| 4th December 2006 06:05 PM |
|
|
| caro |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
No,no,no caro you do not understand where I am coming from at all. The fact is that SCOTUS should NEVER look to other nations for examples pertaining to US law. That is not their job. These judges can not legislate from the bench. Period. If any foriegn laws are to be examined then that duty must fall to the legislators that write law.
Oh sorry Riffhard, I misunderstood you indeed. |
| 4th December 2006 06:48 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The fact is that SCOTUS should NEVER look to other nations for examples pertaining to US law. That is not their job. These judges can not legislate from the bench. Period. If any foriegn laws are to be examined then that duty must fall to the legislators that write law.
Riffy
Again, its accepted practice to look to foreign nations' laws - England in particular - when necessary for guidance and insight into legal issues that, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution and its case law is sparse or bare on - what do you think a cite or reference to Judeo-Christian traditions is? Scalia agrees.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with legislating from the bench, although that may be the outcome. You are confusing things. You can legislate from the bench citing anything - you could legislate from the bench citing Marbury if you wanted to. Its the result, not the content.
Finally, this is the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't think it can be clearer in DEFINING a secular nation which, of course, any nation that does not have a national religion is by definition.
sirmoonie - Satan's agent in this year's War on Christmas
 |
| 4th December 2006 07:36 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Again, its accepted practice to look to foreign nations' laws - England in particular - when necessary for guidance and insight into legal issues that, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution and its case law is sparse or bare on - what do you think a cite or reference to Judeo-Christian traditions is? Scalia agrees.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with legislating from the bench, although that may be the outcome. You are confusing things. You can legislate from the bench citing anything - you could legislate from the bench citing Marbury if you wanted to. Its the result, not the content.
Finally, this is the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't think it can be clearer in DEFINING a secular nation which, of course, any nation that does not have a national religion is by definition.
Moonie the Establishment Clause only says that Congress shall make no laws establishing a "state religion". I have no problem with that at all. I'd rather not live in a theocracy either thank you very much. However,it does not make it illegal for a town to acknowledge religion at all. This is where the whole PC thing gets in the way. When the ACLU sues a town for having a Nativity located in that town's public park,or on the lawn of the local firehouse that is taking the spirit of the law to the extreme. The ACLU tries to claim that this is exclusionary. So most towns bend over backwards to include a Menorah,a Cresent,and even a reference to Kwanza. However,now,the ACLU says that the Nativity scene is too religious and the town's are being told that a Christmas tree is ok because it is a secular decoration! Well what the fuck is a Cresent then?! A Menorah? These are both religious symbols and everyone knows it full well! The ACLU,and their progressive counterparts are trying to strip this nation of it's very identity with regards to our historic Judeo/Christian heritage. That might not bother you,but as a father with kids it bothers the hell out of me! I'd like for them to grow up in the same America that I grew up in! Also,I would advise you to go to the Jefferson Memorial in DC and count how many times the word God is engraved into the rotunda. Those quotes are from the man himself,yet if the ACLU had it's way those quotes would be sand blasted off the memorial in the name of this false secularism!
As for looking to foreign laws? Fine. By all means,but we have an ammendment process here though. If the legislative branch wants to study foreign law for reference,again fine. However,they must allow the people to vote on these laws. I sure as hell don't want Ginsberg to try and use foreign law as precedence! We the people did not get the chance to vote on England's laws so we should not be subjected or bound by them. It sounds like Ginsberg,and Breyer for that matter,want to do just that.
Riffy |
| 4th December 2006 08:18 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Yeah God forbid we actually have judges that are originalists with regards to the US Constitution,huh Jizzy? The Constitution is not malleable. It is not a "living breathing" document! At least not in the hands of the judicial branch.
Again, I ask pray tell your legal education; just one of a million ways to show the ignorance of the above is to ask you what the 9th Amendment means....yeah, God forbid judges should interpret words....get back to me after you get your JD and LLM sir.... |
| 4th December 2006 08:22 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
As for looking to foreign laws? Fine. By all means,but we have an ammendment process here though.
Please do not display your ignorance so thoroughly here; the Constitution incorporates previous Law, and that Law is -- prima facie -- foreign. Just as one example, ever hear of sovereign immunity---hint, it was not invented in 1793--yet it seems to be a big favorite amongst right wing Statist/betrayers of true conservatism. Again, pray tell your legal education?
|
| 4th December 2006 08:50 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The jury is out on many of Bush's policies here. However,one that I feel is perfectly fine is the NSA program. It has been effective.
How would we know if it is effective? It's a secret program. Just because there has not been a large scale terrorist attack does not mean that the NSA program is effective. You are proving a negative when you say it's effective.
quote:
So too may have been the terrorists bank/finacial tracking operation had the NYT not completely "outed" it and thus ruined it's effectivness.
The White House announced publicly on it's website that is was going after terrorist financing on Sept 24th, 2001. Here's the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html
Do you think the people that mean this country harm forgot about it between then and the NYT article 5 years later?
quote:
I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that the US goverment has knowingly or willing denied any Americans thier Constitutional rights.
Horseshit!Jose Padilla is the most egregious example of a US citizens' Constitutional rights being trampled on! How long was he held without access to a lawyer? Let's see he was arrested in May of 2002 and charged in Nov of 2005 . . . a US fucking citizen!!! Either all US citizens have Constitutional rights or no one does. Don't pick and choose who gets to have them.
Don't get me wrong, if Padilla is a scumbag, charge him, try him and hang him . . . but use the process that this country has. Holding citizens without charges is something you expect from a dictatorship. The fear mongering about Padilla planning to detonate a dirty bomb is in stark contrast to what the prosecutor's actually charged him with 3 years later.
|
| 4th December 2006 09:20 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Jizzy your condescension never fails to impress! The very fact that you mention the 9th Amendment only underlines my argument. The 9th Amendment is an Amendment! It was voted on by the legislative branch. Which is a branch of the goverment that is voted on by the American people. All I am saying is that I do not want the SCOTUS to dictate law from the bench as they see fit without oversight from the legislative branch. In other words they cannot arbitrarily write law by judicial fiat. What the hell is wrong with that?! I don't need a goddamned law degree to know what common sense is. You seem to be trying to twist my words in order to start an argument that I am not making.
Again,slowly this time. When I read any justice,conservative or liberal,say that we should look to foreign law as a means of determining American Jurisprudence I see a lot of red flags. Hell,I don't even need a law degree to challenge this view! If Ginsberg were trying to say that "lawmakers" should examine foreign law I have no problem with that,but it sure sounded as if she were saying that she would like to incorporate foreign law into American Juriusprudence without any legislative oversight. Again,I can not understand why this is even being discussed in partisan terms here!
Riffy
|
| 4th December 2006 09:43 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
How would we know if it is effective? It's a secret program. Just because there has not been a large scale terrorist attack does not mean that the NSA program is effective. You are proving a negative when you say it's effective.
I can only take the word of those involved in the NSA program that it has had a direct and important impact on the disruption of terrorists activities. I do know that the goverment would be foolish not to use any and all means within the US Constitution to protect the American people. The NSA program is not unconstitutional.
quote:
The White House announced publicly on it's website that is was going after terrorist financing on Sept 24th, 2001. Here's the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html
Do you think the people that mean this country harm forgot about it between then and the NYT article 5 years later?
Yes the WH did make it well known that we would do everything in our power to track terrorists finacial transactions. However,the NYT's article spelled out exactly how we were doing this. Intel agencies around the globe have gone on record as saying that after the NYT's article that the program was compromised beyond use. I can only take their word for that,but more importantly why would the NYT's decide to expose the program. For what purpose? There was a time when the media lived by the creed "Loose lips sink ships". Why would they take it upon themselves to out a secret US intel program to the terrorists who want us all dead?!
quote:
Horseshit!Jose Padilla is the most egregious example of a US citizens' Constitutional rights being trampled on! How long was he held without access to a lawyer? Let's see he was arrested in May of 2002 and charged in Nov of 2005 . . . a US fucking citizen!!! Either all US citizens have Constitutional rights or no one does. Don't pick and choose who gets to have them.
Don't get me wrong, if Padilla is a scumbag, charge him, try him and hang him . . . but use the process that this country has. Holding citizens without charges is something you expect from a dictatorship. The fear mongering about Padilla planning to detonate a dirty bomb is in stark contrast to what the prosecutor's actually charged him with 3 years later.
This is true. The govermment needs to determine how they are going to try him. The administration insists that he is an "illegal enemy combatant" though. As such he would not be eligible for US Constituional rights. So says the Administration. I don't shed too many tears for ol' Jose though. The guy was neck deep with ties to Al Queda among other terror groups. He traveled extensively through Egypt,Afganistan,Iraq,and Pakistan after 9/11/01. That said,you're right here. The goverment needs to get this Padilla bullshit sorted.
|
| 5th December 2006 06:05 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
All I am saying is that I do not want the SCOTUS to dictate law from the bench as they see fit without oversight from the legislative branch. In other words they cannot arbitrarily write law by judicial fiat. What the hell is wrong with that?!
No one said otherwise. Are you enjoying arguing with yourself so much? btw, our Courts apply 'foreign' law principles every day and have done so from the beginning.....and also btw, you ducked my question, pray tell your legal education?
|
| 5th December 2006 06:08 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
if the government wished to be able to treat people as 'combtants' or 'POW's' than it should have declared War....it did not....and it must (check out the Articles as to which branch has THAT power)...the Constitution is not some sort of cafeteria plan where you pick and choose....
|
| 5th December 2006 11:31 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
No one said otherwise. Are you enjoying arguing with yourself so much? btw, our Courts apply 'foreign' law principles every day and have done so from the beginning.....
I tried to tell him that, but he ignored me. Even more, they actually cite foreign cases now and then, not often, but now and then - usually English, but I've seen Australian, Canadian, and statutory or codified laws of other lands cited. It completely accepted jurisprudence since the Supremes announced the whole kit and kaboodle is English common law to begin with. And ANY reference or cite to "Judeo-Christian heritage" by ANYONE is nothing more than a cite to foreign law. It just is.
This is an example of how one quote in an exaggerated article, coming from a case no one read, can be the subject of tangential political cliches - in this instance, the whole "liberals legislate from the bench" monologue - its completely fucking inane.
|
| 5th December 2006 06:05 PM |
|
|
| robpop |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
How We Will Lose Our Freedom of Speech
Post on Shidoobee. |
| 6th December 2006 06:48 PM |
|
|
| polytoxic |
To use the Rocks Off vernacular, I believe that would be called
walk-off home run P.O.S.T.I.N. |
| 7th December 2006 08:44 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
I might be off but I thought the problem is actually the government is desireous of having terrorists/insurgents "NOT" given POW/combatant status as that gives the govt more vague choices with detainment, questioning, interrogation, status. My interpretation of Geneva & LOAC would support that. As a military member I have been briefed many times that were I to act on my own (or even on behalf of the US government), if I commit agressive acts against another country out-of-uniform, I will have forgone all rights established under Geneva and should expect to NOT be treated as a POW by another country.
|
