Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2014, 12:04:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82967 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 44
1951  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 06:44:27 PM
Does everyone in the world have habeus protections? Could German POWs have petitioned the courts during WWII to be released back to Germany? They were not criminally charged (the vast majority, at least).

You showed me the relevent places in the Constitution, GM.  Are you trying to backtrack?  Your statement was that war is not a legal procedure.  I've illustrated otherwise.  Deal with it. 
1952  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 06:41:08 PM
So, everyone in the world enjoys constitutional protections? Hawaiian police officers should have attempted to arrest Admiral Yamamoto for various felonies committed at Pearl Harbor?

Everyone in the federal government is bound by the Constitution.  I think you are aware that there is a different beween the federal and state governements.  Can you illustrate to me Hawaiian police have federal jurisdiction, or is this yet another straw man question in a long line of them?
1953  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
The Constitution is not the only document or law that relates to war, but it does... and I am so glad you found the relevent Articles and sections.  And, since you did that, it is clear that you now agree that war is impacted by law, which is what you alleged. From GM: "War is not a legal procedure."  But, war is EXACTLY a legal procedure.  Congress legally raises an army.  The president is legally the commander in chief.  ONLY Congress can legally suspend habeus corpus, and ONLY then in specific circumstances.  There is a legal process by which treaties are made.  That is the WHOLE point that I have been trying to get you to acknowledge.
1954  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 03:55:02 PM
I like that you continue to refuse to stick to the subject at hand.  There are still laws that you are bound by in your examples, GM.  If there is a home invasion, there are still acceptable levels of force.  I couldn't subdue someone who entered my home with ill intent, put them in my basement and beat them daily for years.  I couldn't address the issue, and then go to their house and invade it.  I couldn't be so mad at them that I broke into someone's house in the their neighborhood. 

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that law binds actions in war?  Constitution, statute, Supreme Court opinions all do, have and were intended to impact the ways that wars are fought.  Stick to the subject, GM. 
1955  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 02:00:08 PM
"The fact that our enemies do not follow is no reason for us not to."

Why? This is chanted over and over again like it's a article of faith. There are pragmatic reasons to treat enemy prisons of war well when we are fighting a nation-state's military. There are also pragmatic reasons to not provide those same protections to those who are not honorable soldiers, such as al qaeda.

"And your relunctance to follow the Constitution except when you find it convenient is pretty damning to your stance." 

Al qaeda enjoys constitutional protections? Then Hellfire missile strikes constitute a violation of 42 USC 1983 per Graham v. Connor.

You refuse to argue the issue, GM.  The reason is because, as I've said, if we fight for freedom, liberty, the expansion of democracy and the like, then we have to be the world's exemplar.  If we fail to illustrate the benefits of freedom, etc. then there is no reason for us to fight.  And, if we are fighting without staying true to the tenets we claim to be fighting for, then we, as a free nation, are no longer fighting... we are just another country in the world.  Also, if we take issue with others mistreating our soldiers, and we do and SHOULD, then we should treat others well.  That pesky leading by example thing. 

As I've said, but you refuse to read, acknowledge, or understand, is that the Constitution binds and describes when it comes to war.  And, since the highest law of the land helps to limit the methods of fighting a war, then your argument that law and war don't mix is full of holes that an ICBM could fly through.
1956  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 01:28:27 PM
Nope, but there are still legal limits to the ways of war.

What laws of war did the N. Koreans and Chinese observe in the Korean war? What consequences did they suffer for their treatment of US POWs?

Explain the legal logic where we can't use a hollowpoint bullet on an enemy soldier, but we can launch ICBMs that burn entire cities off the map.


GM, I am not a lawyer.  The fact that our enemies do not follow is no reason for us not to.  There is a reason why they are the enemy.  And your relunctance to follow the Constitution except when you find it convenient is pretty damning to your stance. 
1957  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
And as stated many times before, al qaeda is not a party to any treaty we've signed, right?

Nope, but there are still legal limits to the ways of war.  And the fact that war (its declaration, its funding, its commander in chief) has role in the Constitution (the highest LAW of the land) should tell you that law does, in fact, play a role in war... even if you don't like it. 
1958  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 05:41:57 AM
Don't we decide what laws we do or do not apply to ourselves as a nation?

Yep.  And that is why we are signatories to many treaties, why lawyers play a role in war, and why our military has a code of conduct in times of war and peace.  We are, after all, a nation of law not of men. 
1959  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 15, 2011, 08:41:52 PM
"And, the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel was utilized so much in the wake of 9/11 means that the Bush administration would disagree with you."

Because we have become such a legalistic society, beyond the point of reason.

Just because you think that war SHOULDN'T be subject to law does not be that war IS not subject to law.  And that was your original claim.
1960  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 15, 2011, 01:52:29 PM
War is not a legal procedure. We didn't seek indictments for Hitler and Tojo. Truman didn't seek a legal opinion before dropping nukes on Japan.

Nuremberg Trials?  Milosevic?  Pinochet?  The fact that President Andrew Johnson pardoned thousands of CSA soldiers implies that there was the potential for indictment.  And, the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel was utilized so much in the wake of 9/11 means that the Bush administration would disagree with you.
1961  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 14, 2011, 08:49:30 PM
I agree with Guro Crafty here, even if he says this disingenuously (and I can't tell if he is playing "devil's advocate" here).  If the United States wants to survive, IMHO we need to survive by following that which made us great to begin with.  We, as a nation, have espoused the tenets of liberty worldwide.  If we fight for democracy, and we have, than we must necessarily fight for the protections for all. 
1962  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 13, 2011, 04:51:17 PM
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/15/still-a-bad-idea-military-commissions-under-the-obama-administration/

Still a Bad Idea: Military Commissions Under the Obama Administration
by David Glazier

David Glazier is a Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.  He has written, under the same title as this post, a paper critiquing U.S. military commissions which you can download from SSRN here.

As the Senate considers an outright ban on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo to the United States this week, it seems obvious that many proponents intend that this will lead to military commission trials of “high value” detainees held there. Although the government has successfully prosecuted several hundred suspected terrorists in federal courts since 9/11 while securing only five extremely problematic “convictions” at Guantánamo, the myth that military commissions are a superior forum for trying terrorists inexplicably persists. The media spin on the recent federal trial of Ahmed Ghailani has further fueled this erroneous perception. Although Ghailani, who is not a high-level al Qaeda figure, now faces the real possibility of life in a supermax prison, critics and mainstream media describe the case as a “near acquittal” rather than the substantial victory it represents. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, it is the military commissions which pose the much higher risk of failure in terrorism trials. The commissions have serious legal flaws which provide a number of grounds on which any convictions they render may be overturned, their ad hoc courtroom proceedings have regularly proved embarrassing to objective observers, and the controversy generated by their continued use will predictably have adverse consequences for U.S. national interests.

All five completed commission cases have involved highly questionable applications of substantive law. While the Military Commission Acts of 2006/2009 define offenses the commissions can try, they depend on these being pre-existing war crimes to avoid both U.S. constitutional and international prohibitions on ex-post facto crime creation when applied to detainees who were already in custody when the laws were passed. Yet virtually all LOAC experts agree that the primary offenses charged to date, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, are not crimes that can validly be prosecuted by a law of war tribunal. Omar Khadr was charged with additional offenses, including murder in violation of the law of war which could be war crimes in ordinary conflict scenarios, but not as applied to him. Three of the five cases – those of David Hicks, Ibrahim al Qosi, and Khadr – were resolved by plea deals in which the defendants had to waive all right to appeal even though that is forbidden by the court-martial practice on which the commissions are supposed to be based, so their infirmities will not be subject to appeal. Salim Hamdan, in contrast has appealed his conviction but although he has been free for almost two years, his case has still not even gotten through the first tier Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), mocking the idea that military judges will administer justice more efficiently than their civilian counterparts. Although Ali al Bahlul refused to allow his attorney, David Frakt, to mount any defense on his behalf at all, Frakt nevertheless preserved some issues for appeal that also have yet to be decided at any level. The MCA provides for cases surviving the CMCR to be heard by the regular Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the potential for both Supreme Court consideration as well as collateral review once direct appeals are complete. So these cases will be litigated for years to come.

While the substantive law issues alone should be sufficient to both overturn these past cases and derail many future charges, there are a slew of additional issues stemming from unique aspects of the commission process that provide additional grounds for challenge which are wholly lacking from federal trials. Key World War II precedents, for example, only uphold the authority of military officers to convene law of war commissions in the theater of their command and try violations committed during the interval from the “declaration of war” until the conclusion of a final peace treaty. It is thus questionable as to whether any pre-9/11 conduct can validly be tried by the commissions. There is also reason to doubt that a civilian official without any command authority can perform the multiple roles assigned the convening authority thousands of miles removed from the “theater” in which the conduct took place.

There are numerous other flaws including the inability of the defendants to select counsel they trust, the tribunals’ reliance on over-classification practices, use of evidence obtained through coercion despite the statutory ban on doing so, and lack of equal access to witnesses and flawed discovery processes that collectively undermine the ability of defendants to mount credible defenses. The use of substandard tribunals to try aliens which we are wholly unwilling to submit our own nationals to is entirely unprecedented in the history of U.S. military justice and provides the potential basis for an equal protection challenge. If reviewing courts are committed to justice, any of these flaws by themselves could form the basis for overturning convictions. Collectively they will undermine the credibility of any verdicts returned, chilling counter-terrorism cooperation by our friends and allies, while fueling recruitment and fund raising by our adversaries.

The Ghailani trial in contrast, saw the application of recognized charges and rulings that time in military custody does not violate speedy trial timelines and that detainee abuse does not require dismissal on the basis of outrageous government conduct. Although a district court decision is without formal precedential value, it is predictable that other federal judges would reach the same result. The idea that military commission rules offer any legitimate advantage over federal courts is simply wrong. While Ghailani’s judge did exclude one witness the government desired to use on the basis that he had been identified through coercive interrogation, military commission rules should have produced the same result. In general, military commission rules for handling classified information are now very closely based on those used in federal courts, while issues such as battlefield intelligence collection concerns are total red herrings – the Supreme Court holds the 4th Amendment inapplicable outside the U.S.

1963  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
Well, that sounds rather scary  shocked

I know!
1964  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 11:52:33 AM
BD:

So to what sources do we look to define the "Executive Power"?

Locke (Two Treatises) and Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England).  An example: the executive must have "the power to act according to discretion, for the publick good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it." (Blackstone)

1965  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 08:36:33 AM
Article I vesting clause: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (my emphasis)

Article II vesting clause: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." 

Note the key difference.  Article I expressly limits the legislative powers of Congress to those granted in the Constitution.  There is no such limit in the Article II vesting clause.  In other words, many presidents and presidential scholars have argued that the executive powers of a country, by virtue of being a sovereign state, are more extensive than those powers expressed in the Constitution.  It is also worth noting that the passage in Article II was altered between prior and final drafts.  I believe  Gouverneur Morris was primarily responsible for the shift. 

Does that clarify enough Guro? 
1966  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 06:46:40 AM
Scholars, and presidents, often point to the vesting clauses in Articles I and II as a source of the rise of presidential powers viz. those of Congress.  While it is true that the Constitution grants Congress many a power, the vesting clause in Article I also limits the powers of Congress to those enumerated in the document.  The vesting clause in Article II places no such limit on the president. 
1967  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Hmm . . . on: April 12, 2011, 08:21:59 AM
A Supreme Court justice cannot be forced to recuse him- or herself from a case. 

Two examples: Marbury v. Madison and from 2004 from then Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

"While a member of the court will often consult with colleagues as to whether to recuse in a case, there is no formal procedure for court review of a justice in an individual case,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote. “This is because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself.”



Kagan’s Recusal Manuevers
Jonathan H. Adler • April 9, 2011 11:14 am

While serving as Solicitor General, Justice Elena Kagan allegedly began maneuvering to avoid having to recuse in any eventual challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, months before her nomination was announced — indeed, even before she was told she was under consideration — according to a series of documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The National Law Journal reports on the disclosures here (registration required).

The documents, mainly in the form of printouts of internal email chains, show that now-Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – not Kagan herself — was the point person within the office on discussions of the new health care reform law and how to defend it in court. Released to CNSNews.com, a conservative-oriented news outlet, the emails also reveal how Kagan was walled off from discussions of the law — possibly because she already knew she might be nominated to the high court, where a challenge to the statute would ultimately be decided.

The release has raised eyebrows among lawyers familiar with the long tradition of the solicitor general’s office resisting release of internal documents so as not to hamper deliberations on cases. . . .

In a March 15 letter releasing the documents, Valerie Hall, executive officer of the solicitor general’s office, said they could have been withheld under [a FOIA exemption for “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters”], but the department was releasing them anyway as “a matter of agency discretion.” CNSNews.com published a story on the documents March 29


Another puzzle is that if these documents could be released under FOIA, why were they not disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee in preparation for Kagan’s confirmation hearing? Nothing reported to be in the documents would have prevented Kagan’s confirmation, nor does anything seem likely to force her recusal should the health care litigation reach the High Court, so the sudden disclosure is curious.

At NRO’s Bench Memos, Carrie Severino comments further on the disclosed documents here and here.

http://volokh.com/2011/04/09/kagans-recusal-manuevers/
1968  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: April 11, 2011, 10:00:29 AM
DougMacG: "I recall looking up that the despicable Phelps church celebrating fallen soldiers pays zero property taxes, a state/local tax credit of sorts?"  Churches of all sorts, even the ones you (or I) don't like have tax exempt status.  Although I do not agree with the message, or even Christianity of Westboro Baptist, the religious rights of parishioners are imperiled when the state gets to pick and choose between types of "legitimate" religious messages. 

Guro: There is a long line of SC case law that relates to funding/choice/aid to religious schools, which, of course, make up many (although not exclusively) private schools.  Perhaps this was Kagan's worry.  In particular, look to Everson v. Bd. of Ed. (1947); Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971); Agostini v. Felton (1997); and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) for frames of reference.  These are the "biggies."  There are many other cases that could add to the discussion. 
1969  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / brain development on: April 07, 2011, 10:32:57 AM
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
1970  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Is he out? on: April 06, 2011, 08:48:22 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_17784035?source=rss_igoogle

NEW YORK—Glenn Beck later this year will end his Fox News Channel talk show, which has sunk in the ratings and has suffered from an advertiser boycott.
Fox and Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts, said Wednesday they will stay in business creating other projects for Fox television and digital, starting with some documentaries Beck is preparing.

Beck was a quick burn on Fox News Channel. Almost immediately after joining the network in January 2009, he doubled the ratings at his afternoon time slot. Fans found his conservative populism entertaining, while Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert described Beck's "crank up the crazy and rip off the knob" moments.

He was popular with tea party activists and drew thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington last August for a "restoring honor" rally.

Yet some of his statements were getting him in trouble, and critics appealed to advertisers to boycott his show last summer after Beck said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Beck said that he went to Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO, in January to discuss ways they could continue to work together without the daily show.

"Half of the headlines say he's been canceled," Ailes said. "The other half say he quit. We're pretty happy with both of them."

Beck said he noted on his show Tuesday that "how many times can I tell the (George) Soros story," referring the liberal donor that Beck has made a target of attacks.

"We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a certain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did," Ailes said. "But that story of what's going on and why America is in trouble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told. Whether you can just keep telling that story or not ... we're not so sure."

Beck, who outlined on Wednesday's show his reasons for believing that "we're heading into deep and treacherous waters," told his viewers at the end of the show that his Fox talk show would conclude.

"I will continue to tell the story and I will be showing other ways for us to connect," he said.

More than 400 Fox advertisers told the company they did not want their commercials on Beck's show. Beck's advertisers were dominated by financial services firms, many touting gold as an investment.

Ailes dismissed the financial impact of the boycott but expressed some frustration with it.

"Advertisers who get weak-kneed because some idiot on a blog site writes to them and says we need to stifle speech, I get a little frustrated by that," he said.

One of Beck's most prominent critics—David Brock, founder of the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America—said that "the only surprise is that it took Fox News months to reach this decision."

"Fox News Channel clearly understands that Beck's increasingly erratic behavior is a liability to their ratings and their bottom line, and we are glad to see them take this action," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorofChange.org, which organized the advertiser boycott.

Beck was a lightning rod for other critics, as well. The Jewish Funds for Justice organized a petition drive last fall to get Beck fired for what it called his misuse of Nazis and the Holocaust phrases against political opponents.

Viewers had begun turning away. Beck's 5 p.m. ET show averaged 2.7 million viewers during the first three months of 2010, and was at just under 2 million for the same period this year, the Nielsen Co. said. His decline was sharper among younger viewers sought by advertisers.

Increasingly, the show began to be dominated by Beck standing in front of a chalk board giving his theories about the world's troubles.

However, Beck has built a powerful brand for himself through a daily radio show, best-selling books and personal appearances. Mercury Radio Arts is expanding and a key Fox executive, Joel Cheatwood, is joining the company later this month.

Beck's company created and operates a news and opinion website, TheBlaze.com. For $9.95 a month, he offers fans access to "Insider Extreme," a website that beams documentaries, Beck personal appearances and a video simulcast of Beck's daily radio show, with an extra hour featuring Beck cohorts.

Beck said ratings for his television show were not an issue, noting that "we have buried the competition in every sense." His supporters believe that the recent decline is more a reflection that ratings were abnormally high early last year.

"Call CNN and MSNBC and ask them if they'd like to have Glenn's ratings at 5 in the afternoon," Ailes said.

Ailes emphasized that Fox and Beck will continue to work together.

"We like each other," he said in a dual interview with Beck. "We're not drawing pictures of each other on the walls, having staff fights and stealing each other's food out of the refrigerator or any of that stuff."

———



1971  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education/Parenting on: April 05, 2011, 09:26:32 AM
Another example of liberals ruining education:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/04/professor_arrested_for_battery_after_he_shut_laptop_of_a_student_in_class
1972  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / spear phishing on: April 04, 2011, 08:27:08 AM
With the news that millions of email addresses have been compromised, my employer sent out the following links for info on so-called "spear phishing." 

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april09/spearphishing_040109.html
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci1134829,00.html
https://www.microsoft.com/australia/athome/security/email/spear_phishing.mspx
1973  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: The Straight Blast on: March 24, 2011, 09:11:30 AM
Quote from: Karsk link=topic=2176.msg47323#msg47323 date=1300831803


 [youtube

By golly, that clip looks familiar!!!!  


"d) Recently I have developed what I call "the Rabid Blast".  Like the WC/JF and the JKD Straight Blasts it seeks to impose neurological overload by punching three strikes per step (well two strikes and a sector framing strike to be specific  ).  Like the JKD SB and the Boxing Blast it seeks to impose strong forward pressure, though the footwork prefers to zig zag ("sawtooth" in our terminology) unless the opponent is so on his heels that a straight line is required to keep up with him.  Like the Boxing Blast is seeks to keep the jaw protected; though in my opinion it does so to a greater degree.  Ideally weave and shoot counters are partially dealt with by using the angle created by the sawtooth footwork, often in conjunction with what we call a "silat gator roll".  Because of our concerns about striking the skull with our fists, the strikes are heel palm.  The nature of the strikes overlaps with old school boxing, but is neither vertical fist nor boxing.
The chambers from which they initiate are different (think the double stick chamber we call the Arf-arful Dodger) and rhythmically they are a bit different too;  I may be mistaken but at the moment I think the rhythm is in 6/8."

I look forward to seeing more of this in the future. 
1974  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 24, 2011, 08:27:23 AM
I am disappointed in Linda Greenhouse here.  She knows better than to say some of the things that she wrote in this article.  She is almost always spot on, and if anything over-informed.  But here, she seems to forget information she used to know.

1.  "When I looked at voting patterns, I was surprised by what the numbers revealed: that in the divided cases, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has voted more often with Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor than with Justices Thomas, Scalia or Samuel A. Alito Jr. The number of cases is small, only nine, and there was no particular ideological spin to most of the decisions, so this is not to suggest that the term will disprove characterizations of the Roberts court, or the chief justice himself, as conservative."  This means nothing.  While she admits that it might mean nothing, by including it she draws attention to nothing.  Here is why: if in the majority at the conference stage (when the justices meet post-oral argument to preliminarily hash out the votes), the CJ will assign the majority opinion.  It is entirely possible that Roberts is voting with the "liberal wing" more often simply because he wants to assign the opinion.  CJ Burger was known to do this same thing.

2.  "Justice Thomas... has yet to write for the majority in any case this term. ...  The court’s eventual opinion in a case called Connick v. Thompson, argued back on Oct. 6, may be revealing. It is the only undecided case left from among the 12 the justices heard during the first month of the term, so by deduction, the opinion assignment should have gone to Justice Thomas, the only justice without a majority opinion from that session (Justice Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each have two.) "  There is NO SUCH THING AS "SHOULD" HAVE ASSIGNED AN OPINION.  Here is why: first of all, while balancing the workload is important, the Chief Justice (see above for why) can assign opinions for many reasons.  Who writes the fastest, who is closest ideologically, who can support the majority, who is an expert in the area of law being questioned, etc. etc.  Moreover, if Justice Thomas did not vote with the majority, he wouldn't be assigned the majority opinion.  Greenhouse has no way of knowing if he was in the majority or not, so she can't know that he "should" have been assigned the opinion.

3.  "Perhaps Justice Thomas, having received the initial assignment to write the majority opinion, has been unable to hold four other justices to his approach to this case. Or perhaps a dissenting opinion is taking a long time to incubate."  While all true reasons why an opinion announcement might be slow in coming, since she can't know that Justice Thomas was assigned the opinion, this is also meaningless. 



1975  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 18, 2011, 07:08:32 PM
Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.

A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election.  Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more. 
1976  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Men have become the weaker sex on: March 18, 2011, 04:24:00 AM
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/mar/16/men-have-become-the-weaker-sex/
1977  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iran admits cyber-attacks on: March 18, 2011, 03:57:29 AM
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/mar/16/report-iran-admits-cyber-attacks/
1978  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Rest in Peace on: March 17, 2011, 05:04:07 PM
Haven't read EAKAT, but did enjoy HT's HAs many years ago.

Also part of that crew was Ram Dass.  Is he still alive?


http://www.ramdass.org/biography
1979  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Rest in Peace on: March 17, 2011, 06:23:29 AM
I would recommend reading the "Electric Acid Kool-Aid Test" and Hunter S. Thompson's "Hell's Angels" together at some point.  Kesey and the HA were parts of a social circle and the differences of perspective on interactions is interesting (as are the interactions, all by themselves!). 
1980  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Radioactive Plume to SoCal on: March 17, 2011, 06:19:06 AM
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktla-local-radiation-monitors,0,4670867.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ktxl-Fox40NewsAtTen+%28KTXL+-+FOX40+News+at+Ten%29
1981  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 16, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
Guro and GM (in particular), I read a local newspaper account in which the local nuke plant manager says that the plant was built to withstand a 9.0 RS earthquake.  That surprises me given that those in California were not built to withstand such a shock.  I think that, like Guro, I am a bit sceptical. 
1982  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 14, 2011, 05:00:23 AM
Given the vast difference in gov't funding, it sure looks like the AWEA gets much more bang for it's lobbying buck, does it not? What's the overall size of the green industry vs. that of the oil/gas industry?

I would think that an industry that is smart with its money would appeal to you.  Also, I'm not sure the rest of subsidy information in the video is correct.  If he was wrong about the lobbying activities, I am not sure why I would trust him with the other half of that information.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

http://www.good.is/post/what-if-solar-were-subsidized-like-oil/
1983  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 09:07:42 PM
GM: According to the economist, Robert Michaels, in the video, the wind energy lobby American Wind Energy Association is "right up there" with lobbying efforts of the oil industry.  He was wrong:

AWEA gave less the $250,000 in 2009-2010.  This was the top contributor in the alternative energy industry (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1500)

The top 20 oil contributors ALL gave more than AWEA in the same time frame: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

Also, I couldn't anything on the New Madrid plants' construction strength, except for one local broadcast assuring residents that a local plant was safe. 
1984  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 08:04:29 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/13/news/economy/nuclear_power_plants/index.htm?hpt=T1

Note the magnitude of earthquake the reactors are built to withstand. 
1985  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 08:00:58 PM
GM: "I think we can all agree that "areas of seismic activity" shouldn't have nuclear plant built there."  This was the point of my original post.  I was talking about my concern with a second power plant that has been considered in an area with a major fault line.

Also, I am about to listen to the YouTube video you posted.  Thanks for the link, and for the information on CO and TMI. 

Doug: You've not offended me.  I just wanted to be clear.  I was also a bit more curt than I intended.  I was trying to call your attention to the point not "call you out."  Incidentally, Heritage does lots of interesting things.  I've even sent a student there as intern.  She had a great summer, and met, among many others Laura Ingraham and Bob Barr. 

1986  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 02:09:02 PM
According to this website, http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html, which I selected because it was the first one I found (which makes it practically a scientific find  grin), the population density of the LA area ranks 90th in the world.  New York is 114. 

More over, I am not exactly sure why this came up.  I said something about walking to work.  I don't consider my legs public transportation.  Cars led to people moving away from where they work.  This is the reason why people needed more cars and drove farther each day.  I made a conscious choice (see that Doug?) to live close to work, rather than farther away. 

I did not, and would not, suggest coercive measures for this.  But for a country that wants to have energy independence from the rest of the world, this seems like a good way to go. 
1987  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 11:18:02 AM
BD,

The majority of Americans don't live places where public transportation is economically viable. We need cars. I can tell you that as someone that has seen lots of MVAs, including fatals that smart cars aren't.

However, as people increasing move to urban centers, this becomes less true.
1988  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 13, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
Thanks for the replies on that.  BD in particular, I understand those concerns.  Of the other alternatives possible today to expand (including doing without), which way do you lean, may I ask?

Doug, I think that GM is right to point out that power has to come from somewhere and that a fully "green" energy "alternative" is largely a falsehood.  There are plusses and minuses with sources of energy.  I think that wind energy is probably my choice given the current state of technology and use.  Wind farms, many contend, are unsightly.  I never did like Senator Kennedy's view on this.  Given that I can see the nuclear power plant from at least 20 miles away, I think that is at least as unsightly.  And wind farms are a far cry from the impact on the view of coal mine operations or oil production. 

The biggest thing that I think we, as a country, need to work on is consumption.  I realize this is said all the time, but why the hell we all need separate cars, that are big, and we refuse to walk to work, or turn off a light at home, etc. etc. I just don't understand.     
1989  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 12, 2011, 07:50:47 PM
I also have fears based on wide spread use of nuclear power.  I was a kid when 3 Mile Island occured, and remember Chernobyl well.  I live close to a major fault line myself (although well outside of California), and my elected representatives have decided to explore the idea of having a second nuclear power plant in my county.  Egad!
1990  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 11, 2011, 07:47:52 AM
I'm not sure what comments to add on the Scalia piece.  It seems about right to me.  There is a long literature related coalition formation on the Supreme Court (and many other multi-player institutions).  Supreme Court specific: perhaps the most famous example of an extremely smart, highly regarded, non-influential justice was Felix Frankfurter.  A former law professor, he lacked people skills, and had difficulty convincing others to join him.  The most famous counter example was William Brennen.  He was able to convince justices to join him, in large part, because he had abilities to compromise in mutually beneficial ways to him and the other justices on a coalition.

I suspect that Scalia will be influential in the long run, though, not unlike Justice Brandeis.  Brandeis famously dissented in a case called Olmstead.  The dissent went on to form the legal understanding of wiretaps beginning in the 1960's.  I suspect that Scalia's dissents, which might be scathing, but are also well written and clear, may have an impact similar to that of Brandeis.
1991  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: U.S. Marshal Dies of Shooting Injuries on: March 10, 2011, 07:40:00 PM
U.S. Marshal Dies of Shooting Injuries

Wednesday, March 09 2011

(St. Louis, MO) -- A United States Marshal involved in a shoot-out in St. Louis Wednesday, died from his injuries last night.
Another marshal was wounded in the incident as was a St. Louis police officer.

The suspect also died after being shot by police during the standoff.

Tuesday morning, Marshals went to the door of a 36 year old man to serve a drug warrant.
Officers say the man opened fire.     

One marshal was shot and critically wounded.  He later died.  He is now identified as Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry.

The other marshal, Theodore Abegg, is in fair condition. The police officer has minor injuries.

Three children inside the house were taken to a neighbor's home before the shooting started.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_e59ccd47-e002-53f7-ba80-2d120bd4b141.html
1992  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 10, 2011, 08:56:20 AM
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

March 10, 2011, although the "storyline" goes back a few days.
1993  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 10, 2011, 08:54:33 AM
BD:

I think there are some posts about him earlier in this thread.  Apparently he has extensive successful big corporation executive experience.  In response to the argument of the article you posted, I would point out that this is QUITE a bit more experience than Obama had -- though allow me to make clear that I am not suggesting that it is enough.

Thank you, sir.  I did, indeed, find what I figured someone here knew eearlier in the thread.
1994  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: American History on: March 10, 2011, 08:53:10 AM
Nice find grin

Thank you, Freki.  And let me say that I thoroughly enjoy your contributions on the Founding Fathers/American Creed. 
1995  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: American History on: March 10, 2011, 05:10:52 AM
The presidential election of 1800:


1996  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Herman Cain??? on: March 08, 2011, 12:44:18 PM
Do any of you know more about Herman Cain than is present in this story?  Thanks.


http://www.theroot.com/buzz/former-godfathers-pizza-ceo-considering-presidential-run
1997  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / US/UK relations since the Iron Curtain Speech on: March 04, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_854e3070-45b9-11e0-800c-0017a4a78c22.html

Sixty-five years ago, Winston Churchill gave a landmark speech here in Missouri about the Iron Curtain that had descended in Europe, and the long history and future of the strategic partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom. His speech at Westminster College in Fulton focused on an alliance that delivered jobs, security and economic growth - the very same issues that tie together our two nations today.

I'm coming to Missouri to mark the anniversary of Churchill's address on March 5, 1946, and to visit businesses and universities with strong links to Britain. Throughout my time here, I'll be making a modern version of the case Churchill made on the lasting importance of the U.K.-U.S. relationship.


1998  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 02, 2011, 01:57:24 PM
From DougMacG: "Your point 3 (hypocrisy) has definite validity and DOMA is a pretty good example.  The criticism works just as well aimed at the other end of the political spectrum.  Privacy unenumerated is gospel when killing the unborn, but meaningless for other personal choices like two centuries of pay as you go healthcare."

Yes, yes.  And I thought I had made a similar point with free speech when I replied this morning.  I did not.  My apologies for the oversight.


"Point 4 'the elected branches often ignore decisions handed down by the judiciary' -  isn't that the central thesis of Fay's piece, a warning to readers that this President may press on with Obamacare even if struck down by the Supreme Court.  I don't agree with her on that but we may find out soon enough."

No.  The point of the article is that Obama is somehow single handedly causing the largest constitutional crisis since FDR's court packing scheme, or words to that general effect.  My point is that the hypothetical reaction by Obama does not portend a crisis, because presidents consistently ignore Supreme Court rulings, and have for years.  There is nothing about THIS policy or president's reaction that should constitute a crisis.

Now, if the article was talking about the gradual erosion of the separated powers, or some similar thesis, then there might be a worthy discussion.  
1999  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 02, 2011, 10:36:12 AM
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Mark Sherman, Associated Press
 
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

2000  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 02, 2011, 05:57:20 AM
This article seems to be a non-starter for me.  Here are some reasons: 1, there is no real reason for the Obama administration to end the implementation of "Obamacare" based on the decision of a district court.  If you disagree, and that is fine, please recall that the Bush administration did not alter the course of the war on terror when district courts made constitutional decisions about issues such as prisoners' rights.  2, any auther who writes as though the Supreme Court/judicial branch has a monopoly on constitutional interpretation is either pretending or is ignorant.  The executive branch interprets the Constitution all the time (see, for example, "Office of Legal Counsel").  (Side note: additional proof of the auther not being the most informed court watcher comes early in the article when referring to "Justice" Vinson.)  3, it never ceases to amaze me when conservatives decry the role that the Supreme Court plays in the constitutional schema in one breath, and then, when convenient, want to uphold the rule of law (or however it is worded) when the Court (or a court) decides a case in a manner that they like.  You can't have it both ways.  4, the elected branches often ignore decisions handed down by the judiciary.  (Google INS v. Chandha legislative veto). 
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 44
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!