this is why it should be easy to remove a sitting judge - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 04-05-2007, 12:48 PM

Since the civil war, we have ALWAYS known that there has been an inalienable right to travel. Well not according to THIS idiot judge.

wapo - katrina evacuees lose ruling.

The most relevant part of this 'decision',

Quote:

"U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon ruled in a decision made public Tuesday that "although the right to interstate travel is clearly established by our jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court has not decided the question of whether the Constitution protects a right to intrastate travel."

Rekna · 04-05-2007, 01:55 PM

I'm sure they will appeal it and it will be overturned.

I agree with you that their should be easy means to remove judges, but there should also be easy means to remove senators, congressmen, supreme court justices, the Vice President and the President.

I would love it if congress would introduce an amendment which detailed recall election guidelines for the states.

Off the top of my head something like a petition containing some % of the registered voters signatures in the relevant voting area (district, state, nation, ect) must be filled out. Upon submission of the signatures 30 days must pass in which people can file grievances with the signatures (look for fraud ect). Upon the completion of that interval an election must be set within say 60 days. Once the election occurs 60% of the voters must vote for their removal for them to be removed.

I think a system like this would keep elected and appointed officials in check with the public.

dksuddeth · 04-05-2007, 02:47 PM

since the states set their own election rules, for the most part, it shouldn't be that difficult to provide for those specific criteria to recall. You'd have to set it up so that simple political targeting couldn't be used.

Rekna · 04-05-2007, 03:49 PM

Yes thats why I said 60%. It is very hard to get 60% of the vote.

dksuddeth · 04-05-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Yes thats why I said 60%. It is very hard to get 60% of the vote.

not really, but I understand what you are trying to get at. Personally, i'd make it more like 75%. That way, you'd KNOW that your district is not satisfied with you.

Willravel · 04-05-2007, 04:13 PM

It going to be funny to watch this idiot lose everyone's respect so fast.

shakran · 04-05-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it should be easy to remove a sitting judge

That's crazy. Let's extrapolate that to a real world scenario involving your favorite subject.

A judge rules that gun ownership is illegal. You immediately whip up a crowd to remove the judge. The next judge comes in, and not wanting to lose his job, rules that gun ownership is legal no matter what. Anti gun people whip up a crowd to remove the judge.

In short, it'd be completely impossible for a judge to do what a judge must do - render an impartial decision. There's a very good reason it's next to impossible to remove them - - because if it were possible, then they'd have to rule based on what the prevailing political winds of the day dictated, rather than on the law.

dc_dux · 04-05-2007, 05:18 PM

The writers of the Constitution demonstrated their wisdom with the concept of keeping politics and popular sentiment out of the judiciary, to the extent possible.

The Constitution does not specifically say judges have lifetime appointments...rather they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour".

A judge's interpretation of the law that does not meet a particular political or even popular test does not constitute "bad behavior".

Astrocloud · 04-05-2007, 05:50 PM

Bad cases make bad caselaw. -old proverb.

1010011010 · 04-05-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon

"although the right to interstate travel is clearly established by our jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court has not decided the question of whether the Constitution protects a right to intrastate travel."

How the fuck are we supposed to get to the border to exercise our clearly established right to interstate travel, then?

That said, she's really just effectively ruling that she can't make a ruling. Which, given the presumable lack of higher or authoritative case law on the subject, is what she should to be doing. If she had ruled there is a Right to intrastate travel she'd be one of those dreaded "Activist Judges Legislating from the Bench".

Willravel · 04-05-2007, 06:31 PM

As shakran demonstrated, Democracy only works without idiots. We, the smarties, have to do what we can. At the end of the day, that's politics in a nutshell.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 05:10 AM

Sorry I know a number of judges, and while I don't agree with them all the time I do agree that they have their position.

Checks and balances come from ANY other judge that will allow you to use their courtroom to hear any complaint or issue.

To have the ability to remove judges at whim is folly. Don't like the fact that they voted anti abortion, remove them from the bench. Don't like the fact they are sympathetic to minorities, remove them from the bench. Don't like the way they do something remove them from the bench.

No it doesn't seem like a good way to do business at all. Seems to me like "tyranny of the majority" is much more possible.

Rekna · 04-06-2007, 08:46 AM

I'd like to clarify my statement of removal. I believe there should be means to remove them if they are ruling clearly against the rule of law. Case in point, here in Utah there are Polygamist cities. In these cities the entire government is controlled by the polygamists. If you get caught up in the legal system there and you are not one of them expect the court to be a kangaroo court. Shouldn't their be means by which people can remove those judges in this case? If a judge is abusing their power then their should be a way to remove them started by the people.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'd like to clarify my statement of removal. I believe there should be means to remove them if they are ruling clearly against the rule of law. Case in point, here in Utah there are Polygamist cities. In these cities the entire government is controlled by the polygamists. If you get caught up in the legal system there and you are not one of them expect the court to be a kangaroo court. Shouldn't their be means by which people can remove those judges in this case? If a judge is abusing their power then their should be a way to remove them started by the people.

so by that first statement, congress enacts a new law, and a judge cannot overturn it without risking his job. Again, shortsighted against the checks and balances.

host · 04-06-2007, 11:32 AM

The SCOTUS, just a few months ago, refused the opportunity to "rule" on this very issue. Up until this latest case, as the deliberations posted below indicate, the "right" to personal, unimpeded transport via walking was not at issue. Now, even that mode of interstate transport is not protected by the court.....

John Gilmore's efforts in court concerning the "right" to travel inside the U.S.:
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm

Quote:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gilmor...nzales_Opinion
Gilmore v. Gonzales Opinion
From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

<Gilmore v. Gonzales

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-15736 D.C. No. CV-02-03444-SI

OPINION

JOHN GILMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,...

.......Argued and Submitted December 8, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed January 26, 2006

Before: Stephen S. Trott, Thomas G. Nelson, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Paez....

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

....Rather, for purposes of its jurisdictional ruling, the district court assumed, as Gilmore alleged, that the identification policy was a Security Directive issued by TSA. Gilmore timely appealed. Shortly after oral argument in this case, we ordered the Government to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification policy so that we could conduct an in camera, ex parte review......

....Discussion
I. Jurisdiction & Standing

Jurisdiction....

..[2] Finality is usually demonstrated by an administrative record and factual findings....

.....<b>As noted, we have reviewed in camera the materials submitted by the Government under seal, and we have determined that the TSA Security Directive is final</b> within the meaning of § 46110(a). The Security Directive "imposes an obligation" by requiring airline passengers to present identification or be a "selectee," and by requiring airport security personnel to carry out the policy. The Security Directive also provides a "definitive statement" of TSA's position by detailing the policy and the procedures by which it must be effectuated. Because the Security Directive prevents from air travel those who, like Gilmore, refuse to comply with the identification policy, <b>it has a "direct and immediate" effect on the daily business of the party asserting wrongdoing. Finally, the Security Directive "envisions immediate compliance."</b> Pursuant to TSA regulations, aircraft operators that are required to maintain approved security programs "must comply with each Security Directive issued to the aircraft operator by TSA, within the time prescribed in the Security Directive for compliance." 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305(b)(2005).

[3] Therefore, having reviewed the TSA Security Directive that requires airline operators to enforce the identification policy, we hold that it is an "order" within the meaning of § 46110(a). We also determine that the Security Directive was issued by an appropriate government official and under proper authority as required by § 46110(a)......

.....[7] Gilmore also challenges the alleged identification policies of other modes of travel, specifically the interstate bus and train systems. Gilmore asserts in his brief to us that he has standing to challenge the Government's identification policies as they relate to other forms of interstate travel because his "right to travel by all modes has been chilled on an ongoing basis—not just in two airports on July 4, 2002." Once again, however, Gilmore fails to establish standing. Gilmore's challenge to the alleged identification systems of other modes of travel is based on one sentence in his fifty-five paragraph complaint. He did not allege that he attempted to board a bus or train, but rather he alleged that he "is also informed and believes and hereby alleges that similar requirements have been placed on travelers who use passenger trains by the government defendants, and that similar requirements are being instituted for interstate bus travel." This sole allegation, however, is insufficient to establish standing. In fine, Gilmore lacks standing to challenge all components of "the Scheme" except the identification policy.....

....III. Right To Travel

[11] Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violates his constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel by commercial airlines without presenting identification, which is an impermissible federal condition.[10] We reject Gilmore's right to travel argument because <h3>the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.</h3>

Because Gilmore lacks standing to challenge anything but the identification policy's impact on air travel, his sole argument is that "air travel is a necessity and not replaceable by other forms of transportation." Although we do not question this allegation for purposes of this petition, it does not follow that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other forms of travel remain possible.

This circuit's decision in Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999), is on point. In Miller, the plaintiff challenged California's requirement that applicants submit their social security numbers to the DMV in order to obtain valid drivers licenses. The plaintiff alleged that this policy violated his fundamental right to interstate travel and his right to freely exercise his religion. In affirming the district court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we concluded that "by denying Miller a single mode of transportation—in a car driven by himself—the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel." Id. at 1204. Although we recognized the fundamental right to interstate travel, we also acknowledged that "burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel." Id. at 1205 (citing Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir. 1972)).

[12] Like the plaintiff in Miller, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification policy's "burden" is not unreasonable. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (noting the right of all citizens to be "free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670-71 (1974). The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and "consistent with a full recognition of appellant's constitutional right to travel." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973)......

...Conclusion

[21] In sum, we conclude that Defendants did not violate Gilmore's constitutional rights by adopting and implementing the airline identification policy. Therefore, his claims fail on the merits and we deny his petition for review.

TRANSFERRED, PETITION DENIED......

....6.In the district court, <h3>the Government "assumed the truth of the content of the identification policy as alleged in Gilmore's complaint" and refused to confirm or deny its existence.</h3> In its brief to this court, however, the Government stated that "TSA has now confirmed the existence of an identification requirement — that 'as part of its security rules, TSA requires airlines to ask passengers for identification at check-in.'......

<b>It should be considered that one of the judges who participated in the 9th Circuit Gilmore hearing and decision is not above reproach:</b>

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...llenspy23.html
Monday, October 23, 2006

Former CIA spy branded a traitor wants to clear his name
Like a story in a spy novel, Edwin Wilson is out to prove he was set up

By TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER

Edwin Wilson began this quest from a solitary-confinement cell, where he wrote letters seeking top-secret documents to show that his own government betrayed him.

....Wilson's lawsuit names five other former assistant U.S. attorneys -- <b>Stephen Trott, now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals</b>; D. Lowell Jensen, now a federal judge in California; James Powers, retired; Mark Richard, who still works for the Justice Department; and Theodore Greenberg, now senior counsel for the World Bank -- and ex-CIA official Briggs.

In court documents, Briggs' attorneys contend he believed the affidavit he signed was true "and would not have signed it otherwise.".....

....and I thorougly documented this controversy in this thread:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88074
Old 04-28-2005, 02:25 AM

ABC Nightline:14 Fed. Justice Officials 1980's Misconduct: False Prosecution
Tonight, soon to retire Nightline news anchor Ted Koppel reported the story of the false prosecution in the mid 1980's of Edwin Wilson, who served more than 20 years in prison as a result of a CIA affadavit that was known to the CIA and 14 Fed. Justice Dept. officials to be false. The agencies and the officials, according to the finding of Federal Judge Lynn Hughes, who released Wilson from prison, knew the evidence was false, but either submitted it as evidence in Wilson's trial, or became aware of it after Wilson's conviction, and failed to inform the court of the misconduct of the CIA and of Justice Dept. officials.

The 14 officials include three who were later appointed to the federal bench, including Reagan appointee, Steven Trott, now a ninth circuit appellate court judge.....

In this post,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...29&postcount=4
on the thread that I just mentioned, I documented that the DOJ "OPR", Office of Professional Responsibility was reported on 11/01/03, to have opened an "investigation" into possible wrongdoing by "two dozen government lawyers", in their prosecution of Edwin Wilson. Judge Stephen Trott was one of those lawyers, nothing has ever been reported from OPR since, and Trott is still free to serve on the 9th Circuit and issue "rulings" that amount to telling us that it is okay to restrict our travel via "secret regulation", and to restrict every mode of personal transport, other than presumably, by the means of walking.....

Quote:

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/
John Gilmore is disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to act on the danger posed by the unconstitutional position of the TSA, and its refusal to release the text of the law that it uses to require travelers to show identification. In his Petition for Certiorari, <b>John asked the Court to decide whether the government may keep secret a law that affects millions of Americans every month, when the government has acknowledged what it claims are the contents of the law, and despite the fact that the government has never enunciated any reasonable basis for maintaining secrecy.</b> This country has a remarkable history of publishing its laws, to give the public notice of the behavior the government demands of them. John has pursued this effort because, as he said on www.papersplease.org, "[u]ntil Americans have the ability to know the contents of the laws being applied to them, our Republic is in danger."

John hoped that the Supreme Court would intervene, and make clear that the government cannot deprive the public of the text of the laws that bind them. This issue now is left to the political process. We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public.....

Quote:

http://www.toad.com/
# John Gilmore's home page

# John's Supreme Court petition against a secret law: the federal requirement that people show ID to travel. (Gilmore v. Gonzales).
# John's Court of Appeals lawsuit against the federal requirement that people show ID to travel inside the US (Gilmore v. Ashcroft/Gonzales).
# John's earlier District Court lawsuit against the same ID-or-no-travel requirement (Gilmore v. Ashcroft).

Details the struggle to overcome travel restrictions inside the U.S.:
http://papersplease.org/id.html

Rekna · 04-06-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so by that first statement, congress enacts a new law, and a judge cannot overturn it without risking his job. Again, shortsighted against the checks and balances.

If the judge can show legally why he overturned it there shouldn't be a problem. But what if the judge decided to enact his own laws that were not constitutional? For instance what if a judge decided a US citizen shouldn't be given Habeous Corpus.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If the judge can show legally why he overturned it there shouldn't be a problem. But what if the judge decided to enact his own laws that were not constitutional? For instance what if a judge decided a US citizen shouldn't be given Habeous Corpus.

If I recall correctly there have been times in US history where Habeous Corpus has been suspended during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Again, the laws have to be dynamic enough to allow for all kinds of unforseens and un-thought ofs...

Rekna · 04-06-2007, 01:03 PM

And I believe after the fact it was ruled as illegal and the government offered apologies.
What if a judge comes out and has some known bias? Shouldn't there be a way to remove him? For example say it comes out that some judge hates black people, or hates tourists. Now say this bias is clearly affecting his decisions. What should be the public recourse?

I should also point out that judges in at least Utah are elected and as such every couple years the people have a chance to remove the judges. There hasn't been any major problems caused by this but there have definetly been some bad judges removed.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

And I believe after the fact it was ruled as illegal and the government offered apologies.
What if a judge comes out and has some known bias? Shouldn't there be a way to remove him? For example say it comes out that some judge hates black people, or hates tourists. Now say this bias is clearly affecting his decisions. What should be the public recourse?

I should also point out that judges in at least Utah are elected and as such every couple years the people have a chance to remove the judges. There hasn't been any major problems caused by this but there have definetly been some bad judges removed.

there are judges that are voted in my district as well with no adverse affects or notable ones at least. But those are for local issues, via local representation.

The public recourse is for the justices to deal with it themselves.

Quote:

State Ousts a Town Justice and Criticizes the System
LINK

Copyright New York Times Company Feb 22, 2007
In court one December night in 2003, the town justice in Cuyler, N.Y., told the town's lawyer that she would postpone four zoning cases. She set a January date for the next proceeding.

But before that date arrived, without consulting the town lawyer or hearing any testimony in court, the justice ruled that ''after thinking about'' the cases, she was dismissing them. State investigators later discovered that she had had private conversations with three of the defendants and a town official about the cases.

In a decision released yesterday, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct ordered the removal of the justice, Jean Marshall, saying her conduct ''violates fundamental legal principles,'' including the requirement that judges hear both sides of a case.

On its own, what happened in Cuyler -- a rural town south of Syracuse -- was not exceptional. Over the last 30 years, scores of town and village justices across the state have been disciplined for ignoring or being unaware of the most basic legal rules.

But yesterday's decision added some remarkable details, including a finding by the commission's majority that Justice Marshall had ''seriously exacerbated her misconduct'' by lying about her actions and using multiple strips of correction tape to alter the court calendar in a clumsy attempt at a cover-up.

Justice Marshall has 30 days to appeal. Neither she nor her lawyer returned calls yesterday.

The tale of a judicial cover-up took the commission, the agency charged with disciplining all of the state's judges, directly into a growing controversy about the state's network of 1,250 town and village courts, or justice courts. Past rulings by the commission, whose members are appointed by the governor, the state's chief judge and legislative leaders, have usually avoided going beyond the particulars of a justice's misconduct to comment on systemic problems.

But in yesterday's decision, the commission chairman, the divorce lawyer Raoul Lionel Felder, wrote that Justice Marshall's ''conduct underscores the need for greater training and other reforms.''

In recent legislative hearings, critics of the local courts have said the part-time justices who preside in them often violate the rights of New Yorkers. State judicial officials have announced a five-year, $50 million plan to upgrade the courts. Some groups have called for more sweeping changes, like requiring the justices to be lawyers.

One commission member, Marvin E. Jacob, wrote that removal was too severe a sanction for Justice Marshall. But he, too, said the case reflected broader troubles in the justice courts.

''We are dealing here with a systemic problem,'' he wrote. Mr. Jacob and two of the seven other commission members who took part in the case also dissented from the majority's charge of a cover-up, saying they did not believe it had been proved.

When first elected to the $3,000-a-year town justice position in 1999, Justice Marshall, now 56, listed herself as a ''billing specialist'' on a form she filed with the state court system. She also said she had earned a certificate as a paralegal.

But the commission's decision portrayed a justice who, as one member, Richard D. Emery, wrote, ''fails to grasp at a fundamental level the unique role of a judge.''

On the docket at the court session on Dec. 29, 2003, were four cases alleging violations of the town code, including that of a resident who was storing more than 30 cars on his property.

When the justice announced that she would not hear the cases that night, the town lawyer asked for a new court date, and Justice Marshall set Jan. 26. The town lawyer and the town code enforcement officer later told the commission that they saw her write something down on the court calendar.

But before that date arrived, she issued her decision, without hearing testimony in court. She was clearly bothered by the zoning prosecution. ''Another problem I have with these so-called violations,'' she wrote in her ruling, ''is they seem to pick and choose'' among town residents.

That showed bias and prejudgment of cases, commission members said in the decision.

But she compounded the problem, the decision said, during the commission's investigation, which came in response to a complaint. During a commission hearing in 2004, she testified that she had not set Jan. 26 to hear the case, evidently in an effort to claim that she simply made a ruling and there had been no court appearance agreed to.

Sometime after her testimony, a commission investigator went to her house and looked at her court calendar. Next to the listing for the four zoning cases was some writing covered by several strips of correction tape. Under the strips, the majority said, could be read a notation that showed she had agreed to hear the case on Jan. 26.

''The judge's original behavior was bad enough,'' the commission's administrator, Robert H. Tembeckjian, said. ''But as too often happens, the cover-up was worse.''

dksuddeth · 04-06-2007, 01:40 PM

nobody seems to be getting it yet. except maybe host.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

the above cases all have confirmed the undeniable right to freedom to travel, yet here we have a judge who either doesn't know the law, doesn't want to piss off louisiana law enforcement, too afraid to make such a 'huge' earth shattering decision, or is setting an unconstitutional agenda. In any case, it shouldn't be a difficult decision to see that she needs to be removed.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

nobody seems to be getting it yet. except maybe host.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

the above cases all have confirmed the undeniable right to freedom to travel, yet here we have a judge who either doesn't know the law, doesn't want to piss off louisiana law enforcement, too afraid to make such a 'huge' earth shattering decision, or is setting an unconstitutional agenda. In any case, it shouldn't be a difficult decision to see that she needs to be removed.

No I get it, I just don't have a knee jerk reaction to the idea.

dc_dux · 04-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Our tiered federal judicial system, as envisioned in the Constitution, has worked as well or better than any in the world for the last 200+ years, which is why there is absolutely no reason to make it easier to remove federal judges.

The ultimate ejudicator is a body of 9, ensuring that a misguided ruling (if in fact it is misguided) by this judge or any lower court judge, for whatever reason, is short lived and the rule of law prevails.

roachboy · 04-06-2007, 02:30 PM

what this ruling clearly means is that if you are african-american and poor, you cannot count on your right to travel across local boundaries, particularly not in the context of a huge natural disaster one result of which is the flooding of what--70%?--of the city where you live.

worse, it seems pretty clear to me that the reasoning is strained in order to justify the police blockade. so it would seem that the ruling responds to at least an asepct of local political conditions----you know: the political conditions that obtained in gretna of the sort that made the blockade seem like a rational idea.

like it didn't mean what it obviously did: that the people who were trying to get out of new orleans across that bridge should have been forced to turn back. so it seems to me that the most direct and disturbing implication of this is that if you are poor and african-american in lousiana, you can be compelled to "stay in your place" even if that place is under water.
and that if you are so compelled, you have no legal recourse.

bourgeois property uber alles yes?
good thing that the situation in new orleans after katrina was so well managed. good thing that conditions in new orleans were so nice so quickly. yay fema. yay state of lousiana. yay city of new orleans.

if you forget what this is about, have a look at spike lee's "when the levee breaks" and then tell me that the most disturbing aspect of this involves the constitutional implications of shabby reasoning on the part of a rightwing judge.

i assume that means that i do not "get it"....

Rekna · 04-06-2007, 02:42 PM

dc my faith in the integrity of the supreme court is not absolute. The members of the supreme court are appointed by a politicized figure and as such their appointments many times hinge on their feelings on a certain case. The problem I see is that with only 9 judges it would be fairly easy for the court to be stacked against something. This is evident in the recent appointments in which people were appointed based on their political stance and not on their merits. People see the supreme court as a way to further their political agenda and that is dangerous.

I would feel much more comfortable with the supreme court if it had 19 judges or if their was an ability for the public to check them if it was needed. With a larger number of justices it would be much harder for the bench to be stacked.

dc_dux · 04-06-2007, 02:52 PM

Rekna...FDR tried stacking the Supreme Court by pushing legislation to add 6 more justices because he was pissed at how the Court ruled on some of his New Deal programs.

One should never had absolute faith in 9 other fallible human beings...but if the system aint broke...dont fix it.

dksuddeth · 04-06-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i assume that means that i do not "get it"....

hmmm, no. I think you've just about got it all.

Necrosis · 04-06-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

As shakran demonstrated, Democracy only works without idiots. We, the smarties, have to do what we can. At the end of the day, that's politics in a nutshell.

Although it is off-topic, history indicates that Democracy only works until the people discover they can vote themselves other people's money.

Recent elections have not appeared to be decided by uninformed voters (the notable exception being the Florida dyslexics who seemed to inadvertently vote for Pat Buchanan). Instead, they are decided by voters weighing who has promised them the most tax money. Or to take the least amount of their money.

THAT is politics in a nutshell.

Willravel · 04-06-2007, 07:58 PM

Agreed, in addition to idiots add selfish pricks. Democracy only works without greed or ignorance, so a perfect democracy will have to be qualified by perfect people. That's why no governmental system will work unless it's run by robots, and even then, Windows Vista is kinda shaky.

Rekna · 04-07-2007, 07:18 AM

dc in increasing the number of justicies it would have to be done in such a way that stacking would not be likely. For instance add 1 justice every 4 years or something. Of course then we would need to have some way to handle ties. Another option would be 2 justices every 4 years but then it would be more likely to be stackable.

smooth · 04-10-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

nobody seems to be getting it yet. except maybe host.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

the above cases all have confirmed the undeniable right to freedom to travel, yet here we have a judge who either doesn't know the law, doesn't want to piss off louisiana law enforcement, too afraid to make such a 'huge' earth .shattering decision, or is setting an unconstitutional agenda. In any case, it shouldn't be a difficult decision to see that she needs to be removed.

No, you seem not to be "getting it"
Citizens typically sue government entities under section 1983, which are claims of violations of civil rights.

Given that there is no constitutional right to interstate travel, the judge can't rule in their favor on that basis. None of the cases you cited establish an "undeniable right" to interstate travel, merely one that is established by precendent...precendent the judge clearly stated she was aware of in her ruling!

The irony, of course, is that strict constructionists *have* to admit that since the right to travel is not clearly written in the constituation, then it is not a constituational right. If she were to rule the other way, then in order to be consistent, the places decrying her decision now should be clamoring that she is an activist judge--creating laws and rights from the bench. Yet, we know that such people are anything *but* consistent...

I'm going down the line on your cases...it would help if you'd provide your analysis for why the cases are relevant. As I've found is often the case with you from past threads like these, your articles/cites are likely irrelevant or contrary to the issue at hand.

The first case: regarding whether denying a passport to a citizen is appropriate...the end of the court's analysis is that one's freedom to travel should fall under the right to liberty...the rest of the argument extrapolates from this...however, this is as I stated earlier, a prime example of judges "interpreting" rights from the words written in the constitution which is evidently only acceptable when the constructionists complaining agree with the ruling...

of course, should we mention that the *end* of the legal argument engages with it's past rulings allowing the government to shut down travel in time of war and during times of imminent danger? nah...

dksuddeth · 04-11-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

No, you seem not to be "getting it"
Citizens typically sue government entities under section 1983, which are claims of violations of civil rights.

Given that there is no constitutional right to interstate travel, the judge can't rule in their favor on that basis. None of the cases you cited establish an "undeniable right" to interstate travel, merely one that is established by precendent...precendent the judge clearly stated she was aware of in her ruling!

The irony, of course, is that strict constructionists *have* to admit that since the right to travel is not clearly written in the constituation, then it is not a constituational right. If she were to rule the other way, then in order to be consistent, the places decrying her decision now should be clamoring that she is an activist judge--creating laws and rights from the bench. Yet, we know that such people are anything *but* consistent...

I'm going down the line on your cases...it would help if you'd provide your analysis for why the cases are relevant. As I've found is often the case with you from past threads like these, your articles/cites are likely irrelevant or contrary to the issue at hand.

The first case: regarding whether denying a passport to a citizen is appropriate...the end of the court's analysis is that one's freedom to travel should fall under the right to liberty...the rest of the argument extrapolates from this...however, this is as I stated earlier, a prime example of judges "interpreting" rights from the words written in the constitution which is evidently only acceptable when the constructionists complaining agree with the ruling...

of course, should we mention that the *end* of the legal argument engages with it's past rulings allowing the government to shut down travel in time of war and during times of imminent danger? nah...

I get tired of having to spank you when you're wrong.

In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport, based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court:

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Now, to most people like yourself, you like to assume that you only have rights when the supreme court says you do. This would be wrong on your part and it is part of the big problem in this country today. Did the right to freedom of movement suddenly spring in to being in 1958? Not bloody likely, in fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

Willravel · 04-11-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I get tired of having to spank you when you're wrong.

In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport, based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court:

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Now, to most people like yourself, you like to assume that you only have rights when the supreme court says you do. This would be wrong on your part and it is part of the big problem in this country today. Did the right to freedom of movement suddenly spring in to being in 1958? Not bloody likely, in fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

Maybe that justice can explain where in:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...anything is said about interstate travel. I see grand jury, war trials, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process, and eminent domain. As smooth stated, there is no explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country. If anything, the 10th Amendment might come into play (as nothing is specifically restricted in the Constitution), but that's a rather weak argument when one insists that free travel is constitutionally protected.

dksuddeth · 04-11-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe that justice can explain where in:

Will, he is not saying that the right is IN the 5th, he is saying that one cannot be denied without due process of law, according to the 5th.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

...anything is said about interstate travel. I see grand jury, war trials, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process, and eminent domain. As smooth stated, there is no explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country. If anything, the 10th Amendment might come into play (as nothing is specifically restricted in the Constitution), but that's a rather weak argument when one insists that free travel is constitutionally protected.

so what you're saying is that UNLESS a right is specifically enumerated in the constitution or the bill of rights, that it does not exist? How Alberto Gonzalez like of you.

dc_dux · 04-11-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

I get tired of having to spank you when you're wrong.

I dont think you have a constitutional right to spank Smooth.

AND I still believe there is absolutely no reason to change the process for removing sitting judges based on one ruling.

ubertuber · 04-11-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I get tired of having to spank you when you're wrong.

An otherwise solid post turned sour by a single snarky remark...

Willravel · 04-11-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Will, he is not saying that the right is IN the 5th, he is saying that one cannot be denied without due process of law, according to the 5th.

I fully support the right of due process whole heartedly. The way you edited it threw me off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so what you're saying is that UNLESS a right is specifically enumerated in the constitution or the bill of rights, that it does not exist? How Alberto Gonzalez like of you.

Not at all. I was simply working off the assumption that you were making the argument that interstate travel was based in the Constitution.

smooth · 04-11-2007, 10:41 AM

we need to get a couple things straight...

first of all, your ability to understand how I feel about personal rights vis-a-vis the supreme court is about as miniscule as your grasp of the law, so don't insult me regarding either or I'll bite right back

second of all, I guess you get tired of something...but given that every time you spout ignorance I shut you down, I find it ironic that you would then reply that you're weary of spanking me...

you, once again, fail to understand some BASIC points...

1) there is no explicit constitutional right to travel
there's a constitutional right to liberty, and traveling has been interpreted to fall under liberty, but along with the caveat that government actions curtailing any such "right" to travel falls under strict scrutiny
Do you know what strict scrutiny means?

2) You didn't bother reading the entire legal argument in the case you cited...that's obvious to anyone who has. Because if you had done so, you would have noticed I was paraphrasing the rest of the legal argument when I mentioned that in times of war and emergencies the court has ruled that the right to travel can be curtailed cf. STRICT SCRUTINY.

3) You probably don't know this...but supreme court decisions are narrowly confined to the case at hand. That means that this passport case regarding travel OUT OF THE COUNTRY is of LITTLE to NO RELEVANCE to citizens moving between cities.

Simply because FIVE justices believe that the right to travel is included in the right to liberty as it pertains to passports and travel between countries does NOT translate to binding precedence that they would necessarily rule the same as it pertains to citizens moving between cities. Such a ruling would require a seperate case on that specific issue...and given that the justices clearly established the "right" to travel as CONDITIONAL, it's unlikely that the same justices would have done so if they were alive today and ruling on this katrina case of two people trying to circumvent the police telling them to go somewhere that was better prepared to handle their needs during a national emergency...

4) More to say, but I'm going to leave it at this IRONY:
The last thread you and I had one of these unlearning sessions centered around our understandings of the 14th amendment. and unless I'm forgetting something, you pretty much told the board you thought that the court only recognized certain rights under the 14th amendment due to political bullshit.

now, that is hilarious in it's own right...but it's even moreso this time around because you absolulely need the 14th amendment to make the argument you are doing in this thread...the ONLY way a citizen can make a claim about a city police force to a federal court is by arguing: hey, I've got FEDERAL civil rights that supercede local rights and policies...hear my plea...

so here, you [perhaps unknowingly] hinge your legal argument on the reality of securing federal rights for citizens over and above local rights, but there you didn't want to hear anything of it...mighty inconsistent unless you'd like to clear that up....

the "big" problem today is IGNORANCE...and proud demonstration of it by the ignorant over and over...like threads and comments such as yours. see, it's interesting that the best insult you can come up with is that I derive my thoughts of rights from judges and courts, yet you're the one citing case after case as the basis of the right to travel.

you didn't come at me with a philisophical claim, which I might actually have been interested to hear...no, you posted the legal claims and when I discuss them with you it appears that you have to resort to arguing that I only see rights through a legal prism. I wonder if anyone else considers that oddly hypocritcal...

dksuddeth · 04-11-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

An otherwise solid post turned sour by a single snarky remark...

just giving back what I got. it's a character flaw. my apologies and thanks for the good part of the comment.

Cynthetiq · 04-11-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont think you have a constitutional right to spank Smooth.

AND I still believe there is absolutely no reason to change the process for removing sitting judges based on one ruling.

I agree... think about how many judges there are in the nation, and how many things pass through their courtroom. because of one person it calls for the dismantling of the whole system?

ubertuber · 04-11-2007, 10:52 AM

Ok, one guy spanks the other, and then the other "shuts him down". Let's just take a deep breath and continue this conversation without getting so personal. Neither of you guys has anything to do with deciding this case - so we're all just talking.

Now that that's over with... Smooth, can you help me out? I'm not sure that I understand why a right has to be enumerated in the Constitution. I was under the impression that the 10th amendment specified that rights not specifically restricted or assigned to the Feds BY the Constitution were reserved to the states or the people. Clearly I'm either misreading your post or I'm on the wrong page.

04-05-2007, 02:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	since the states set their own election rules, for the most part, it shouldn't be that difficult to provide for those specific criteria to recall. You'd have to set it up so that simple political targeting couldn't be used. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-05-2007, 05:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The writers of the Constitution demonstrated their wisdom with the concept of keeping politics and popular sentiment out of the judiciary, to the extent possible. The Constitution does not specifically say judges have lifetime appointments...rather they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour". A judge's interpretation of the law that does not meet a particular political or even popular test does not constitute "bad behavior". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-06-2007, 05:10 AM	#12 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Sorry I know a number of judges, and while I don't agree with them all the time I do agree that they have their position. Checks and balances come from ANY other judge that will allow you to use their courtroom to hear any complaint or issue. To have the ability to remove judges at whim is folly. Don't like the fact that they voted anti abortion, remove them from the bench. Don't like the fact they are sympathetic to minorities, remove them from the bench. Don't like the way they do something remove them from the bench. No it doesn't seem like a good way to do business at all. Seems to me like "tyranny of the majority" is much more possible. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-06-2007, 01:03 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	And I believe after the fact it was ruled as illegal and the government offered apologies. What if a judge comes out and has some known bias? Shouldn't there be a way to remove him? For example say it comes out that some judge hates black people, or hates tourists. Now say this bias is clearly affecting his decisions. What should be the public recourse? I should also point out that judges in at least Utah are elected and as such every couple years the people have a chance to remove the judges. There hasn't been any major problems caused by this but there have definetly been some bad judges removed. Last edited by Rekna; 04-06-2007 at 01:05 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

04-06-2007, 01:40 PM	#20 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	nobody seems to be getting it yet. except maybe host. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958). Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547. Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). the above cases all have confirmed the undeniable right to freedom to travel, yet here we have a judge who either doesn't know the law, doesn't want to piss off louisiana law enforcement, too afraid to make such a 'huge' earth shattering decision, or is setting an unconstitutional agenda. In any case, it shouldn't be a difficult decision to see that she needs to be removed. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-05-2007, 01:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm sure they will appeal it and it will be overturned. I agree with you that their should be easy means to remove judges, but there should also be easy means to remove senators, congressmen, supreme court justices, the Vice President and the President. I would love it if congress would introduce an amendment which detailed recall election guidelines for the states. Off the top of my head something like a petition containing some % of the registered voters signatures in the relevant voting area (district, state, nation, ect) must be filled out. Upon submission of the signatures 30 days must pass in which people can file grievances with the signatures (look for fraud ect). Upon the completion of that interval an election must be set within say 60 days. Once the election occurs 60% of the voters must vote for their removal for them to be removed. I think a system like this would keep elected and appointed officials in check with the public.

04-05-2007, 03:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Yes thats why I said 60%. It is very hard to get 60% of the vote.

04-05-2007, 04:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It going to be funny to watch this idiot lose everyone's respect so fast.

04-05-2007, 05:50 PM	#9 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Bad cases make bad caselaw. -old proverb.

04-05-2007, 06:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	As shakran demonstrated, Democracy only works without idiots. We, the smarties, have to do what we can. At the end of the day, that's politics in a nutshell.

04-06-2007, 08:46 AM	#13 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'd like to clarify my statement of removal. I believe there should be means to remove them if they are ruling clearly against the rule of law. Case in point, here in Utah there are Polygamist cities. In these cities the entire government is controlled by the polygamists. If you get caught up in the legal system there and you are not one of them expect the court to be a kangaroo court. Shouldn't their be means by which people can remove those judges in this case? If a judge is abusing their power then their should be a way to remove them started by the people.

04-06-2007, 02:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Our tiered federal judicial system, as envisioned in the Constitution, has worked as well or better than any in the world for the last 200+ years, which is why there is absolutely no reason to make it easier to remove federal judges. The ultimate ejudicator is a body of 9, ensuring that a misguided ruling (if in fact it is misguided) by this judge or any lower court judge, for whatever reason, is short lived and the rule of law prevails. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-06-2007 at 02:23 PM..

04-06-2007, 02:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what this ruling clearly means is that if you are african-american and poor, you cannot count on your right to travel across local boundaries, particularly not in the context of a huge natural disaster one result of which is the flooding of what--70%?--of the city where you live. worse, it seems pretty clear to me that the reasoning is strained in order to justify the police blockade. so it would seem that the ruling responds to at least an asepct of local political conditions----you know: the political conditions that obtained in gretna of the sort that made the blockade seem like a rational idea. like it didn't mean what it obviously did: that the people who were trying to get out of new orleans across that bridge should have been forced to turn back. so it seems to me that the most direct and disturbing implication of this is that if you are poor and african-american in lousiana, you can be compelled to "stay in your place" even if that place is under water. and that if you are so compelled, you have no legal recourse. bourgeois property uber alles yes? good thing that the situation in new orleans after katrina was so well managed. good thing that conditions in new orleans were so nice so quickly. yay fema. yay state of lousiana. yay city of new orleans. if you forget what this is about, have a look at spike lee's "when the levee breaks" and then tell me that the most disturbing aspect of this involves the constitutional implications of shabby reasoning on the part of a rightwing judge. i assume that means that i do not "get it".... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-06-2007 at 02:32 PM..

04-06-2007, 02:42 PM	#24 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	dc my faith in the integrity of the supreme court is not absolute. The members of the supreme court are appointed by a politicized figure and as such their appointments many times hinge on their feelings on a certain case. The problem I see is that with only 9 judges it would be fairly easy for the court to be stacked against something. This is evident in the recent appointments in which people were appointed based on their political stance and not on their merits. People see the supreme court as a way to further their political agenda and that is dangerous. I would feel much more comfortable with the supreme court if it had 19 judges or if their was an ability for the public to check them if it was needed. With a larger number of justices it would be much harder for the bench to be stacked.

04-06-2007, 02:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Rekna...FDR tried stacking the Supreme Court by pushing legislation to add 6 more justices because he was pissed at how the Court ruled on some of his New Deal programs. One should never had absolute faith in 9 other fallible human beings...but if the system aint broke...dont fix it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-06-2007, 07:58 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Agreed, in addition to idiots add selfish pricks. Democracy only works without greed or ignorance, so a perfect democracy will have to be qualified by perfect people. That's why no governmental system will work unless it's run by robots, and even then, Windows Vista is kinda shaky.

04-07-2007, 07:18 AM	#29 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	dc in increasing the number of justicies it would have to be done in such a way that stacking would not be likely. For instance add 1 justice every 4 years or something. Of course then we would need to have some way to handle ties. Another option would be 2 justices every 4 years but then it would be more likely to be stackable.

04-11-2007, 10:41 AM	#37 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	we need to get a couple things straight... first of all, your ability to understand how I feel about personal rights vis-a-vis the supreme court is about as miniscule as your grasp of the law, so don't insult me regarding either or I'll bite right back second of all, I guess you get tired of something...but given that every time you spout ignorance I shut you down, I find it ironic that you would then reply that you're weary of spanking me... you, once again, fail to understand some BASIC points... 1) there is no explicit constitutional right to travel there's a constitutional right to liberty, and traveling has been interpreted to fall under liberty, but along with the caveat that government actions curtailing any such "right" to travel falls under strict scrutiny *Do you know what strict scrutiny* means? 2) You didn't bother reading the entire legal argument in the case you cited...that's obvious to anyone who has. Because if you had done so, you would have noticed I was paraphrasing the rest of the legal argument when I mentioned that in times of war and emergencies the court has ruled that the right to travel can be curtailed cf. STRICT SCRUTINY. 3) You probably don't know this...but supreme court decisions are narrowly confined to the case at hand. That means that this passport case regarding travel OUT OF THE COUNTRY is of LITTLE to NO RELEVANCE to citizens moving between cities. Simply because FIVE justices believe that the right to travel is included in the right to liberty as it pertains to passports and travel between countries does NOT translate to binding precedence that they would necessarily rule the same as it pertains to citizens moving between cities. Such a ruling would require a seperate case on that specific issue...and given that the justices clearly established the "right" to travel as CONDITIONAL, it's unlikely that the same justices would have done so if they were alive today and ruling on this katrina case of two people trying to circumvent the police telling them to go somewhere that was better prepared to handle their needs during a national emergency... 4) More to say, but I'm going to leave it at this IRONY: The last thread you and I had one of these unlearning sessions centered around our understandings of the 14th amendment. and unless I'm forgetting something, you pretty much told the board you thought that the court only recognized certain rights under the 14th amendment due to political bullshit. now, that is hilarious in it's own right...but it's even moreso this time around because you absolulely need the 14th amendment to make the argument you are doing in this thread...the ONLY way a citizen can make a claim about a city police force to a federal court is by arguing: hey, I've got FEDERAL civil rights that supercede local rights and policies...hear my plea... so here, you [perhaps unknowingly] hinge your legal argument on the reality of securing federal rights for citizens over and above local rights, but there you didn't want to hear anything of it...mighty inconsistent unless you'd like to clear that up.... the "big" problem today is IGNORANCE...and proud demonstration of it by the ignorant over and over...like threads and comments such as yours. see, it's interesting that the best insult you can come up with is that I derive my thoughts of rights from judges and courts, yet you're the one citing case after case as the basis** of the right to travel. you didn't come at me with a philisophical claim, which I might actually have been interested to hear...no, you posted the legal claims and when I discuss them with you it appears that you have to resort to arguing that I only see rights through a legal prism. I wonder if anyone else considers that oddly hypocritcal... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

04-11-2007, 10:52 AM	#40 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ok, one guy spanks the other, and then the other "shuts him down". Let's just take a deep breath and continue this conversation without getting so personal. Neither of you guys has anything to do with deciding this case - so we're all just talking. Now that that's over with... Smooth, can you help me out? I'm not sure that I understand why a right has to be enumerated in the Constitution. I was under the impression that the 10th amendment specified that rights not specifically restricted or assigned to the Feds BY the Constitution were reserved to the states or the people. Clearly I'm either misreading your post or I'm on the wrong page. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam