Daily Kos Features Picture of Justice Scalia in Nazi Uniform

[red states rule]

Nothing like seeing the softer side of the left folks. The sheer hate of the far left moonbats is something to behold


Daily Kos Features Picture of Justice Scalia in Nazi Uniform
By Noel Sheppard | February 13, 2008 - 10:28 ET
Does the hatred in the Netroots know no bounds?

In 2006, one of their leaders posted a picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) in black face.

On Tuesday, one of the "Recommended Diaries" at Daily Kos featured a picture of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a Gestapo uniform (right) under the headline, "Today's Worst Person in the World"

After some quotes from an Associated Press article about Scalia's views on "so-called torture," the DKos piece elaborated (with seemingly requisite vulgarity I might add while cautioning readers before they proceed):

I realized that this place gets a little touchy when it comes to Nazi portrayals and comparisons... if I jumped the shark, so be it, flame away, Godwin's Law be dammned. My late father, God rest his soul, went to war to put an end to this s**t. Those of you who read what I write here know that I very rarely if ever resort to profanity, but I say from the bottom of my heart and with every last breath of pride in my country, "F**k you, Antonin Scalia." I am not a government scholar, but surely there is something in place to censure or disbar your ass.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/13/daily-kos-features-picture-justice-scalia-nazi-uniform

and

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/12/20371/2849/92/455542

[Joe Steel]

Daily Kos Features Picture of Justice Scalia in Nazi Uniform

What's the problem?

Fat Tony probably likes the image.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/02/2008-02-12ScaliaNazi.jpg

[red states rule]

When libs can't debate the issue they fall back on smearing their opponents

How typical

[Joe Steel]

When libs can't debate the issue they fall back on smearing their opponents

How typical

Fat Tony said torture is OK.

What's to debate?

[red states rule]

Fat Tony said torture is OK.

What's to debate?

What torture?

If you are talking about waterboarding, it has been used only 3 times - has not been used in years - and each time the terrorist cracked in less then a minute and gave up info that saved lives

Even BP could not counter those facts,a nd you will not be able to either

[Joe Steel]

What torture?

This torture:


Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

Scalia in uncompromising form (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7238665.stm#)

[red states rule]

This torture:

So like your other liberal buddies, you are more interested in the comfort of terrorists, rather then preventing their attacks, and saving lives?

[Joe Steel]

So like your other liberal buddies, you are more interested in the comfort of terrorists, rather then preventing their attacks, and saving lives?

Actually, I'm more concerned with being subject to a government which thinks torturing suspects is OK.

Where does it end?

Would torturing burglary suspects be permissible? What if you were a suspect and you didn't do it? Would it be OK then?

[red states rule]

Actually, I'm more concerned with being subject to a government which thinks torturing suspects is OK.

Where does it end?

Would torturing burglary suspects be permissible? What if you were a suspect and you didn't do it? Would it be OK then?

US citziens are covered under the US Constitution

Terrorists are not

I do not give a damn what is used to stop terrorist attacks and saving innocent lives

[manu1959]

Actually, I'm more concerned with being subject to a government which thinks torturing suspects is OK.

Where does it end?

Would torturing burglary suspects be permissible? What if you were a suspect and you didn't do it? Would it be OK then?

they are talking about interrogating terrorists.....slippery slope arguments are bullshit....and if they are not bullshit then a symmetrical argument in reverse is applicable....we would not want to emotionally hurt anyone that may or may not have done anything so we will arrest no one on the off chance we may offend someone....

evil people have made a choice and the consequence of that decision is to be treated accordingly....

being waterboarded is a small price to pay for murder....

[Joe Steel]

US citziens are covered under the US Constitution



That's not what Fat Tony says. He says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

[Joe Steel]

they are talking about interrogating terrorists.....slippery slope arguments are bullshit....and if they are not bullshit then a symmetrical argument in reverse is applicable....we would not want to emotionally hurt anyone that may or may not have done anything so we will arrest no one on the off chance we may offend someone....

evil people have made a choice and the consequence of that decision is to be treated accordingly....

being waterboarded is a small price to pay for murder....

Fat Tony says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

Any suspect may be tortured.

[manu1959]

That's not what Fat Tony says. He says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

of terrorists.....stay on topic....the conversation is not about red light runners....

[red states rule]

That's not what Fat Tony says. He says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

He criticises the politicisation of the process of appointing Supreme Court Justices, but blames this on the court for being too flexible in interpreting the Constitution.

This means that politicians want to appoint a judge who will "write the new constitution that you like."


If it saves lives, why not slap a suspect in the face

Woudl you rather have innocent people die?

[manu1959]

Fat Tony says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

Any suspect may be tortured.

really ..... link me up to his quote where he says that....any suspect for any crime may be tortured....

[red states rule]

really ..... link me up to his quote where he says that....any suspect for any crime may be tortured....

He is lying, and taking the quote out of context

[manu1959]

He is lying, and taking the quote out of context

gee ya think.....:laugh2:

[glockmail]

....

Where does it end?

.... With liberalism, it ends in forced socialism, which is exactly what the Nazis represented.

One again the Libs accuse conservatives of being what they aspire to.:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

of terrorists.....stay on topic....the conversation is not about red light runners....

Sorry. No.

I've already posted the link.

Try reading it.

[red states rule]

Sorry. No.

I've already posted the link.

Try reading it.

As with most liberals, Joe would be content to hold up a copy of the US Constitution in front of the TV cameras, and try to explain to the America people the "rights" of the terrorists came first, and why they could not use all methods to exctract info from the terrorists

Behind them, EMT's would be carrying the dead bodies out of the blast area - MEanwhile Reid and Pelosi were in DC holding a press conference demanding to know why the Bush administration failed to stop the attack

[Joe Steel]

Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

He criticises the politicisation of the process of appointing Supreme Court Justices, but blames this on the court for being too flexible in interpreting the Constitution.

This means that politicians want to appoint a judge who will "write the new constitution that you like."


If it saves lives, why not slap a suspect in the face

Woudl you rather have innocent people die?

Fat Tony is a "textualist." He believes the Constitution means only what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn't say anything about torturing suspects so it doesn't prohibit torturing of suspects.

[red states rule]

Fat Tony is a "textualist." He believes the Constitution means only what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn't say anything about torturing suspects so it doesn't prohibit torturing of suspects.

The US Consitution does mean what it says. Libs twist it into more positions then a Bill Clinton intern

[Joe Steel]

As with most liberals, Joe would be content to hold up a copy of the US Constitution in front of the TV cameras, and try to explain to the America people the "rights" of the terrorists came first, and why they could not use all methods to exctract info from the terrorists

Behind them, EMT's would be carrying the dead bodies out of the blast area - MEanwhile Reid and Pelosi were in DC holding a press conference demanding to know why the Bush administration failed to stop the attack


Where does it end?

Would you be willing to torture burglary suspects?

[Joe Steel]

The US Consitution does mean what it says. Libs twist it into more positions then a Bill Clinton intern

Do you agree with Fat Tony, then?

Can suspects be tortured?

[red states rule]

Do you agree with Fat Tony, then?

Can suspects be tortured?

You do not care if innocent lives are saved - you libs are the best friends the terrorists have

I have siad many times, I do not give a damn what has to be done to get info from terrorists

[Little-Acorn]

Daily Kos Features Picture of Justice Scalia in Nazi Uniform

Leftist wingnuts are depicting effective mainstream conservatives as Nazis.

Why is this considered "news"?

.

[Joe Steel]

You do not care if innocent lives are saved - you libs are the best friends the terrorists have

I have siad many times, I do not give a damn what has to be done to get info from terrorists

This isn't about terrorists. Fat Tony suggested any suspect can be tortured.

Do you think suspects can be tortured as Fat Tony suggested?

[Gaffer]

Do you agree with Fat Tony, then?

Can suspects be tortured?

Yes I agree with him. Terror suspects should be tortured if necessary.

The Constitution only states people will not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about interrogating suspects or enemy combatants. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners.

Slapping someone around is not torture, it's slapping someone around. If they talk and give information to prevent being slapped again, then it is effective. If it prevents you and your family from being killed isn't it worth it?

[Immanuel]

RSR,

I have a question for you.

One of our right-wingers on site, I don't remember who it was, recently had an avatar of Hillary Clinton's face in a NAZI uniform with a "Hitler" mustache. Was that any different than this picture?

I really had not thought about it with the Hillary/Hitler avatar and wouldn't have thought twice about this piece of satire. Now, that you mention it, I think the picture of Justice Scalia is inappropriate, but then so was that avatar.

Immie

[Joe Steel]

Yes I agree with him. Terror suspects should be tortured if necessary.

The Constitution only states people will not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about interrogating suspects or enemy combatants. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners.

Slapping someone around is not torture, it's slapping someone around. If they talk and give information to prevent being slapped again, then it is effective. If it prevents you and your family from being killed isn't it worth it?

Any suspect?

A burglary suspect?

You?

[Gaffer]

Any suspect?

A burglary suspect?

You?

Any terror suspect is what I said.

Burglary is not a terrorist action.

If I was planning to commit mass murder, yes.

You avoided my question.

[Joe Steel]

Any terror suspect is what I said.

Burglary is not a terrorist action.

If I was planning to commit mass murder, yes.

You avoided my question.

You avoided the issue.

Fat Tony implies any suspect may be tortured. He didn't limit the torture to terror suspects.

Do you agree with Scalia?

[Gaffer]

You avoided the issue.

Fat Tony implies any suspect may be tortured. He didn't limit the torture to terror suspects.

Do you agree with Scalia?

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I already said I agreed with him. Do you have a selective reading problem?

[red states rule]

RSR,

I have a question for you.

One of our right-wingers on site, I don't remember who it was, recently had an avatar of Hillary Clinton's face in a NAZI uniform with a "Hitler" mustache. Was that any different than this picture?

I really had not thought about it with the Hillary/Hitler avatar and wouldn't have thought twice about this piece of satire. Now, that you mention it, I think the picture of Justice Scalia is inappropriate, but then so was that avatar.

Immie

I did not like the avatar. Libs love to play the Hitler card - usually when they can't offer any facts to counter their opponets argument

We do have to sink to thier level - the facts are usually on our side

[avatar4321]

Fat Tony is a "textualist." He believes the Constitution means only what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn't say anything about torturing suspects so it doesn't prohibit torturing of suspects.

And the Constitution does mean only what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wherever did you get this idea that the Constitution says what it doesnt say? And how on earth do you find that at all logical?

[avatar4321]

I did not like the avatar. Libs love to play the Hitler card - usually when they can't offer any facts to counter their opponets argument

We do have to sink to thier level - the facts are usually on our side

That's because it's a sensational argument. youll get people who won't think rationally about it.

If they did they would quickly realize which party was arguing the same issues as Hilter was.

[red states rule]

And the Constitution does mean only what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wherever did you get this idea that the Constitution says what it doesnt say? And how on earth do you find that at all logical?

The same way liberals say tobacco companies are out to kill our kids and they need to be stoped - but they think sucking a babies brains out its head as it is nearly out of the womb is a US Constitutional right

[avatar4321]

The same way liberals say tobacco companies are out to kill our kids and they need to be stoped - but they think sucking a babies brains out its head as it is nearly out of the womb is a US Constitutional right

Are you suggesting that Americans don't have the right to murder their children?

[red states rule]

Are you suggesting that Americans don't have the right to murder their children?

The USSC said they do - one of the worst decisions in the history of our country

But my post does show the thought process of liberals

[glockmail]

RSR,

I have a question for you.

One of our right-wingers on site, I don't remember who it was, recently had an avatar of Hillary Clinton's face in a NAZI uniform with a "Hitler" mustache. Was that any different than this picture?

I really had not thought about it with the Hillary/Hitler avatar and wouldn't have thought twice about this piece of satire. Now, that you mention it, I think the picture of Justice Scalia is inappropriate, but then so was that avatar.

Immie
All I did here was put a little black spot on here. Any resemblence to a historical figger is purely coincidental.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/Hitlery.jpg

[Joe Steel]

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I already said I agreed with him. Do you have a selective reading problem?

No you didn't. You said "Yes I agree with him. Terror suspects should be tortured if necessary." That's not what Scalia said. Scalia said anyone can be tortured. Do you agree with that? Do you agree burglary suspects can be tortured?

[Kathianne]

That's not what Fat Tony says. He says the Constitution does not prohibit torture.

No he didn't, what he SAID, you quoted:


Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

[Joe Steel]

And the Constitution does mean only what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wherever did you get this idea that the Constitution says what it doesnt say? And how on earth do you find that at all logical?

Where'd you get that? I never said anything like it.

[Joe Steel]

No he didn't, what he SAID, you quoted:

That's right. He said torture is not prohibited.

[Gaffer]

No you didn't. You said "Yes I agree with him. Terror suspects should be tortured if necessary." That's not what Scalia said. Scalia said anyone can be tortured. Do you agree with that? Do you agree burglary suspects can be tortured?

ANSWER MY QUESTION!

[Kathianne]

That's right. He said torture is not prohibited. LIE

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's not what he said:


Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

[avatar4321]

Where'd you get that? I never said anything like it.

You were objecting to Scalia's strict constructionist viewpoint complaining that he actually believes that the words mean something and dont mean what they don't mean.

If you don't object to strict construction of the constitution, then you shouldnt be angry at Scalia for applying it.

[Immanuel]

I did not like the avatar. Libs love to play the Hitler card - usually when they can't offer any facts to counter their opponets argument

We do have to sink to thier level - the facts are usually on our side

Thank you for the answer. I thought my post got ignored and/or missed.

I don't remember whose avatar it was. It bothered me but I remained silent about it, but then when I saw this thread and thought that the picture of Justice Scalia was in poor taste, I remembered that avatar and thought that I thought it too was in poor taste and that was why I didn't like it in the first place.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but to associate her with Adolf Hitler is just plain wrong in my opinion.

As for sinking to their level, well at that point, you and I will have to agree to disagree, but somehow, I don't think I will convince you of my side on that issue so I'm not going to waste the keystrokes. :D

Immie

[Immanuel]

All I did here was put a little black spot on here. Any resemblence to a historical figger is purely coincidental.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/Hitlery.jpg

That is not the one I was talking about.

There was an avatar, might have been yours, but I am not sure of that, of her dressed in a NAZI uniform giving the NAZI salute, (whatever that is called) and with the mustache drawn in.

As for this picture, well, anyone with brains knows what you are insinuating and... well refer to last post. We're better than that!

Immie

[JohnDoe]

LIE

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's not what he said:

So, if any POW is allegedly suspect of holding back imminent information that could save lives, it is ok? I think this is what scalia implied, right?

But how do they know if the suspect has imminent information that can save lives before they start the physical contact on him and who has to sign off on that as really being the case, Kath?

jd

[red states rule]

So, if any POW is allegedly suspect of holding back imminent information that could save lives, it is ok? I think this is what scalia implied, right?

But how do they know if the suspect has imminent information that can save lives before they start the physical contact on him and who has to sign off on that as really being the case, Kath?

jd

The bottom lie is JD, the US does not torture terrorists. I know your party has done its best to paint the picture we do

If it means saving innocent lives, I really do not care what they do to get the information that will stop the attacks

We are talking about terrorists who would not hesitate for a minute to cut your head off and move on

[Immanuel]

The bottom lie is JD, the US does not torture terrorists. I know your party has done its best to paint the picture we do

If it means saving innocent lives, I really do not care what they do to get the information that will stop the attacks

We are talking about terrorists who would not hesitate for a minute to cut your head off and move on

No, we are talking about people who are accused of being terrorists. Some, in fact most, might be but not necessarily all of them. If you have ever been accused of a crime that you did not commit then you know that this country does not live by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty". I suspect that if you had ever been accused of a crime you did not commit then you would not be for torturing people who are not proven to be guilty. They make your life hell until YOU prove your innocence.

For me it is hard to argue that someone who might know about the next attack that could kill thousands of people if not tens of thousands be protected from torture, but all I have to do is think that there may be a few people in that group who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time who are speaking the truth when, "I don't know anything", is beaten out of them and I realize that there has to be a better way.

When we torture (by any means) innocent people and we find out that they are innocent do we simply pat them on the back, tell them we are sorry and send them packing?

Immie

[red states rule]

No, we are talking about people who are accused of being terrorists. Some, in fact most, might be but not necessarily all of them. If you have ever been accused of a crime that you did not commit then you know that this country does not live by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty". I suspect that if you had ever been accused of a crime you did not commit then you would not be for torturing people who are not proven to be guilty. They make your life hell until YOU prove your innocence.

For me it is hard to argue that someone who might know about the next attack that could kill thousands of people if not tens of thousands be protected from torture, but all I have to do is think that there may be a few people in that group who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time who are speaking the truth when, "I don't know anything", is beaten out of them and I realize that there has to be a better way.

When we torture (by any means) innocent people and we find out that they are innocent do we simply pat them on the back, tell them we are sorry and send them packing?

Immie

Yes, the liberal media could not call a know terrorist what he is - a terrorist

Newsweek: Imad Mughniyeh a 'Suspected Terrorist'
By Ken Shepherd | February 13, 2008 - 16:55 ET
Earlier today I noted how Reuters avoided calling the late Imad Mughniyeh of Hezbollah a terrorist. Now it appears Newsweek is gun-shy with the label, or at least its headline editors are.

The subhead for today's Web Exclusive, "Death of a Hizbullah Leader" reads, "Attack fells a suspected terrorist with a list of enemies."

But don't blame the article's writer, Kevin Peraino. He dropped the "suspected" modifier in his article:

One afternoon during Israel's summer war with Lebanon 18 months ago, I met with a couple of senior Israeli intelligence officers at an office outside Tel Aviv. As Hizbullah's rockets rained down on the north of the country, most of the world was focused on trying to deconstruct the motives of the Islamist group's most prominent leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The Israeli officers, on the other hand, had zeroed in on a figure less well known to the public but infamous in intelligence circles: Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbullah's deputy secretary-general. Mughniyeh had been linked to some of the deadliest acts of terrorism on record, including a string of suicide attacks targeting Americans in Lebanon and the kidnapping of the CIA's Beirut station chief, William Buckley, in the 1980s. By the summer of 2006 conventional wisdom held that the aging terrorist was no longer a key player in Hizbullah's day-to-day operations. Still, the Israeli intel officers told me they were increasingly concerned about an elite and quickly growing new cadre of Hizbullah operatives, known as Unit 1800; according to a flow chart that one of the men slid across the table, the unit reported up the chain of command to Mughniyeh.


Another item of note: accompanying the article was a photo of Mughniyeh credited to "Hizbullah Media Office-AP."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/02/13/newsweek-imad-mughniyeh-suspected-terrorist

[Immanuel]

Yes, the liberal media could not call a know terrorist what he is - a terrorist

Newsweek: Imad Mughniyeh a 'Suspected Terrorist'
By Ken Shepherd | February 13, 2008 - 16:55 ET
Earlier today I noted how Reuters avoided calling the late Imad Mughniyeh of Hezbollah a terrorist. Now it appears Newsweek is gun-shy with the label, or at least its headline editors are.

The subhead for today's Web Exclusive, "Death of a Hizbullah Leader" reads, "Attack fells a suspected terrorist with a list of enemies."

But don't blame the article's writer, Kevin Peraino. He dropped the "suspected" modifier in his article:

One afternoon during Israel's summer war with Lebanon 18 months ago, I met with a couple of senior Israeli intelligence officers at an office outside Tel Aviv. As Hizbullah's rockets rained down on the north of the country, most of the world was focused on trying to deconstruct the motives of the Islamist group's most prominent leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The Israeli officers, on the other hand, had zeroed in on a figure less well known to the public but infamous in intelligence circles: Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbullah's deputy secretary-general. Mughniyeh had been linked to some of the deadliest acts of terrorism on record, including a string of suicide attacks targeting Americans in Lebanon and the kidnapping of the CIA's Beirut station chief, William Buckley, in the 1980s. By the summer of 2006 conventional wisdom held that the aging terrorist was no longer a key player in Hizbullah's day-to-day operations. Still, the Israeli intel officers told me they were increasingly concerned about an elite and quickly growing new cadre of Hizbullah operatives, known as Unit 1800; according to a flow chart that one of the men slid across the table, the unit reported up the chain of command to Mughniyeh.


Another item of note: accompanying the article was a photo of Mughniyeh credited to "Hizbullah Media Office-AP."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/02/13/newsweek-imad-mughniyeh-suspected-terrorist

You obviously don't want to think about this. As I said, most in captivity are probably terrorist, but there are probably some being held who are not.

Don't tell me you are one of those who when a Texas prisoner who was executed is later exonerated says, "Oh well, no big loss! So what we executed an innocent man but we know there are guilty ones that got away with it. Keep pulling that lever, sooner or later you will get the right guy."

Here, check out this thread floating around this morning and put yourself in the place of this mother.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=11959

I'm sure she deserved to spend 13 years of her life in prison plus the time on trial. I mean she probably stole a candy bar once in her life.

Immie

[red states rule]

You obviously don't want to think about this. As I said, most in captivity are probably terrorist, but there are probably some being held who are not.

Don't tell me you are one of those who when a Texas prisoner who was executed is later exonerated says, "Oh well, no big loss! So what we executed an innocent man but we know there are guilty ones that got away with it. Keep pulling that lever, sooner or later you will get the right guy."

Immie

With DNA it is unlikely an innocent man will be excuted. I rememebr Newsweek running a cover story on a killer in VA who was to be excuted. Their cover title was "He may be innocent!"

Well, he was excuted and years later DNA proved he did it

No retraction by Newsweek BTW

The terrorists were captured on the battlefield or swept up in their bomb factrories - did they make a wrong turn and got lost on their way to Mom's house?

[Immanuel]

With DNA it is unlikely an innocent man will be excuted. I rememebr Newsweek running a cover story on a killer in VA who was to be excuted. Their cover title was "He may be innocent!"

Well, he was excuted and years later DNA proved he did it

No retraction by Newsweek BTW

The terrorists were captured on the battlefield or swept up in their bomb factrories - did they make a wrong turn and got lost on their way to Mom's house?

Maybe they did and maybe they are not terrorists?

Do we run DNA on all SUSPECTED terrorists to find out if they are guilty of anything or is it simply, "you look muslim! Guilty!"?

And one more thing, we trust our soldiers in Iraq. But they have been put into a very stressful situation. They are being asked to be judge and jury in the case of anyone that gets in their way. You can't blame them for simply grabbing everyone and locking them up.

Immie

[red states rule]

Maybe they did and maybe they are not terrorists?

Do we run DNA on all SUSPECTED terrorists to find out if they are guilty of anything or is it simply, "you look muslim! Guilty!"?

And one more thing, we trust our soldiers in Iraq. But they have been put into a very stressful situation. They are being asked to be judge and jury in the case of anyone that gets in their way. You can't blame them for simply grabbing everyone and locking them up.

Immie

The troops are not the judge and jury - the terrorists will have a trial. I am so fed up with this crap these poor innocent "freedom fighters" are the victims

The NY Times is siding with the terrorists and pleading their case with a front page "news" story

Many times, these terrorists were released due to lack of evidence only to be picked up again on the battlefield

'Critics' (and NYT Reporters?) Say Bush 'Squandered the Country's Moral Authority'
By Clay Waters | February 13, 2008 - 11:28 ET
New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers's "news analysis" on Tuesday's front page, "Trial's Focus To Suit Bush" (on seeking the death penalty for six Guantanamo detainees for the 9-11 attacks) could have more accurately been labeled "one reporter's anti-war opinion."

Note the strangely precise excorations that Myers elicited from unnamed "critics."

Mr. Bush never sounds surer of himself than when the subject is Sept. 11, even when his critics argue that he has squandered the country's moral authority, violated American and international law, and led the United States into the foolhardy distraction of Iraq.

"Six and a half years ago, our country faced the worst attack in our history," Mr. Bush said late last week, speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I understood immediately that we would have to act boldly to protect the American people. So we've gone on the offense against these extremists. We're staying on the offense, and we will not relent until we bring them to justice."

The 9/11 candidate, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, may have dropped his bid for the White House. But the 9/11 presidency is far from over.

....

Only a year ago, Iraq appeared to have deflated the president's popularity and eroded his standing even among Republicans and the Pentagon's generals. But Mr. Bush now appears to have laid a foundation to keep more than 130,000 American troops on the ground in a mission he has justified as part of a broader fight against terrorism, despite an overwhelming groundswell against an unpopular conflict. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates on Monday essentially endorsed a "pause" in further troop withdrawals once those troops sent in last year as part of a temporary buildup go home.


Tuesday's story reads much like Myers's "White House Memo" from August 27, which also put words in the mouths of unnamed "critics" in order to forward his own opinions about Iraq, like this:

Critics have called Mr. Bush's ever upbeat message delusional. His rationale for the war has shifted so much since 2003 that any new pitch will have skeptics. His analogy last week between the war in Iraq and the epic struggles of World War II, the Korean War and, especially, the Vietnam War was ridiculed by some as revisionist or simply inaccurate."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/02/13/critics-nyt-reporters-say-bush-squandered-countrys-moral-authority

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12assess.html?scp=2&sq=steven+lee+myers&st=nyt

[Joe Steel]

You were objecting to Scalia's strict constructionist viewpoint complaining that he actually believes that the words mean something and dont mean what they don't mean.

If you don't object to strict construction of the constitution, then you shouldnt be angry at Scalia for applying it.

I'm not angry. In fact, I agree with him. Strictly interpreted, the Constitution doesn't prohibit torture of suspects.

However, I don't see how Slappy Thomas can agree with him. Slappy is a natural rights supporter and I think he'd have to find a natural right against torture in the Ninth Amendment.

[Joe Steel]

So, if any POW is allegedly suspect of holding back imminent information that could save lives, it is ok? I think this is what scalia implied, right?

That might have been the context of Fat Tony's remarks but I don't see how he can limit the torturing. The Constitution doesn't prohibit torturing suspects so a textualist would have to find than torturing any suspect is OK.

[Immanuel]

The troops are not the judge and jury - the terrorists will have a trial. I am so fed up with this crap these poor innocent "freedom fighters" are the victims



Bullshit!

When do they get their trial. Did GWB say something like, "They get their trial when Hell freezes over" so you believe his promise?

And any man or woman who is being held in captivity by us who is not a terrorist is innocent. Seems to me like you don't care about any innocent people who happen to get caught up in the fervor.

No one wants to protect the guilty. But, you seem to be more than glad to throw a few innocent in with the guilty just to be certain that we get them all. That is simply immoral.

Immie

[retiredman]

Bullshit!

When do they get their trial. Did GWB say something like, "They get their trial when Hell freezes over" so you believe his promise?

And any man or woman who is being held in captivity by us who is not a terrorist is innocent. Seems to me like you don't care about any innocent people who happen to get caught up in the fervor.

No one wants to protect the guilty. But, you seem to be more than glad to throw a few innocent in with the guilty just to be certain that we get them all. That is simply immoral.

Immie

Immie, my friend:

RSR has already stated his complete willingness to support using any and all methods of torture on detainees...for him, waterboarding is just the beginning of what he would condone and allow. His total absence of morality is a matter of record.

[Immanuel]

RSR,

Why don't you simply admit that you support the captivity and/or torture of any Iraqi/muslim held by the US whether or not they are guilty of being a terrorist? You obviously don't care about innocence or guilt. That will get us beyond this point rather than your dancing around the question of guilt.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I will say that i believe that Scalia IS being irresponsible and he should know better than to mouth off on topics that could come in to his hands at a later date.

He needs to keep his mouth shut, or face impeachment for dereliction of duty, as far as i am concerned....

jd

[glockmail]

That is not the one I was talking about.

There was an avatar, might have been yours, but I am not sure of that, of her dressed in a NAZI uniform giving the NAZI salute, (whatever that is called) and with the mustache drawn in.

As for this picture, well, anyone with brains knows what you are insinuating and... well refer to last post. We're better than that!

Immie Her mannerisms and policies are similar to Hitler's. That's all I'm saying.

[Immanuel]

Her mannerisms and policies are similar to Hitler's. That's all I'm saying.

That is okay. I'm not judging you on it. I'm only saying that it bothered me. It just seems so inappropriate.

And, I pray to God that if she wins the White House, you are wrong. I don't like thinking of the idea of a purge here in America, especially a purge of her "opponents".

Let's see, Manhattan with Scotch rather than whiskey? Do you have a prefered brand of Scotch? ;)

Immie

[glockmail]

That is okay. I'm not judging you on it. I'm only saying that it bothered me. It just seems so inappropriate.

And, I pray to God that if she wins the White House, you are wrong. I don't like thinking of the idea of a purge here in America, especially a purge of her "opponents".

Let's see, Manhattan with Scotch rather than whiskey? Do you have a prefered brand of Scotch? ;)

Immie I'm not wrong. Just read her positions. They are socialist and she is willing to use force of law to get her way. That means guys with guns holstered, unless you resist, then they will be pointed at you.

Lately I've been drinking Old Smuggler. I haven't developed a taste for the expensive brands. During the Martini season, however, I like Bombay Saphire.

[Immanuel]

I'm not wrong. Just read her positions. They are socialist and she is willing to use force of law to get her way. That means guys with guns holstered, unless you resist, then they will be pointed at you.



Socialist yes! No argument there. As for the willingness to use force... well, there are at least two things to think about here, 1) will Congress give her what she wants and 2) would she go that far.

As, I said, I pray you are wrong.

Immie

[glockmail]

Socialist yes! No argument there. As for the willingness to use force... well, there are at least two things to think about here, 1) will Congress give her what she wants and 2) would she go that far.

As, I said, I pray you are wrong.

Immie

1. Waco. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB_vQrN5Wx8
2. Elio:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/elian_iggy.jpg

[Immanuel]

Glock,

You can hardly lay that on Hillary... unless of course you think she wears the pants in that family. :D

Immie

[retiredman]

Her mannerisms and policies are similar to Hitler's. That's all I'm saying.


this post seems to make a liar of the author of post #40.

hmmmmmm.

[retiredman]

Lately I've been drinking Old Smuggler. I haven't developed a taste for the expensive brands. During the Martini season, however, I like Bombay Saphire.

Old Smuggler!!! I am not surprised. They sell that in a drum, don't they?

You drink rotgut scotch and can't even spell the name of the good gin!


oh...but you got an A in "English lit for car mechanics! :laugh2:

laugh a minute!

[glockmail]

Glock,

You can hardly lay that on Hillary... unless of course you think she wears the pants in that family. :D

Immie


You obviously didn't watch the linked video.

[glockmail]

Old Smuggler!!! I am not surprised. They sell that in a drum, don't they?

You drink rotgut scotch .....

What brand do you buy for your Manhattans?

[retiredman]

What brand do you buy for your Manhattans?

most cocktail aficionados I know would say that a manhattan is made with rye and a rob roy is made with scotch.

And when I make rob roy's - which I rarely do - I use Grant's or Dewar's. When I drink scotch on the rocks, it is nearly always The Famous Grouse.

Regardless, Old Smuggler is shitty, low end scotch that is worse than any bar would serve as their well pour...

well...I guess I really can't say that. Maybe where you're from, that is not the case.... maybe, next to your corn squeezins, it seems pretty smooth.

[Immanuel]

You obviously didn't watch the linked video.

I'm sorry, but I don't see where there is any evidence of her being involved in the cover-up. Her name was mentioned a couple of times, but I really didn't hear any proof of it

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I pray you are wrong.

Immie

[glockmail]

most cocktail aficionados I know would say that a manhattan is made with rye and a rob roy is made with scotch.

And when I make rob roy's - which I rarely do - I use Grant's or Dewar's. When I drink scotch on the rocks, it is nearly always The Famous Grouse.

Regardless, Old Smuggler is shitty, low end scotch that is worse than any bar would serve as their well pour...

well...I guess I really can't say that. Maybe where you're from, that is not the case.... maybe, next to your corn squeezins, it seems pretty smooth.

We were having a polite conversation about how I make my Manhattans before you rudely interupted with your booze snobbery. It would be best if you just left. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

[glockmail]

I'm sorry, but I don't see where there is any evidence of her being involved in the cover-up. Her name was mentioned a couple of times, but I really didn't hear any proof of it

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I pray you are wrong.

Immie Hoping and praying is whay one does when faced with a situation outside of human control. In this case that facts about the Clintons speak for themselves: they are not to be trusted. It would be foolish to "pray" that they suddenly become honest if they rise to power again.

[glockmail]

Variations on the Manhattan:

Dry Manhattan- Use a dash of dry vermouth and garnish with a lemon twist.
Perfect Manhattan- Equal parts of sweet and dry vermouth. Garnish with a lemon twist.
Brandy Manhattan- Replace whiskey with brandy.
Scotch Manhattan- Replace whiskey with Scotch.
Southern Comfort Manhattan- Replace whiskey with Southern Comfort http://cocktails.about.com/od/atozcocktailrecipes/r/mnhtn_cktl.htm

:mm:

[retiredman]

We were having a polite conversation about how I make my Manhattans before you rudely interupted with your booze snobbery. It would be best if you just left. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.


you did ask me what scotch I used for my manhattans. I answered.... quite politely.

Do you make your own corn likker, by the way, or do you buy it from Luke down the holler from ya?

[retiredman]

http://cocktails.about.com/od/atozcocktailrecipes/r/mnhtn_cktl.htm

:mm:

http://cocktails.about.com/od/atozcocktailrecipes/r/rbry_artf.htm

"The Rob Roy is the Scotch whisky version of the Manhattan and is sometimes referred to as a Scotch Manhattan. It was named after Robert Roy MacGregor, the Scottish Robin Hood of the 18th century. Like the Martini and Manhattan, the Rob Roy can also be made dry or perfect."

sometimes...by hicks who use Old Smuggler!:laugh2:

[glockmail]

you did ask me what scotch I used for my manhattans. I answered.... quite politely.

Do you make your own corn likker, by the way, or do you buy it from Luke down the holler from ya?

I asked you that becasue only a fool would mix good scotch with anything other than ice. You did not dissapoint.

The last moonshine I got was from the Junior Johnson clan, actually. That was two years ago and my source has since moved to Tennessee.

[glockmail]

....

sometimes...by hicks who use Old Smuggler!:laugh2: Back to your "hick" insult again I see. And you were just complaining about being insulted. Since I'm better educated than you, if I'm a "hick", then what does that make you?

[Kathianne]

Wow, this is enlightening. Can't you guys take the :pee: to the cage?

[retiredman]

I asked you that becasue only a fool would mix good scotch with anything other than ice. You did not dissapoint.

The last moonshine I got was from the Junior Johnson clan, actually. That was two years ago and my source has since moved to Tennessee.

I don't consider Grant's or Dewars to be "good scotch".

[retiredman]

Back to your "hick" insult again I see. And you were just complaining about being insulted. Since I'm better educated than you, if I'm a "hick", then what does that make you?


why would you say that you are better educated than me?

and I have known some fairly well educated hicks in my day. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

So, if any POW is allegedly suspect of holding back imminent information that could save lives, it is ok? I think this is what scalia implied, right?

But how do they know if the suspect has imminent information that can save lives before they start the physical contact on him and who has to sign off on that as really being the case, Kath?

jd
Where was such implied, seriously.

[glockmail]

I don't consider Grant's or Dewars to be "good scotch".


why would you say that you are better educated than me?

and I have known some fairly well educated hicks in my day. :laugh2:

Great. A booze snob. Dewars ain't good enough for a friggin' Manhattan. :cool:

Because I obviously am. (BS Engineering Cum Laude plus grad school; licensed in 3 states including NY; published; CEUs up the wazoo).

[retiredman]

Great. A booze snob. Dewars ain't good enough for a friggin' Manhattan. :cool:

Because I obviously am. (BS Engineering Cum Laude plus grad school; licensed in 3 states including NY; published; CEUs up the wazoo).

what is your graduate degree?

Dewars is fine for a manhattan...if you read my post, I said that it was what I use...that or Grant's. Neither one of which I would drink over ice if there were anything better available.

[manu1959]

I asked you that becasue only a fool would mix good scotch with anything other than ice. You did not dissapoint.

The last moonshine I got was from the Junior Johnson clan, actually. That was two years ago and my source has since moved to Tennessee.

mixing good scotch with ice is sin.....

[retiredman]

mixing good scotch with ice is sin.....

I am sorry. If I drink Johnny Walker Blue or really old Laphroaig, I drink it neat... but again...my everyday scotch (after Lent) has been and will be The Famous Grouse over three big cubes... and it would be my everyday scotch at twice the price.

[glockmail]

what is your graduate degree?

..... Never paid to do a thesis, so I did not pick up the skin. What is yours in?

[nevadamedic]

Great. A booze snob. Dewars ain't good enough for a friggin' Manhattan. :cool:

Because I obviously am. (BS Engineering Cum Laude plus grad school; licensed in 3 states including NY; published; CEUs up the wazoo).

He's a Liberal, they don't have good taste at all and tend to be cheap unless they are spending someone else's money.

[Kathianne]

Never paid to do a thesis, so I did not pick up the skin. What is yours in?

Education. Now working on history. It's not that hard to get someone to pick up the tab.

BTW, I personally don't think degrees the man or woman make, regarding real intelligence.

[glockmail]

Education. Now working on history. It's not that hard to get someone to pick up the tab.

BTW, I personally don't think degrees the man or woman make, regarding real intelligence. Neither do I, which is why I didn't bother paying. I took all the courses required, at night while working a full time career, except for the thesis. That would have taken too much time away from work which I could not afford at that time. Plus I had only marginal respect for some of the profs which would be grading it.

[Kathianne]

Neither do I, which is why I didn't bother paying. I took all the courses required, at night while working a full time career, except for the thesis. That would have taken too much time away from work which I could not afford at that time. Plus I had only marginal respect for some of the profs which would be grading it.

Trust me, I had less than 'marginal' for 3 of the 5 profs I was working under. I hear you. I too was working full time and doing other commitments, it's not easy.

[retiredman]

Never paid to do a thesis, so I did not pick up the skin. What is yours in?

BS in Naval Engineering and an MBA with concentrations in marketing and finance.

[glockmail]

BS in Naval Engineering and an MBA with concentrations in marketing and finance.
In that case you've got more skin than me. Unless of course I gather up my three State licenses.

[retiredman]

In that case you've got more skin than me. Unless of course I gather up my three State licenses.

I will never question your intelligence again.

If I do, call me on it.

[manu1959]

it would seem hell hath frozen over....

[glockmail]

I will never question your intelligence again.

If I do, call me on it.


it would seem hell hath frozen over.... I'm still waiting for the hick, inbred, or redneck accusation.

[retiredman]

I'm still waiting for the hick, inbred, or redneck accusation.

they will not be forthcoming.

[glockmail]

they will not be forthcoming. You should put down the bottle more often. :poke:

j/k

[retiredman]

You should put down the bottle more often. :poke:

j/k


maybe this detente will end abruptly on Easter, but I sincerely hope not.:cheers2:

[red states rule]

I will say that i believe that Scalia IS being irresponsible and he should know better than to mouth off on topics that could come in to his hands at a later date.

He needs to keep his mouth shut, or face impeachment for dereliction of duty, as far as i am concerned....

jd

JD, so now you want to take away Justics Scalia's free speech rights? Or do you want the conservative Judges to never grant an interview?

I wonder if you would be so upset if it was Justice Ginsburg repeating her opinion the USSC should rely of foreign law to make their decisions

[bullypulpit]

Nothing like seeing the softer side of the left folks. The sheer hate of the far left moonbats is something to behold


Daily Kos Features Picture of Justice Scalia in Nazi Uniform
By Noel Sheppard | February 13, 2008 - 10:28 ET
Does the hatred in the Netroots know no bounds?

In 2006, one of their leaders posted a picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) in black face.

On Tuesday, one of the "Recommended Diaries" at Daily Kos featured a picture of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a Gestapo uniform (right) under the headline, "Today's Worst Person in the World"

After some quotes from an Associated Press article about Scalia's views on "so-called torture," the DKos piece elaborated (with seemingly requisite vulgarity I might add while cautioning readers before they proceed):

I realized that this place gets a little touchy when it comes to Nazi portrayals and comparisons... if I jumped the shark, so be it, flame away, Godwin's Law be dammned. My late father, God rest his soul, went to war to put an end to this s**t. Those of you who read what I write here know that I very rarely if ever resort to profanity, but I say from the bottom of my heart and with every last breath of pride in my country, "F**k you, Antonin Scalia." I am not a government scholar, but surely there is something in place to censure or disbar your ass.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/13/daily-kos-features-picture-justice-scalia-nazi-uniform

and

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/12/20371/2849/92/455542

If the shoe fits, buy the other one. Justice Scalia's remarks were not in keeping with his role as a justice on the US Supreme Court and clearly indicate more than a measure of disdain for the laws and the Constitution he has sworn to uphold. But we already knew that.

[bullypulpit]

JD, so now you want to take away Justics Scalia's free speech rights? Or do you want the conservative Judges to never grant an interview?

I wonder if you would be so upset if it was Justice Ginsburg repeating her opinion the USSC should rely of foreign law to make their decisions

Scalia's "free speech" must be tempered by the fact of his position. He can give all of the interviews he wants, but when it comes to issues which may come before his bench, silence is golden. In his case however, it doesn't really matter since he is an avowed proponent of the concept of a unitary executive...also known as a dictatorship.

As for "foreign law", does the concept of legal precedent ring a bell with you?

[jimnyc]

I will say that i believe that Scalia IS being irresponsible and he should know better than to mouth off on topics that could come in to his hands at a later date.

He needs to keep his mouth shut, or face impeachment for dereliction of duty, as far as i am concerned....

jd


Scalia's "free speech" must be tempered by the fact of his position. He can give all of the interviews he wants, but when it comes to issues which may come before his bench, silence is golden. In his case however, it doesn't really matter since he is an avowed proponent of the concept of a unitary executive...also known as a dictatorship.

As for "foreign law", does the concept of legal precedent ring a bell with you?

While I agree that he should be careful of his statements and how they can be construed, I would LOVE to see how JD thinks impeachment proceedings can be brought forth against him. SC Justices have been giving their opinions on things since forever, and his right to speak doesn't end when the issue is controversial.

[red states rule]

Scalia's "free speech" must be tempered by the fact of his position. He can give all of the interviews he wants, but when it comes to issues which may come before his bench, silence is golden. In his case however, it doesn't really matter since he is an avowed proponent of the concept of a unitary executive...also known as a dictatorship.

As for "foreign law", does the concept of legal precedent ring a bell with you?

Why the hell should foreign law be used when ruling on the US Constitution?

Funny how when Bush's nominees said they could not comment on issues that may come before them, Dems accused them of ducking the questions

It seems libs like you BP are never happy with any answer these conservative Judges give. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has ravaged your brain and soul

[glockmail]

....

As for "foreign law", does the concept of legal precedent ring a bell with you?
The US is a sovereign country, is it not?

[retiredman]

The US is a sovereign country, is it not?

an interesting perspective:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/1/4/p41144_index.html

[glockmail]

an interesting perspective:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/1/4/p41144_index.html
That's great but I'm interested in the liberal perspective. Yes or no?

[retiredman]

That's great but I'm interested in the liberal perspective. Yes or no?

it merely indicates that the Supreme Court has, in the past, used foreign laws in determining American cases. There is precedence for doing so.

[glockmail]

it merely indicates that the Supreme Court has, in the past, used foreign laws in determining American cases. There is precedence for doing so. So liberals think that this is a correct approach? Yes or no.

[retiredman]

So liberals think that this is a correct approach? Yes or no.

why does everything have to be a yes or no question for you? I do not speak for all liberals. I do agree with Justice Breyer that we should not rule out looking at foreign precedence when deciding new precedents ourselves.

[glockmail]

why does everything have to be a yes or no question for you? I do not speak for all liberals. I do agree with Justice Breyer that we should not rule out looking at foreign precedence when deciding new precedents ourselves. The only precedence that the SCOTUS should review is the COTUS.

[red states rule]

The only precedence that the SCOTUS should review is the COTUS.

To libs, the US Constitution has more positions then a Bill Clinton intern, and more meanings then Bill Clinton under oath

[retiredman]

The only precedence that the SCOTUS should review is the COTUS.

that is your opinion. I disagree.

[actsnoblemartin]

Why SHOULD the american supreme court, use precident from other countries.

What next, the u.n. runs america,

[retiredman]

Why SHOULD the american supreme court, use precident from other countries.

What next, the u.n. runs america,

go read the link in post #110

[red states rule]

Why SHOULD the american supreme court, use precident from other countries.

What next, the u.n. runs america,

That is what the libs master plan is

[retiredman]

That is what the libs master plan is

it really isn't

[red states rule]

it really isn't

Look how the liberal media and the left is reacting to Castro. If only the left could have all the power in the US theur dear friend Castro had in Cuba

[retiredman]

how do we get from supreme court precedents to Castro?

[actsnoblemartin]

so smearing him, simply because you disagree with is ok?


This torture:

[glockmail]

that is your opinion. I disagree. You must then believe that the Constitution should be changed and ammended to suit the whims of society.

[retiredman]

You must then believe that the Constitution should be changed and ammended to suit the whims of society.


your conclusion is erroneous.

[glockmail]

your conclusion is erroneous. How can that be? If you want the SCOTUS to look at precedence from outside the US?

[retiredman]

How can that be? If you want the SCOTUS to look at precedence from outside the US?

considering international law is not synonymous with wanting th change and amend the constitution to suit the whims of society.... ergo, the conclusion was erroneous.

[glockmail]

considering international law is not synonymous with wanting th change and amend the constitution to suit the whims of society.... ergo, the conclusion was erroneous. Why else would you look to contemporary "international law" to interpret the COTUS?

[retiredman]

Why else would you look to contemporary "international law" to interpret the COTUS?

I have never suggested that.

did you read my link?

this is not about interpreting the constitution, it is about determining the constitutionality of statutes written by congress and the states.

the whims of society have nothing to do with it either.

please don't be argumentative just for the sake of being so.

[glockmail]

I have never suggested that.

.... How else should I interpret post 114?

[retiredman]

How else should I interpret post 114?

by using #130 for clarification

[glockmail]

by using #130 for clarification So you are backing off of your position.

[retiredman]

So you are backing off of your position.

not in the least.

[glockmail]

How else should I interpret post 132?

[retiredman]

How else should I interpret post 132?

differently than you did.

[glockmail]

differently than you did. More spin from you. Whouda thunk?

[retiredman]

More spin from you. Whouda thunk?

no spin glock. I do not have a problem with the supreme court considering international law, when appropriate, in determining their decisions about cases that are brought before them. That does NOT mean that I want the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted according to international law and it does not mean that I want the Constitution to be amended based upon the whims of the public.

It means what it means...not what you try to simplistically twist it into meaning as part of your ongoing gotcha game.

I really would prefer not to play that, if you don't mind. Let's just talk issues like two grown up adults and not resort to trying to catch the other or mischaracterize the other simply for the sake of prolonging a petty conflict.

[glockmail]

no spin glock. I do not have a problem with the supreme court considering international law, when appropriate, in determining their decisions about cases that are brought before them. That does NOT mean that I want the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted according to international law and it does not mean that I want the Constitution to be amended based upon the whims of the public.

It means what it means...not what you try to simplistically twist it into meaning as part of your ongoing gotcha game.

I really would prefer not to play that, if you don't mind. Let's just talk issues like two grown up adults and not resort to trying to catch the other or mischaracterize the other simply for the sake of prolonging a petty conflict. I would sya that you are playing "gotcha" by insisting that's what I'm doing. I'm concerned about the slippery slope that liberals have created with this insistence on international law into our Constitution.

Who determines when is "appropriate"?

[retiredman]

I would sya that you are playing "gotcha" by insisting that's what I'm doing. I'm concerned about the slippery slope that liberals have created with this insistence on international law into our Constitution.

Who determines when is "appropriate"?

I would suggest that the nine learned members of the United States Supreme Court are tasked with making that decision.

I have NEVER suggested that the whims of anyone else be considered in the least.

[glockmail]

I would suggest that the nine learned members of the United States Supreme Court are tasked with making that decision.

I have NEVER suggested that the whims of anyone else be considered in the least. The nine members are tasked with interpreting tye COTUS, which was written in 1783. How does later decisions, especially those outside of the US, help them with this task?

[retiredman]

The nine members are tasked with interpreting tye COTUS, which was written in 1783. How does later decisions, especially those outside of the US, help them with this task?


actually, they are tasked with determining the constitutionality of statutes written by congress, the states and other political subdivisions. In their history, they have used many things - including elements of international law, and common law, as well as their own previous decisions - in helping them make thoset determinations.

[glockmail]

actually, they are tasked with determining the constitutionality of statutes written by congress, the states and other political subdivisions. In their history, they have used many things - including elements of international law, and common law, as well as their own previous decisions - in helping them make thoset determinations. Using international law, or any law written after the constitution (and its ammendments as they relate to the subject) is a mistake.

[retiredman]

Using international law, or any law written after the constitution (and its ammendments as they relate to the subject) is a mistake.


I understand that is your opinion and I respect it. We must, however,agree to disagree... and the supreme court has disagreed with you as well on a number of occasions.

[glockmail]

I understand that is your opinion and I respect it. We must, however,agree to disagree... and the supreme court has disagreed with you as well on a number of occasions. I would like you, or any liberal, to explain how Supreme Court justices legally justify using international law as a precedence. In fact, how they justify not being strict Constitutionalists. You can't do it. It's not a matter of opinion.

[retiredman]

I would like you, or any liberal, to explain how Supreme Court justices legally justify using international law as a precedence. In fact, how they justify not being strict Constitutionalists. You can't do it. It's not a matter of opinion.

Article III, section 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

Where does this limit them to being strict constitutionalists? I would suggest it gives them wide latitude to exercise their judicial power.

[glockmail]

Article III, section 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

Where does this limit them to being strict constitutionalists? I would suggest it gives them wide latitude to exercise their judicial power.


That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/02/14/scalia-calls-living-constitutionalists-idiots/trackback/

[retiredman]

I quoted the constitution itself regarding judicial powers. I asked you to show me where, in that document, it required the supreme court to rely solely on the wording of the constitution itself when exercising that power. You can just quote my post and highlight the sentences from the constitution that prove your point.

[glockmail]

I quoted the constitution itself regarding judicial powers. I asked you to show me where, in that document, it required the supreme court to rely solely on the wording of the constitution itself when exercising that power. You can just quote my post and highlight the sentences from the constitution that prove your point.
You quoted it and gave your personal opinion. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia that directly counters your argument. Who's more qualified, you or he?

From that same link:
“Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism. That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do.” And according to that judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

[retiredman]

You quoted it and gave your personal opinion. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia that directly counters your argument. Who's more qualified, you or he?

From that same link:

I gave you the text of the document itself. I think it is clear that, on its face, the constitution gives great latitude to judicial powers. Again....merely highlight those sentences, from the constitution, that would limit it.

[glockmail]

I gave you the text of the document itself. I think it is clear that, on its face, the constitution gives great latitude to judicial powers. Again....merely highlight those sentences, from the constitution, that would limit it. That portion of the COTUS desrcibes the powers that the SCOTUS has. It has nothing to do with how the SCOTUS should interpret the COTUS. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia that directly counters your argument. Who's more qualified, you or he?

[Immanuel]

Oh my!! Is this actually a pleasant conversation between Glock and MFM? Do my eyes deceive me? Has Hell frozen or more astonishingly turned into a tropical paradise?

Immie

[retiredman]

That portion of the COTUS desrcibes the powers that the SCOTUS has. It has nothing to do with how the SCOTUS should interpret the COTUS. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia that directly counters your argument. Who's more qualified, you or he?

Please show me, in the constitution, where Scalia's opinion is relected in the document itself.

Scalia is clearly more qualified than I am concerning this issue. Let me ask you...who is more qualified: Justice Breyer or YOU?

[glockmail]

Oh my!! Is this actually a pleasant conversation between Glock and MFM? Do my eyes deceive me? Has Hell frozen or more astonishingly turned into a tropical paradise?

Immie
It looks like he finally followed my lead and is leaving the personal attacks out of it. He's also doing it for Lent, which is admirable.

[glockmail]

Please show me, in the constitution, where Scalia's opinion is relected in the document itself.

Scalia is clearly more qualified than I am concerning this issue. Let me ask you...who is more qualified: Justice Breyer or YOU?

Simple. Scalia states: "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document."

The applicable question is not my opinion vs. Breyer's, but Scalia's vs. Breyer's. Of the two, Scalia is obviously more qualified.

You can prove me wrong by showing me, in the constitution, where Breyer's opinion is relected in the document itself.

[retiredman]

Simple. Scalia states: "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document."

The applicable question is not my opinion vs. Breyer's, but Scalia's vs. Breyer's. Of the two, Scalia is obviously more qualified.

You can prove me wrong by showing me, in the constitution, where Breyer's opinion is relected in the document itself.


And your opinion as to the qualifications of one associate justice of the supreme court over another is just that... your opinion.

The document itself gives clear latitude for the courts to decide many issues that are outside of the constitution. Did you not read the section I posted?

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution[1], the Laws of the United States[2], and Treaties made,or which shall be made, under their Authority[3]; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors[4], other public Ministers and Consuls[5]; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction[6]; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party[7]; to Controversies between two or more States[8]; between a State and Citizens of another State[9]; between Citizens of different States[10]; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States[11], and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.[12])

[Immanuel]

It looks like he finally followed my lead and is leaving the personal attacks out of it. He's also doing it for Lent, which is admirable.

Oh no! Easter comes early this year! :laugh2:

Immie

[glockmail]

And your opinion as to the qualifications of one associate justice of the supreme court over another is just that... your opinion.

The document itself gives clear latitude for the courts to decide many issues that are outside of the constitution. Did you not read the section I posted?

…..


Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

Note the source. Breyer apparently hasn’t read The Federalist, or his employer’s website.

I read the section of the COTUS and responded about that twice now.

[glockmail]

Oh no! Easter comes early this year! :laugh2:

Immie explains lots. Lets see if I can make him fall of the wagon before then. :lol:

[retiredman]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

Note the source. Breyer apparently hasn’t read The Federalist, or his employer’s website.

I read the section of the COTUS and responded about that twice now.

no one is suggesting that constitutional interpretation be left to public political bargaining.

and your response to the section of COTUS quoted has been to ignore its words and, instead, go find opinons that support a strict constructionist view, which isn't even what we are talking about. Using international law, where appropriate, to help decide issues that arise before the court is not the same thing as revising the intent of the constitution itself. The COTUS section listed gives all sorts of instances where decisions are rendered outside the constructs of the constitution itself.

[retiredman]

explains lots. Lets see if I can make him fall of the wagon before then. :lol:

why would you want to try? why wouldn't you try, instead, to uplift the tenor of our discussions?

[glockmail]

why would you want to try? why wouldn't you try, instead, to uplift the tenor of our discussions? All I have to do is stick to the facts, add logic, and when you start to lose an argument you'll flip out like you always do.

[retiredman]

All I have to do is stick to the facts, add logic, and when you start to lose an argument you'll flip out like you always do.

it won't happen...but nonetheless, you need to know that your definition of "facts' is as pathetic as your buddy RSR's.....
and please don't just skip over #160!

[Immanuel]

All I have to do is stick to the facts, add logic, and when you start to lose an argument you'll flip out like you always do.


it won't happen...but nonetheless, you need to know that your definition of "facts' is as pathetic as your buddy RSR's.....
and please don't just skip over #160!


Now, now, hold your cools guys! You've been doing so well! Keep it up.

Immie

[glockmail]

[1]no one is suggesting that constitutional interpretation be left to public political bargaining.

[2] and your response to the section of COTUS quoted has been to ignore its words and, [3]instead, go find opinons that support a strict constructionist view, [4]which isn't even what we are talking about. Using international law, where appropriate, to help decide issues that arise before the court is not the same thing as revising the intent of the constitution itself. The COTUS section listed gives all sorts of instances where decisions are rendered outside the constructs of the constitution itself.

1. That's exactly what Breyer is doing when he invokes internatonal law into interpretation of the COTUS.

2. Again: that portion of the COTUS desrcibes the powers that the SCOTUS has. It has nothing to do with how the SCOTUS should interpret the COTUS.

3. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia, as well as a document on the SCOTUS website (entitled The Court and Constitutional Interpretation) that both directly counters your argument.

[glockmail]

it won't happen...but nonetheless, you need to know that your definition of "facts' is as pathetic as your buddy RSR's.....
and please don't just skip over #160! There you go, well on your way to a blow up! :lol:

[retiredman]

There you go, well on your way to a blow up! :lol:

nope. I'm cool as a cucumber.

I just had another cup of delicious decaf!

[glockmail]

nope. I'm cool as a cucumber.

I just had another cup of delicious decaf! That's nasty.

Now post 165?

[retiredman]

1. That's exactly what Breyer is doing when he invokes internatonal law into interpretation of the COTUS.

2. Again: that portion of the COTUS desrcibes the powers that the SCOTUS has. It has nothing to do with how the SCOTUS should interpret the COTUS.

3. I gave you the legal opinion of Scalia, as well as a document on the SCOTUS website (entitled The Court and Constitutional Interpretation) that both directly counters your argument.

1. in your opinion. I disagree.

2. applying international law to the resolution of cases brought before it does not necessarily involve reinterpreting the constitution OR ignoring it.

3. as stated previously, The COTUS section listed gives all sorts of instances where decisions are rendered outside the constructs of the constitution itself.

[glockmail]

...applying international law to the resolution of cases brought before it does not necessarily involve reinterpreting the constitution OR ignoring it.
.... It is a slippery slope and the COTUS is too important to let international politics influence it.

[retiredman]

It is a slippery slope and the COTUS is too important to let international politics influence it.


that is your opinion. I respect it even if I don't think that COTUS is in any danger from international forces.

[glockmail]

that is your opinion. I respect it even if I don't think that COTUS is in any danger from international forces. Since you, a self proclaimed liberal, "don't think" that liberal judges are attacking the COTUS my mind is much more at ease.

[retiredman]

Since you, a self proclaimed liberal, "don't think" that liberal judges are attacking the COTUS my mind is much more at ease.


since you, a self proclaimed conservative, will soon be relegated to political irrelevance in our country's government, MY mind is much more at ease! ;)

[glockmail]

since you, a self proclaimed conservative, will soon be relegated to political irrelevance in our country's government, MY mind is much more at ease! ;) Since you, a self proclaimed liberal, "wish" conservatives' political irrelevance my mind is much more at ease.

[retiredman]

Since you, a self proclaimed liberal, "wish" conservatives' political irrelevance my mind is much more at ease.


good.

that would mean that you, unlike Dylan Thomas, will "go gently into that good night".

sweet dreams.

[glockmail]

good.

that would mean that you, unlike Dylan Thomas, will "go gently into that good night".

sweet dreams.
I don't do anything gently. Sorry pal. :pee:

[retiredman]

I don't do anything gently. Sorry pal. :pee:


if my positions puts your mind at ease, that is good news for you. My positions will soon be the positions of the executive AND legislative branches of government. Gently or otherwise, your finding "ease" with them will be crucial to your contentment.

[glockmail]

if my positions puts your mind at ease, that is good news for you. My positions will soon be the positions of the executive AND legislative branches of government. Gently or otherwise, your finding "ease" with them will be crucial to your contentment. It's good for young men to dream. But a dusty old fart like you? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

It's good for young men to dream. But a dusty old fart like you? :laugh2:

wanna put money on the election, or are you "all hat and no cattle"?

[manu1959]

wanna put money on the election, or are you "all hat and no cattle"?

this doesn't seem to be a nice thing ............. but i have been wrong before

[glockmail]

wanna put money on the election, or are you "all hat and no cattle"? I don't gamble. (Learned my lesson in High School.)

[retiredman]

I don't gamble. (Learned my lesson in High School.)

so.... we'll both just have to sit and wait until november.

that is fine with me.

[glockmail]

so.... we'll both just have to sit and wait until november.

that is fine with me.

I'm not betting on McCain winning. I've said all along that he will be our Bob Dole of 2008.

It will be fun when Obama backs out from pulling troops from Iraq. The libs will be screaming.

[retiredman]

I'm not betting on McCain winning. I've said all along that he will be our Bob Dole of 2008.

It will be fun when Obama backs out from pulling troops from Iraq. The libs will be screaming.

and when he does pull our troops out, what will you do?

[red states rule]

and when he does pull our troops out, what will you do?

Obama will find makes all his promises are easier then fullfilling them

Take your Dem run Congress as exhibit #1

[retiredman]

Obama will find makes all his promises are easier then fullfilling them

Take your Dem run Congress as exhibit #1

again..without 60 senators, the democrats in congress are incapable of any major changes.... and even if they HAD the 60, they would need 67 to override a Bush veto.

When we are in the white house and have 60+ in the senate, we'll be able to keep all of our promises.

[red states rule]

again..without 60 senators, the democrats in congress are incapable of any major changes.... and even if they HAD the 60, they would need 67 to override a Bush veto.

When we are in the white house and have 60+ in the senate, we'll be able to keep all of our promises.

So Dems knew they were lying when they made their promisies before the 06 elections?

[glockmail]

and when he does pull our troops out, what will you do?
Buy more ammo and freeze-dried. :pee:

[retiredman]

So Dems knew they were lying when they made their promisies before the 06 elections?


no. of course not. We certainly had hoped to get 60 senate seats. we certainly had hoped that republicans would not be obstructionists. We certainly weren't LYING. We have simply been unable to pass critical legislation into law given the filibuster rules of the senate and our inability to override a Bush veto even if we could.