BernardR wrote:Oh, I can read all right- Here was the last paragraph of the article--
Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with one of the parties in the case.
end of quote. She'll be overturned by the Sixth Appealate which does not usually agree with Jesse Jackson type legal reasoning!!
Ahhh, now I understand. You're a selective reader, gleaning bits and pieces from articles that you have but a miniscule understanding of.
Again, from the same article. You sure are full of yourself. Let me see, BernardR, who can hardly put a sentence together or this legal scholar,
Quote:
"It certainly would have been prudent" for Taylor to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University who was an author of "Judicial Conduct and Ethics."
Hmmmm, who would a thinking person believe?
I guess that if, and when, the NSA case gets to the Supreme Court, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will have to recuse themselves. They all worked for Republicans.
McCarthyism is alive and well.
The NSA surveillance is critical to national security as are all other reasonable measures our current and all of our previous presidents would have used to counter a very real threat from terrorists operating covertly and with deadly motives.
Those who want to use that issue to embarrass or weaken President Bush are in fact saying they WANT us to lose the war on terrorism. What kind of patriots wants to weaken the government's ability to meet its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense? What knd of patriot wants to see America lose in Iraq? What kind of patriot wants to see America weakened and unable to sustain one of the most magnificent experiments in government ever attempted?
I think it would be wise to help the President and others who work for us, and it would be wise to help and encourage our military to achieve victory, and it would be wise to review history to see that the USA has done very good things for itself and many billions of other people when it is strong and confident.
Think twice before trying to take it down.
Advocate wrote:I guess that if, and when, the NSA case gets to the Supreme Court, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will have to recuse themselves. They all worked for Republicans.
McCarthyism is alive and well.
At least some common sense is alive and well, thankfully. We need a couple more reasonable people on the Supreme Court. Thank you, George W. Bush.
foxfyre advises
Quote:Think twice before trying to take it down.
Now, the next step is to provide some indication that you can actually tell down from up.
Foxfyre wrote:
Think twice before trying to take it down.
From the ridiculous to the ridiculouser, Foxy. Don't you teach? Wouldn't it be reasonalbe to assume that teachers deal in facts, not emotions and opinions?
Here are excerpts from an email from Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to New York Times reporter Adam Liptak regarding Liptak's front page article,
Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision,
found at,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?ex=1313640000&en=5f8f4ba4ca8ad621&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Quote:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/bloggerati-response-to-judge-taylors.html
It's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel,
although I certainly agree with the many who predict that, while her reasoning is bound not to be embraced, her bottom line is very likely to survive appellate review.[/[/size]B]
When a presidential program that wouldn't have been exposed at all but for leaks that the administration is trying not just to plug but to prosecute is manifestly lawless in the most fundamental respects; when that program challenges constitutional as well as statutory constraints on executive authority; when it is promulgated by an executive branch in the hands of characters who care little about the rule of law, much less about legal nuance; and when the lawmakers who are posturing as the program's critics have in fact engineered a statutory "fix" that amounts to little more than a whitewash in the offing -- when all these things are true, it's not costless to harp on the details of a basically correct legal denunciation of that program to the point of ridiculing the motives and capacities of the judge delivering the blow. Taking that tack is likely to play into the hands of the administration that was caught red-handed.
JTT wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
Think twice before trying to take it down.
From the ridiculous to the ridiculouser, Foxy. Don't you teach? Wouldn't it be reasonalbe to assume that teachers deal in facts, not emotions and opinions?
Here are excerpts from an email from Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to New York Times reporter Adam Liptak regarding Liptak's front page article,
Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision,
found at,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?ex=1313640000&en=5f8f4ba4ca8ad621&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Quote:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/bloggerati-response-to-judge-taylors.html
It's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel,
although I certainly agree with the many who predict that, while her reasoning is bound not to be embraced, her bottom line is very likely to survive appellate review.[/[/size]B]
When a presidential program that wouldn't have been exposed at all but for leaks that the administration is trying not just to plug but to prosecute is manifestly lawless in the most fundamental respects; when that program challenges constitutional as well as statutory constraints on executive authority; when it is promulgated by an executive branch in the hands of characters who care little about the rule of law, much less about legal nuance; and when the lawmakers who are posturing as the program's critics have in fact engineered a statutory "fix" that amounts to little more than a whitewash in the offing -- when all these things are true, it's not costless to harp on the details of a basically correct legal denunciation of that program to the point of ridiculing the motives and capacities of the judge delivering the blow. Taking that tack is likely to play into the hands of the administration that was caught red-handed.
I would need HUGE verification of the situation before taking the opinion of a Harvard law professor, representing probably one of the most profound examples of leftwing (and anti-President Bush) bastions within America. I've seen far too many opinions from law professors and judges and news commentators and politicians, all highly educated, that I believe to be not only poorly informed fuzzy thinking, but absolutely anti-American. Now when somebody who has demonstrated in word and deed that he loves his country and wants to be a part of solutions instead of one who contributes nothing but criticism, says it is wrong, then I'll rethink my position.
So far those who have demonstrated that they love their country and want to be a part of solutions have no problem with the President's surveillance program targeting communications between the USA and terrorist organizations around the world.
God help us if you Bush-haters succeed in stopping that program.
fox
An x-ray of your stomach would show the clear outlines of a hook, a line, and a sinker.
I think an x-ray of your stomach would reveal that you are doing quite well, Foxfyre-- I would not, however, wish to see the Cardiograms of most of the left wing. All of them, would, I am sure, reveal severe blockages rendering passage of blood to the brain problematical, resulting in confused and illogical thinking!
Foxfyre wrote:
I would need HUGE verification of the situation before taking the opinion of a law professor, representing probably one of the most profound examples of leftwing (and anti-President Bush) bastions within America. I've seen far too many opinions from law professors and judges and news commentators and politicians, all highly educated, that I believe to be not only poorly informed fuzzy thinking, but absolutely anti-American. Now when somebody who has demonstrated in word and deed that he loves his country and wants to be a part of solutions instead of one who contributes nothing but criticism, says it is wrong, then I'll rethink my position.
********************************************************
Foxfyre is absolutely correct.
Our government does not and should not respond to professors who may be left wing and almost quasi-Communistic. The correct procedure for the government to follow--any US government-headed by Republicans or Democrats is to allow the dispute to make its way through the courts.
The Sixth Appealate District will decide, and, if necessary, it will be remanded to the US Supreme Court for a final decision, as was the conflict on Guantanamo.
I do not hear the left wing screaming and shouting about the Guantanamo decision made by the Supreme Court since the Court has obviously authorized the Congress of the US to set up procedures to be utilized by the military courts in Guantanamo.
That was a good decision!
And, now, the left wing will just have to digest the news that there will be an appeal from the decision of a very left wing Judge, who, has contributed thousands of dollars to the ACLU WHICH WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CASE SHE ADJUDICATED.
There can be no greater example of CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE JUDGE'S PART.
'
IN THE MEANWHILE, THE WIRETAPS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE and we in the USA will be so much safer because of them!!!
I really wonder what the American security policies would look like with Blatham, JTT, and/or Harvard law professors in charge.
Foxfyre wrote:I really wonder what the American security policies would look like with Blatham, JTT, and/or Harvard law professors in charge.
That's obvious, Foxy. Legal, constitutional and moral. A far cry from what they are now and what you and the rest of the scoundrels want.
The alternatives that are stacking up certainly don't reflect all that nicely on these rabid conservative republican; delusional, deliberate liars, or incredibly simple-minded folks.
Quote:
Are You Bush Defenders Just Blowing Smoke, or Do You Really Not Get It?
by Andrew Bard Schmookler
Three recent public statements by defenders of the Bush regime have reminded me that one of the enduring challenges for the student of human affairs is to discover where self-deception ends and the deliberate deception of others begins.
Take for example the recent performance of President Bush's new press secretary, Tony Snow. In a recent press briefing, Snow was fielding questions about the NSA gathering of Americans' phone records.
Snow happily cited a quick poll indicating that almost two-thirds of Americans don't object to the government monitoring such records for the presumed purpose of catching terrorists. But when presented with other negative poll results, Snow declared that a president "cannot base national security on poll numbers."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0525-29.htm
Nobody has convinced me yet that the Bush administration's policies on security are illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. I do however, without any qualifications, say that the activities of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups are obscene, immoral, unjustifiable, unconscionable, and intolerable. And they'll destroy us if they can.
So you go right ahead and insert the Left wing's idea of legal, constitutional, and moral into the national security of our country. But I hope you are quick with languages because you're likely to be required to pray in another language before this generation passes, assuming that you still have your head.
Patrick Henry:
Quote:Give me Liberty, or give me Death!
Foxfyre:
Quote:Take my Liberty, and save me from Death!
While you may not be a
coward, you certainly sound like one. Sheesh. And the Republicans are supposed to be the tough party.
Cycloptichorn
I would agree if I thought the present administration had taken away a single unalienable, legal, or constitutional right or any material privilege, opportunity, or means of livelihood or restricted me in any way or compromised my privacy in any way. As they have done none of these things to me or anybody else, I think you're all wet.
You don't know whether they have done those things or not, as you are not privy to information on whether or not you have been spied upon; yet you advocate their right to do so in the name of keeping you safe. Same thing.
You ridicule those who wish to remain in the laws of America to keep us safe; how can you possibly state that you don't support breaking those laws? You don't support the removal of liberty?
BTW, the President has taken away one of your rights: the right to not be spied upon without a warrant. This is a right provided to you in part by the 4th amendment and in part by FISA. Your (the prez. as well) disagreement with FISA does not rob it of any of its authority as a duly signed Bill of Congress. Of course, you know this, and choose to ignore it.
Cycloptichorn
And, of course, the reason why no one has convinced you that no one has convinced you that the Bush Administration's policies are illegal or unconstitutional is because the USSC has not ruled on most of the topics.
I am certain that the USSC will not handicap the Chief Executive in carrying out his most important duty--to protect the lives and fortunes of the people of the USA.
Thus far, only one case has gone to the USSC--the case concerning the judicial procedures necessary to make certain that the "rights" of the prisoners at Gitmo are upheld. What happened there? The Senate is now crafting procedures to be used by the military tribunals at Gitmo.
There will be FEW sustantive changes.
As for "wire-tapping", that case will go to the sixth Appealate and if necessary, to the USSC.
It might not be resolved until June 2008.
In the meantime, the selective wire tapping can continue- Thank the Lord we will continue to be protected!
Those who have doubts are directed to examine the British experience with the Heathrow plots that were foiled.
Of course, those wearing the tin foil hats will charge that it is all a gigantic conspiracy!!!
Foxfyre wrote:The NSA surveillance is critical to national security as are all other reasonable measures our current and all of our previous presidents would have used to counter a very real threat from terrorists operating covertly and with deadly motives.
Those who want to use that issue to embarrass or weaken President Bush are in fact saying they WANT us to lose the war on terrorism. What kind of patriots wants to weaken the government's ability to meet its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense? What knd of patriot wants to see America lose in Iraq? What kind of patriot wants to see America weakened and unable to sustain one of the most magnificent experiments in government ever attempted?
I think it would be wise to help the President and others who work for us, and it would be wise to help and encourage our military to achieve victory, and it would be wise to review history to see that the USA has done very good things for itself and many billions of other people when it is strong and confident.
Think twice before trying to take it down.
What is more important in the area of security than secretly tracking the development of nukes in Iran? But this was of little concern to the White House vermin who blew the cover of the covert CIA agent doing the tracking. It is interesting that the right in a2k see no threat to our security in this.
Seems to me that we've been doing a great job of tracking nukes in Iran. What covert CIA agent?
fOXFYRE-
Advocate- The clueless one wrote_
What is more important in the area of security than secretly tracking the development of nukes in Iran? But this was of little concern to the White House vermin who blew the cover of the covert CIA agent doing the tracking. It is interesting that the right in a2k see no threat to our security in this.
end of quote
And you asked which covert CIA agent?
You will not, of course, get an answer. You see, foxfyre, Advocate makes things up out of whole cloth.He is completely ignorant about Iraq. Since he NEVER gives links or evidence,you will not get an answer that is verifiable.
