts that would distinguish cases like Bartnicki from those cases where the right to privacy would prevail.

First, Vopper and Yocum had nothing to do with the illegal interception and recording of Bartnicki's and Kane's conversation. They learned about it after the fact and never found out who intercepted the recording.

Second, even thought the interception was illegal, Vopper and Yocum obtained the tape lawfully because the federal statute does not prohibit the receipt of an illegally obtained recording.

Finally, the subject matter of Bartnicki and Kane's conversation was a matter of public concern. Stevens cited the months of negotiations and public debate over the proper compensation of public school teachers.

I addressed the first 2 points earlier. In the case of a member of congress conspiring to get around the ethics committee. I think that would be very much a public concern since it deals with the faith of the people in their government.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 02:38 am
Less political outcry in the UK, I think:

In a case somewhat similar to that of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo, Justice Mark Hedley of the High Court in London Thursday upheld a court order allowing a critically ill baby to die if she stops breathing. Charlotte Wyatt was born 3 months premature with serious brain, lung, and kidney damage. Physicians say she has no feeling other than pain. Doctors had taken Wyatt's parents to court to win the legal right not to resuscitate her. The Wyatts, who believe life should be preserved at any cost, said the court ruling should be overturned because Charlotte can see and hear to a limited extent and sometimes smiles which indicates her life is no longer intolerable and should be saved. Justice Hedley disagreed with this argument and said it was in Charlotte's best interest to die. Hedley said if baby stops breathing, she will be given treatment except for invasive routines of intubation and ventilation but nothing more. Hedley, however, did indicate he would review the order in October to determine any changes. The Wyatt's said they will appeal the decision.

AP report

Independent: Seriously ill baby should be allowed to die, court rules
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 05:31 am
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:32 pm
The only thing I remember about Randall Terry was an interview I saw with him circa the 80's when he was picketing abortion clinics. He seemed unstable at that time.

I think they can find footage of him saying some really foul, off the wall stuff if someone digs enough.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 06:58 am
He was picketing here in Kansas with his Operation Rescue during the "Summer of Mercy" in 1991. I think your impression of him, Lash, is accurate.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:02 am
Unfortunately, the law allows one to join a political party for any reason whatsoever. Both the Republicans and Democrats are stuck with their unstable idiots.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:10 am
Their mainstream is unstable. At least our idiots stand out.

<smile>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:23 am
True that. At least we on the right know when ours are idiots. Smile
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:27 am
LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:27 am
And you have so many to choose from.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:30 am
Yeah. You sort of missed the entire point.

You can't pick yours out because they're ALL crazy. Kennedy, Gore, Dean, Boxer, Clinton, Reid, Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, the 911 conspiracy crew, ... They've all blended in to one amorphous blob of psychosis.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:31 am
Their scratchy voices have all congealed into one shattering Dean Scream.


Eeeee-yaaaah!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:42 am
We're equating Al Gore with Randall Terry now? <sighs>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 07:43 am
Damn straight. He's lost his mind.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 08:05 am
SORTA LOST
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 08:06 am
LOL!!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:10 am
Lash wrote:
Damn straight. He's lost his mind.

Lash, can you think of any three Democratic politicians you think are not insane, or even perhaps intelligent?

Or any three US politicians who are opposed to the Bush Presidency that you'd consider sane or even perhaps intelligent?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:15 am
I'll work on that one. Meanwhile, can you produce the names of three Republican politicians who you admire?

Biden has seemed new and improved of late...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:17 am
Lieberman, though he is incredibly unpopular with his own party is a reasonable, even-handed man.


Obama has not seemed crazed. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but he seems in control of his faculties.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 06:54:59