Where's the good in Kerry??? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tspikes51 · 10-19-2004, 08:12 PM

Similar to the question about Bush, I want to know exactly why you support Kerry, if you do. All that I've heard so far is the "lesser of two evils" and the "he's not Bush" excuses. Refrain from using Bush, the GOP, or any of their policies to explain yourself. I really want to know why I should vote for him.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:14 PM

because he will allow us to cut healthcare costs by rationing medical services and not treating the terminally ill, just like they do in England.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:15 PM

well, you ASKED!!!!

tspikes51 · 10-19-2004, 08:17 PM

Sounds good, I guess I've also heard his policy on stem-cell research, which I definately support, but the President only has so much veto power. That is up to the people, Congress, and the Supreme Court rather than the President.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 08:17 PM

They do treat the terminally ill in England.

Indeed, the state pays for their care and they are not obliged to pay for it themselves.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

They do treat the terminally ill in England.

That's strange. I had a friend in England. He was diagnosed with a cancer that is almost always terminal. When they found it, the doctors said he had two months to live, and they'd be able to start treatment in six months. We had to raise money to bring him over here for treatment. He still died, but at least he went out fighting. Even WITH fighting, he still didn't make it to his initial treatment date there.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 08:22 PM

Waiting lists do not equate to non treatment.

I offer my condolences to you on the loss of your friend.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Waiting lists do not equate to non treatment.

I offer my condolences to you on the loss of your friend.

Mr Mephisto

Thanks. Waiting lists DO equal non-treatment if the wait causes you to die before you can be treated. Frankly, I'll stick with the health care system we have now. Like the rest of our government, it ain't perfect, but given the alternatives, I'm real happy with it.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 08:41 PM

Well, you can pay for treatment in the UK as well you know.

A national health system does NOT mean you are limited to it alone. A lot of Americans seem to think that a public health system automatically means no private health system. That's not the case.

In Ireland, just like the UK and Australia, I can opt for public health care or I can choose to pay private health insurance and go into private hospital or care.

In other words, you have MORE choice. Not less.

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 08:43 PM

Bravo, Mr Mephisto. Sometimes the facts speak for themselves but it takes an outsider (to the US, not TFP!) to bring them to our attention.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

In Ireland, just like the UK and Australia, I can opt for public health care or I can choose to pay private health insurance and go into private hospital or care.

In other words, you have MORE choice. Not less.

Mr Mephisto

Of course, once the vast majority of people "opt" for government healthcare, and most doctors end up in the government system.

Kalibah · 10-19-2004, 09:23 PM

Because he isnt against gay marriages
Because Christopher Reeve will walk when Kerry is elected- and no im not trying to be politically incorrect but as many DNC advisors are saying- if we fund embyronic stem cell research, then we can cure ALL the worlds diseases even if it means we loose all morality we have an obligation to help those in need
Because he is pro-choice and will repeal the ban on partial birth abortions

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 09:33 PM

Unfortunately Christopher Reeve won't be walking anywhere.

And, whilst I support it, stem cell research does not equate to a cure for quadraplegia. At least not yet.

Mr Mephisto

TheFu · 10-19-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

A national health system does NOT mean you are limited to it alone. A lot of Americans seem to think that a public health system automatically means no private health system. That's not the case.

In Ireland, just like the UK and Australia, I can opt for public health care or I can choose to pay private health insurance and go into private hospital or care.

In other words, you have MORE choice. Not less.

Interesting. So the government uses their police power to take your money to fund a public health care system. But they still allow you to vouluntarily take what is left of your money and pay for private health care. That is pretty nice of them to let you have a choice.

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 09:36 PM

well, i for one am glad to see that this thread got off on the right track from the very first (non-starter) post. thanks daswig!!!

/not really contributing anything to this thread.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Unfortunately Christopher Reeve won't be walking anywhere.

If electing Kerry would make Christopher Reeve walk again, I'd vote for him. Unfortunately, it's just another unattainable promise made by the Kerry camp...

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 09:52 PM

The man is dead.

Where did Kerry and his campaign promise to make him walk?

For goodness sake...

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFu

Interesting. So the government uses their police power to take your money to fund a public health care system. But they still allow you to vouluntarily take what is left of your money and pay for private health care. That is pretty nice of them to let you have a choice.

Yeah. It's called taxes. Welcome to the world. :-)

Guess what? You don't get to decide on where your taxes go. Or do you think you should? I hope you're not one of those right-wing extremist "militia-like" Unabomber wannabes who don't agree that the government as any right to tax its citizens, are you?

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 10:02 PM

I'm voting for Kerry because his policies on foreign policy, the environment and social issues do not border on the insane.

The Magic · 10-19-2004, 10:07 PM

Kerry has a plan. For everything.

trickyy · 10-19-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Because he isnt against gay marriages
Because Christopher Reeve will walk when Kerry is elected- and no im not trying to be politically incorrect but as many DNC advisors are saying- if we fund embyronic stem cell research, then we can cure ALL the worlds diseases even if it means we loose all morality we have an obligation to help those in need
Because he is pro-choice and will repeal the ban on partial birth abortions

superman's dead and the partial birth ban was already overturned by a judge. i'm not sure he's actually *for* gay marriages either, he says it's a state matter.

anyway, let's get back to beer. kerry likes dark beer, guinness. much better than your average bud drinker.

he has big spending plans, but i take heart as a fiscal conservative. gop congress won't let him pass them very easily. if he can pass any items to increase gov't income (more likely to pass due to the deficit) and cannot pass his spending plans, the deficit is gone that much faster.

good environmental policies, too.

sure he has some weak points. here's an interesting take on that, hopefully it hasn't been posted before. it mentions bush so i won't post the text in this thread.
http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvot...himanyway.com/
includes Instances of Doucheitude & Why it Doesn't Matter, and How F**ked We are Right Now. it's pretty funny regardless of your position

Kalibah · 10-19-2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

superman's dead and the partial birth ban was already overturned by a judge. i'm not sure he's actually *for* gay marriages either, he says it's a state matter.

anyway, let's get back to beer. kerry likes dark beer, guinness. much better than your average bud drinker.

he has big spending plans, but i take heart as a fiscal conservative. gop congress won't let him pass them very easily. if he can pass any items to increase gov't income (more likely to pass due to the deficit) and cannot pass his spending plans, the deficit is gone that much faster.

good environmental policies, too.

sure he has some weak points. here's an interesting take on that, hopefully it hasn't been posted before. it mentions bush so i won't post the text in this thread.
http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvot...himanyway.com/
includes Instances of Doucheitude & Why it Doesn't Matter, and How F**ked We are Right Now. it's pretty funny regardless of your position

let me put it this way

Roe V. Wade
most states restricted abortion and The Supreme Court overturned their rulings.

I view that as the way same-sex marriages happen.

And if Gays get married in New York- where it might be legal ( hypothetically) - and move to Chicago - do we have to recognize their gay marraige?
Full Faith and Credit act says we do - we have to recognize their courts ruling. And its issues like these that require someone against same sex marriages to BAN it in the constition. There is no grey area when the supreme court can undoe each states decision as they did in abortion

guthmund · 10-19-2004, 10:49 PM

I have two very basic reasons to explain why I'll be voting for Sen. Kerry, but first....

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I'm voting for Kerry because his policies on foreign policy, the environment and social issues do not border on the insane.

Nice. Very funny.

1- I agree with the vast majority of Sen. Kerry's positions and policies. Since no one single candidate can share all of my personal positions on every issue, I have to vote for the candidate who I agree the most with. In this case, that man is Sen. John Kerry.

2- Quite simple, he said this.... Edit: (I just wanted the little box. It wasn't really originally posted by John Kerry, right? I'm not going to get any flak for this, right?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sen. John Kerry

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

He doesn't like gay marriage. Doesn't agree with it at all, but he isn't going to try to legislate an "article of faith" that some hold to affect those of us who don't under the guise of preserving the "sanctity of marriage." Which, I should point out, is also an "article of faith" that not all of us hold dear.

It seems the administration has no problem with Elizabeth Taylor (wedded some 8 times) Jennifer Lopez (married 3 times in the last 6 years) and Britney Spears (married twice by the tender age of 22,) but feel we need a constitutional amendment to preserve the sanctity of marriage. An amendment that doesn't affect the likes of Taylor, Lopez or Spears...excuse me, Federline, but instead specifically targets homosexuals. I apologize, it's also aimed at purveyors of bestiality, right? Because that's where the slippery slope will take you.

I seemed to have gotten a bit off track, but that's two reasons why I will be voting for Sen. John Kerry in November.

host · 10-19-2004, 11:07 PM

Kerry will work to turn back these Bushco "initiatives", and many others....

Quote:

The Washington Post has published a three-part series analyzing the devastating impact of Bush administration deregulatory policies on the environment and public health. The first article from the Post is called Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory Thrust, <a href="http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_deregulation_osha_post_aug15.htm">OSHA Made More Business-Friendly, August 15, 2004.</a> The second article, <a href="http://www.theocracywatch.org/deregulation_post_2_aug16,htm.htm">August 16, 'Data Quality' Law Is Nemesis Of Regulation</a> talks about the health threat of a law to deregulate chemicals. The third article, <a href="http://www.theocracywatch.org/deregulation_post_3_aug17.htm">August 17, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change</a>August 17, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change explains how Bush administration rule changes are devastating the environment.

And......this:<a href="http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm">The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party</a>

daswig · 10-19-2004, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Magic

Kerry has a plan. For everything.

Too bad he can't pay for even a tithe of them...

daswig · 10-19-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The man is dead.

Where did Kerry and his campaign promise to make him walk?

For goodness sake...

Mr Mephisto

Edwards promised it while advocating embryonic Stem Cell research.

host · 10-19-2004, 11:42 PM

Kerry is a former prosecutor. Bush, who answered a question during one of the debates, about his criteria for judicial appointments to the federal bench or to the supreme court, by saying that he will appoint judges who adhere to the constitution in determining how to interpret the law, when, ironically, he was appointed to the office of POTUS by 5 Supreme Court justices, several of who were appointed by his father and by Reagan, via a controversial, and unsigned opinion, that constitutional scholars opine, was not constitutional! Kerry has the court room and criminal law experience to appoint judges with mainstream views on the law, the constitution, and how the two mesh fairly with the best interest of the collective U.S. society. Bush has a view steeped in hypocricy; one judiciary that bends for his interests, and a very conservative, Christian fundamentalist, anachronistic, and respressive judiciary which he intends to slant as described above, via his future apointments to the bench. Women, the environment, and
the consumer will see their interests and rights defended by Kerry judicial
appointees, and set back, possibly drastically if Bush is elected.

Quote:

In Court Clerks' Breach, a Provocative Precedent

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2004; Page D01

The inscription on the front of the Supreme Court building says "Equal Justice Under Law," but the court's motto could just as easily be "What Happens Here, Stays Here." In a town where confidential information travels fast, the justices protect their internal deliberations fiercely -- and, usually, successfully.

But in the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine, former Supreme Court law clerks from the court's 2000-01 term speak out -- under cover of anonymity -- about what they saw behind the scenes during the fateful case of Bush v. Gore.

That case, decided by a 5-4 vote, ended the contentious recount in Florida, thereby giving the presidency to George W. Bush.

Writers David Margolick, Evgenia Peretz and Michael Shnayerson recount the views of former clerks to liberal justices who opposed the ruling. Those clerks contend that the decision was a rank exercise in partisanship by conservative Republican justices. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38758-2004Oct16.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38758-2004Oct16.html</a>
(If you don't have a user name and password for the Wash.Post, copy and past the link into the google search box, do the search and click on the result.

daswig · 10-20-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Kerry is a former prosecutor. Bush, who answered a question during one of the debates, about his criteria for judicial appointments to the federal bench or to the supreme court, by saying that he will appoint judges who adhere to the constitution in determining how to interpret the law, when, ironically, he was appointed to the office of POTUS by 5 Supreme Court justices, several of who were appointed by his father and by Reagan, via a controversial, and unsigned opinion, that constitutional scholars opine, was not constitutional! Kerry has the court room and criminal law experience to appoint judges with mainstream views on the law, the constitution, and how the two mesh fairly with the best interest of the collective U.S. society. Bush has a view steeped in hypocricy; one judiciary that bends for his interests, and a very conservative, Christian fundamentalist, anachronistic, and respressive judiciary which he intends to slant as described above, via his future apointments to the bench. Women, the environment, and
the consumer will see their interests and rights defended by Kerry judicial
appointees, and set back, possibly drastically if Bush is elected.

Ummm, Host, you DO realize that all the Constitutional scholars on the planet can scream "That's Unconstitutional!!!", but if the Supreme Court says "That's Constitutional!", it is, in fact, Constitutional, right?

You talk about "mainstream views of the law". Please explain what you mean by this. It SOUNDS like you mean "mob rule". Say it ain't so.

I can tell that you really don't know dick about the way the judicial system works, and are just parroting talking points. So Sayeth The J.D.

Halx · 10-20-2004, 12:08 AM

I don't think there is much good in Kerry.

host · 10-20-2004, 12:16 AM

Read the entire October, 2004 Vanity Fair Article concerning the details of
the unprecedented disclosure of former supreme court law clerks who witnessed
the deliberations that resulted in the 5 to 4 December, 2000 Gore v. Bush
ruling: <a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm">The Path to Florida</a>

Quote:

.......The Court’s opinions were issued at roughly 10 o’clock that night. The only one that mattered, the short majority opinion, was unsigned, but it bore Kennedy’s distinctive stamp. There was the usual ringing rhetoric, like the “equal dignity owed to each voter,” even though, as a practical matter, the ruling meant that the ballots of 60,000 of them would not even be examined. The varying standards of the recount, Kennedy wrote, did not satisfy even the rudimentary requirements of equal protection. Although six more days would pass before the electors met in their states, he insisted there was too little time for the Florida courts to fix things.

There were two more extraordinary passages: first, that the ruling applied to Bush and Bush alone, lest anyone think the Court was expanding the reach of the equal-protection clause; and, second, that the Court had taken the case only very reluctantly and out of necessity. “That infuriated us,” one liberal clerk recalls. “It was typical Kennedy bullshit, aggrandizing the power of the Court while ostensibly wringing his hands about it.”

Rehnquist, along with Scalia and Thomas, joined in the decision, but Scalia, for one, was unimpressed. Whether or not one agrees with him, Scalia is a rigorous thinker; while the claim that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds had some superficial heft to it, the opinion on equal-protection was mediocre and flaccid. “Like we used to say in Brooklyn,” he is said to have told a colleague, “it’s a piece of shit.” (Scalia denies disparaging the majority opinion; the other justices would not comment for this article.)

Sharing little but a common sense of exhaustion and Thai takeout, the clerks came together briefly to watch the news. As reporters fumbled with the opinions—the final line of Kennedy’s opinion, sending the case back to Florida even though there was really nothing more the Florida court could do, confused many of them—the clerks shouted imprecations at the screen. The liberal ones slumped in their chairs; some left the room, overcome by their own irrelevance. “We had a desire to get out already and see if journalists and politicians could stop what we couldn’t stop,” says one. They contemplated a variety of options—holding a press conference, perhaps, or leaking incriminating documents. There was just one problem: there were none. “If there’d been a memo saying, ‘I know this is total garbage but I want Bush to be president,’ I think it would have found its way into the public domain,” one clerk recalls........

Quote:

But I think this decision will haunt the reputations of the justices in the majority forever........
I don’t think it’s in doubt. This will be in the first couple of paragraphs in all of their obituaries.<a href="http://makethemaccountable.com/caro/Interview_Toobin_Jeffrey_011108_Transcript.htm">Interview_Toobin_Jeffrey_011108_Transcript.htm</a>

host · 10-20-2004, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Ummm, Host, you DO realize that all the Constitutional scholars on the planet can scream "That's Unconstitutional!!!", but if the Supreme Court says "That's Constitutional!", it is, in fact, Constitutional, right?

You talk about "mainstream views of the law". Please explain what you mean by this. It SOUNDS like you mean "mob rule". Say it ain't so.

I can tell that you really don't know dick about the way the judicial system works, and are just parroting talking points. So Sayeth The J.D.

Thanks for the links to reinforce the major points in your post

Shooting the messenger is not going to further your argument......you take
it back......you hear me????? Or......I'll go get a mod

daswig · 10-20-2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Read the entire October, 2004 Vanity Fair Article concerning the details of
the unprecedented disclosure of former supreme court law clerks who witnessed
the deliberations that resulted in the 5 to 4 December, 2000 Gore v. Bush
ruling: <a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm">The Path to Florida</a>

OK, so you're going on the word of a bunch of people who are #1: of a self-declared liberal bent and who are advocating a clearly liberal position; #2: people who are violating the cannon of ethics by doing what they're doing, a disbarrable offense; and #3: who have not a single shred of hard evidence.

On the positive side, I GREATLY enjoyed the bit about the EVIL Federalist Society, seeing how I am white, male, and a member of that society. Of course, my best friend in the Federalist Society (and our chapter president) was female and korean, but why let stereotypes get in the way, eh? It's nice to know that we're so all-powerful that just 4 of our members were able to sway the entire election (snicker).

/hands Host a nice roll of tinfoil

daswig · 10-20-2004, 01:04 AM

Host, do you really contest that SCOTUS is in fact the final, indisputable arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, and so-called "constitutional scholars" are NOT??? Am I REALLY going to have to break out my pocket copy of the Constitution, and start quoting Marbury v. Madison??? Are you REALLY asking me to do that???

host · 10-20-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Host, do you really contest that SCOTUS is in fact the final, indisputable arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, and so-called "constitutional scholars" are NOT??? Am I REALLY going to have to break out my pocket copy of the Constitution, and start quoting Marbury v. Madison??? Are you REALLY asking me to do that???

Technically, you are correct, because the SCOTUS is the constitutionally
designated branch of the federal government authorized to interpret and apply
the clauses of the constitution.

But......we face the same dilemna as the former SCOTUS law clerks faced;
do the rules, or at least the "playing field", standards of decorum, protocal,
whatever you prefer to call it in this unprecedented set of circumstances,
when the SCOTUS issues decisions of such import and impact and then
specifically declares that the rulings apply only in one case, Gore v. Bush, to
the detriment of one man, Gore, and the unidentified voters disenfranchised by the Scotus decision, and to the benefit of another man, Bush? In such a
situation, are "all bets off"? Here is an excerpt of one lawyer's opinion:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&c=5&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call It Treason - by VINCENT BUGLIOSI January 18,2001</a>

<b>6.</b> Perhaps nothing Scalia et al. did revealed their consciousness of guilt more than the total lack of legal stature they reposed in their decision. Appellate court decisions, particularly those of the highest court in the land, all enunciate and stand for legal principles. Not just litigants but the courts themselves cite prior holdings as support for a legal proposition they are espousing. But the Court knew that its ruling (that differing standards for counting votes violate the equal protection clause) could not possibly be a constitutional principle cited in the future by themselves, other courts or litigants. Since different methods of counting votes exist throughout the fifty states (e.g., Texas counts dimpled chads, California does not), forty-four out of the fifty states do not have uniform voting methods, and voting equipment and mechanisms in all states necessarily vary in design, upkeep and performance, to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country.

This, obviously, was an extremely serious problem for the felonious five to deal with. What to do? Not to worry. Are you ready for this one? By that I mean, are you sitting down, since if you're standing, this is the type of thing that could affect your physical equilibrium. Unbelievably, the Court wrote that its ruling was " limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." (That's pure, unadulterated moonshine. The ruling sets forth a very simple, noncomplex proposition -- that if there are varying standards to count votes, this violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer to prior decisions of this court." Of the thousands of potential equal protection voting cases, the Court was only interested in, and eager to grant relief to, one person and one person only, George W. Bush.6 Is there any limit to the effrontery and shamelessness of these five right-wing Justices? Answer : No. This point number six here, all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President.

Conservatives, the very ones who wanted to impeach Earl Warren, have now predictably taken to arguing that one shouldn't attack the Supreme Court as I am because it can only harm the image of the Court, which we have to respect as the national repository for, and protector of, the rule of law, the latter being a sine qua non to a structured, nonanarchistic society. This is just so much drivel. Under what convoluted theory do we honor the rule of law by ignoring the violation of it (here, the sacred, inalienable right to vote of all Americans) by the Supreme Court? With this unquestioning subservience-to-authority theory, I suppose the laws of the Third Reich--such as requiring Jews to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothing--should have been respected and followed by the Jews. Blacks should have respected Jim Crow laws in the first half of the twentieth century. Naturally, these conservative exponents of not harming the Supreme Court, even though the Court stole a federal election disfranchising 50 million American citizens, are the same people who felt no similar hesitancy savaging the President of the United States not just day after day, but week after week, month after month, yes, even year after year for having a private and consensual sexual affair and then lying about it. And this was so even though the vitriolic and never-ending attacks crippled the executive branch of government for months on end, causing incalculable damage to the office of the presidency and to this nation, both internally and in the eyes of the world. Indeed, many of them are delighted to hound and go after the President even after he leaves office.

These five Justices, by their conduct, have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct.

Why, one may ask, have I written this article? I'll tell you why. I'd like to think, like most people, that I have a sense of justice. In my mind's eye, these five Justices have gotten away with murder, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure that they pay dearly for their crime. Though they can't be prosecuted, I want them to know that there's at least one American out there (and hopefully many more because of this article) who knows (not thinks, but knows) precisely who they are. I want these five Justices to know that because of this article, which I intend to send to each one of them by registered mail, there's the exponential possibility that when many Americans look at them in the future, they'll be saying, "Why are these people in robes seated above me? They all belong behind bars." I want these five Justices to know that this is America, not a banana republic, and in the United States of America, you simply cannot get away with things like this.

daswig · 10-20-2004, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Technically, you are correct, because the SCOTUS is the constitutionally
designated branch of the federal government authorized to interpret and apply
the clauses of the constitution.

TECHNICALLY!??!!?!

That's like saying the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought is "technically" murder.

Quote:

But......we face the same dilemna (sic) as the former SCOTUS law clerks faced;
do the rules, or at least the "playing field", standards of decorum, protocal (sic),
whatever you prefer to call it in this unprecedented set of circumstances,
when the SCOTUS issues decisions of such import and impact and then
specifically declares that the rulings apply only in one case, Gore v. Bush, to
the detriment of one man, Gore, and the unidentified voters disenfranchised by the Scotus decision, and to the benefit of another man, Bush? In such a
situation, are "all bets off"? Here is an excerpt of one lawyer's opinion:

Dude, that's what courts DO. They decide cases that positively affect one party and negatively impact another party. And why do I give a shit what Bugliosi thinks? He's just another asshole with a J.D., and I know a LOT of assholes with J.D.s. You should read some of the insane shit that dribbles from the pens of J.D.s. For example, I know one personally that, in all seriousness and with a straight face, wants to extend to all animals the "right to not be property." He's a raving fucking LUNATIC, and a law professor at a prestigious First Tier school. Then again, I know a fat little chubby guy with WAY too much hair that's the number one guy at another First Tier school, who is notorious for wandering around campus wearing Tevas, nasty old sweatpants and a holey, heavily stained black t-shirt, but has a mind like an old-school beartrap. You don't have to be a flipping genious to have a J.D., I'm living proof of that, and my sheepskin came from a First Tier school, not a box of Samoan Cheerios. Here Endeth the Lesson. (feeling kinda Biblical this AM for some reason, and I'm an Agnostic)

host · 10-20-2004, 03:00 AM

You made your point......you don't have to rub it in

2 questions, counsellor.......

Can you cite another SCOTUS ruling that was exempted by its authors from
being cited in a future brief as a precedent? Isn't that a tad unusual? I based
my argument on an expectation that all SCOTUS rulings either affirm the
interpretation of the portion of the constitution in question in the matter
before the court, or reinterpret the constitution in a way that will effect
future rulings of similar matters that may come before the court. In other
words, don't all SCOTUS rulings that are unique or unsual influence what was precedent before that ruling? I thought that was the reason that the SCOTUS
attempts to set new precedents by carefully reviewing the matters that it
will hear before a new term when the court will be in session, refusing to hear
matters that contain issues already well defined in the exisiting precedents of
the law?

and.......
Do you ever sleep?????

daswig · 10-20-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You made your point......you don't have to rub it in

2 questions, counsellor.......

Can you cite another SCOTUS ruling that was exempted by its authors from
being cited in a future brief as a precedent? Isn't that a tad unusual? I based
my argument on an expectation that all SCOTUS rulings either affirm the
interpretation of the portion of the constitution in question in the matter
before the court, or reinterpret the constitution in a way that will effect
future rulings of similar matters that may come before the court. In other
words, don't all SCOTUS rulings that are unique or unsual influence what was precedent before that ruling? I thought that was the reason that the SCOTUS
attempts to set new precedents by carefully reviewing the matters that it
will hear before a new term when the court will be in session, refusing to hear
matters that contain issues already well defined in the exisiting precedents of
the law?

and.......
Do you ever sleep?????

Sure I sleep. In court. That's why I have hired hands, to wake me up when my cases are called and to kick me if I start to snore or drool on myself. I put forth my best arguments minutes after I awaken, fuzzy teeth and all, possibly as a result of living with the same woman for 10+ years.

As for SCOTUS saying "in just this one case", I can't recall another such case off the top of my head (of course, "in just this one case" situations would make the holding pretty useless, so there's no pressing need to remember them since they can't be cited), and I'm not going to blow the money on a proper search. I can tell you, however, that it's not terribly uncommon in the lower courts, both at the trial and appellate level.

As for refusing to hear black letter law cases, they do indeed review them all the time. In fact, the truly notable cases generally are ALL reviews of black letter law cases. Take Brown v. Topeka BOE. Going into that one, it's doubtful that anybody expected the outcome that happened. When the holding was released, the earth shook in a metaphorical sense.

Anyway, I'm outa here. Time to hop in the shower, I've got a "cattle call" at 0900.

cthulu23 · 10-20-2004, 05:03 AM

Wow, this thread sure went to hell.

tspikes51 · 10-20-2004, 11:07 AM

Agreed. We can't seem to keep things on track in this thread...

goppers · 10-20-2004, 11:48 AM

I'm keen on stem cell research. that's probably my #1 issue, but i work in health sciences, so it would be a bit higher on my list than others. Interesting article about the prop in CA dealing with stem cell research in the New Yorker last week (I think it was last week).

10-19-2004, 08:12 PM	#1 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	Where's the good in Kerry??? Similar to the question about Bush, I want to know exactly why you support Kerry, if you do. All that I've heard so far is the "lesser of two evils" and the "he's not Bush" excuses. Refrain from using Bush, the GOP, or any of their policies to explain yourself. I really want to know why I should vote for him. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-19-2004, 08:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	Sounds good, I guess I've also heard his policy on stem-cell research, which I definately support, but the President only has so much veto power. That is up to the people, Congress, and the Supreme Court rather than the President. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-19-2004, 09:36 PM	#15 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	well, i for one am glad to see that this thread got off on the right track from the very first (non-starter) post. thanks daswig!!! /not really contributing anything to this thread. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

10-20-2004, 12:08 AM	#29 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I don't think there is much good in Kerry. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-20-2004, 11:07 AM	#39 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	Agreed. We can't seem to keep things on track in this thread... __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox Last edited by tspikes51; 10-25-2004 at 10:39 AM..

10-19-2004, 08:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	because he will allow us to cut healthcare costs by rationing medical services and not treating the terminally ill, just like they do in England.

10-19-2004, 08:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	well, you ASKED!!!!

10-19-2004, 08:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	They do treat the terminally ill in England. Indeed, the state pays for their care and they are not obliged to pay for it themselves. Mr Mephisto

10-19-2004, 08:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Waiting lists do not equate to non treatment. I offer my condolences to you on the loss of your friend. Mr Mephisto

10-19-2004, 08:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well, you can pay for treatment in the UK as well you know. A national health system does NOT mean you are limited to it alone. A lot of Americans seem to think that a public health system automatically means no private health system. That's not the case. In Ireland, just like the UK and Australia, I can opt for public health care or I can choose to pay private health insurance and go into private hospital or care. In other words, you have MORE choice. Not less. Mr Mephisto

10-19-2004, 08:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Bravo, Mr Mephisto. Sometimes the facts speak for themselves but it takes an outsider (to the US, not TFP!) to bring them to our attention.

10-19-2004, 09:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Because he isnt against gay marriages Because Christopher Reeve will walk when Kerry is elected- and no im not trying to be politically incorrect but as many DNC advisors are saying- if we fund embyronic stem cell research, then we can cure ALL the worlds diseases even if it means we loose all morality we have an obligation to help those in need Because he is pro-choice and will repeal the ban on partial birth abortions

10-19-2004, 09:33 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Unfortunately Christopher Reeve won't be walking anywhere. And, whilst I support it, stem cell research does not equate to a cure for quadraplegia. At least not yet. Mr Mephisto

10-19-2004, 09:52 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	The man is dead. Where did Kerry and his campaign promise to make him walk? For goodness sake... Mr Mephisto

10-19-2004, 10:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I'm voting for Kerry because his policies on foreign policy, the environment and social issues do not border on the insane.

10-19-2004, 10:07 PM	#20 (permalink)
The Magic Crazy Location: Reality	Kerry has a plan. For everything.

10-20-2004, 01:04 AM	#33 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Host, do you really contest that SCOTUS is in fact the final, indisputable arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, and so-called "constitutional scholars" are NOT??? Am I REALLY going to have to break out my pocket copy of the Constitution, and start quoting Marbury v. Madison??? Are you REALLY asking me to do that???

10-20-2004, 03:00 AM	#36 (permalink)
host Banned	You made your point......you don't have to rub it in 2 questions, counsellor....... Can you cite another SCOTUS ruling that was exempted by its authors from being cited in a future brief as a precedent? Isn't that a tad unusual? I based my argument on an expectation that all SCOTUS rulings either affirm the interpretation of the portion of the constitution in question in the matter before the court, or reinterpret the constitution in a way that will effect future rulings of similar matters that may come before the court. In other words, don't all SCOTUS rulings that are unique or unsual influence what was precedent before that ruling? I thought that was the reason that the SCOTUS attempts to set new precedents by carefully reviewing the matters that it will hear before a new term when the court will be in session, refusing to hear matters that contain issues already well defined in the exisiting precedents of the law? and....... Do you ever sleep?????

10-20-2004, 05:03 AM	#38 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Wow, this thread sure went to hell.

10-20-2004, 11:48 AM	#40 (permalink)
goppers Tilted	I'm keen on stem cell research. that's probably my #1 issue, but i work in health sciences, so it would be a bit higher on my list than others. Interesting article about the prop in CA dealing with stem cell research in the New Yorker last week (I think it was last week).