On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:01:26 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Green wrote:

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...impeach-judges

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore
Supreme Court decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in
chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain
courts if he disagreed with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with
elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American"
views, Gingrich said Saturday during a conference call with
reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a
doctorate in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly
try to follow the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. I
don't know how good a history professor he was if he fails to
understand the basic principles of "checks and balances" written into
the Constitution. Maybe he thinks it's about balancing his
checkbook. (-:

If I were president and a court or congress tried to limit my Article II
powers, I, too, would ignore them. One of the principles of "checks and

It was a strange part of the interview, becuse he's not running for
Congress. Does he think the Congress will subpoena a judge just
because the President wants it to. The Congress has reason to care
about separatino of powers also.

balances" is that no branch may order another branch to do anything that
usurps that other branches' constitutional powers. A judge cannot order a
legislature to pass a particular law, the president cannot order a court to
render a certain judgement, and so on.

Yup.

This concept has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican. The issue is the Constitutional powers of a particular branch.



The Republicans I know are *somewhat for* Newt because he does have a
good understanding (probably better than Obama's) of how to get
Congress to vote his way. The Republican women I know, including my
wife, find it very difficult to like him after serving his wife with
divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer.

(Tell your wife it didn't happen.)

I heard his relationship with his now wife started 7 years before he
divorced the one he cheated with on his first wife.

Whatever the length, what about trying to pass off what I learned was
a homewrecker and a tramp as First Lady of the USA.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:45:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


All the activist judges I know are Democrat liberals. Can't think
of a single Republican one. Can you show us some?

There definitely are. One major incident, decided in the last year, I
wish I could remember the details but I'm getting old, the appeal to
the Supreme Court was based on certain issues. But Alito or Roberts
asked the lawyers to brief an issue that hadn't even been an issue,
and then decided against the respondent on it. A famous case this
year, might have be that United thing.

On the United thing, they overturned 100 year old precedent, giving
free speech rights to a corporation. as if it were a person in that
regard. .

As an example
of activist judges, the NJ Supreme Court, chock full of liberals is
a classic example. Their decisions, totally unsupported by the
constitution, have wrecked the state. Examples:

On Dec 23, 3:37*pm, micky wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:12:07 -0500, "Robert Green"





wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
.. .
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text

Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. *It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. *Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...Gingrich-says-...

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's

It wasn't just his line of creidt (I thought it was 500K). It's that
when they asked him about it last spring or summer, he said pretty
much "That's the way people do business".


What answer exactly would you like? He has a line
of credit at Tiffany. So what? You have credit accounts,
don't you? Most people do. If we're gonna start this,
then let's find out what credit cards Obama has. What
kinds of lines of credit John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi has.
Just another example of a biased media. because that
question would never be raised or reported on had it
been one of the liberal Democrats.




As if we're dummies for
not knowing that and not having our own line of credit.

Apparently you are, since you still have a problem with
Newt having an account at Tiffany

In article ,
micky wrote:


On the United thing, they overturned 100 year old precedent, giving
free speech rights to a corporation. as if it were a person in that
regard. .
0
Reread the actual opinion. The majority reinstated a long line of case
law saying that corps had constitutional rights. It had only been in
about the 20 years or so that this was overturned.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., in 1936 was an early case that
stated specifically that corporations had constitutional rights (under
the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and the Grosjean Court
specifically included first amendment).
"6. A corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 244."

"From the history of the subject, it is plain that the English rule
restricting freedom of the press to immunity from censorship before
publication was not accepted by the American colonists, and that the
First Amendment was aimed at any form of previous restraint upon printed
publications or their circulation, including restraint by taxation of
newspapers and their advertising, which were well known and odious
methods still used in England when the First Amendment was adopted. P.
245. [p234]
9. The predominant purpose of the grant of immunity was to preserve an
untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. P. 250.


This was reiterated in National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People v. Button in 1963 and Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm in
1990. Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the
Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the
speaker's corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784-785.

It wasn't until March of 1990 and AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494
U. S. 652, that all of a sudden corps had lost this right. All United
did was reinstute the much longer line that said corporations had
constitutional rights.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Han" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote in :

snipped

Han, I normally agree with your comments. Please recognize that in my
comments I've been referring to "war" in the formal, legal definition
in accordance with the text of the Constitution, and not in the more
colloquial sense in which the word has come to be used. I agree that
our military action in Afghanistan is a de facto war, but it not a de
jure war.

I don't give a rat's ass about this war being not a de jure war. You're
legalistically correct, perhaps, but Congress did authorize lethal force
here to "protect" something, most likely. You also should keep in mind
that people, including Americans, have died in this de jure not-a-war, so
some people would take offense to your wording.

I think what Peter was trying to get at (forgive me, PK, if I am putting
words in your mouth) is the concept of scope. Although Congress and the
people approved the action on Iraq, I don't think they believed they were
authorizing the opening of a multi-trillion dollar, ten year-wide torpedo
hole in our national economy. I believe that most people thought we were
going in PRECISELY to search places that Saddam kept off-limits to Hans Blix
and the UN inspection teams. Even the NY Times, constantly accused of being
a liberal mouthpiece, helped sell the WMD claim:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2957

Of course, the drive to war rested firmly on Bush's repeated and emphatic
claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was
prepared to use-a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times'
own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered
with credulous reports based on faulty information. (See Extra!, 7-8/03.)

For a variety of reasons, the mission grew like kudzu and we found ourselves
building a Muslim democracy, rebuilding power stations and other facilities
we had bombed during the initial attack. We removed a strongman who was
able to hold the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds from each other's throats.
One who was able, apparently, to hoodwink the world's best intelligence
agencies and his own generals into believing he actually had WMD's.

Saddam was once the recipient of our friendship and considerable military
and financial aid when Iran was our bigger concern.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...ur-friend.html

In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, a private citizen employed as a special
envoy by the then President Ronald Reagan, flew to Baghdad to pledge US
support for Saddam Hussein.

Qaddaffi was once our friend, too. I helped build jet trainers for the
Libyans in the 70's when we were showering Col. Momar with military aid.
Now we're got the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that he kept a lid on,
running the country in his place. Is that progress? Only time will tell.

We only quieted Iraq by throwing in with one of the murderous militia
factions:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/08/2...in-danger.html

the United States pays each [Sons of Iraq - Sunni] militia member a
stipend of about $300 a month . . American military officials here have
always said that the creation of the Sunni militias was at least as
important to the precipitous drop in violence as the presence of 30,000 more
U.S. troops

Fighting will resume when the payments stop because the ruling Shia party
likely won't continue paying their blood enemies like we did. Ironically we
killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did by an incredibly wide margin. It's
kind of hypocritical to tell the Iraqis "We'll save you from Saddam" and
then end up killing more of them than Saddam could ever dream of.

Although fervent supporters of the war insist we've bettered their lives,
the Iraqis and common metrics of quality of life say quite the opposite.

One year into the war, Iraqis were very optimistic that things were good and
getting better:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html

The optimism has understandably faded after nearly 10 years of occupation by
US forces. This site reports on some of the "quality of life" metrics that
show we really made a mess out of Iraq. I say part of the blame rests with
leaders who appear to have had a very time admitting they were wrong about
anything. We see that personality defect here often in AHR. g Even Bush
didn't blame himself for *following* bad intel, he blamed the CIA and FBI
for *providing* it even though it was clear that many career intel officers
believed it was bad information.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263625

Candy Crowley, a CNN reporter, asked him what went wrong in Iraq. Bush
replied with the following: I think it was just bad analysis. But, it wasn't
just our CIA. It was intelligence services all over the world that believed
the same thing

Electric power is spotty, the country's covered in garbage, there are no
jobs, clean water supplies have yet to recover to their pre-war levels and
of course, 100,000 to 1 million of them are dead. The infrastructure of Iraq
is still so badly damaged no one can say for sure. It's the ultimate proof
of the statement: "We're from the US government and we're here to help
you!" NOT!!!!!

http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/

================================================== ============
Population of Iraq: 30 million.
Number of Iraqis killed in attacks in November 2011: 187
Percentage of Iraqis who lived in slum conditions in 2000: 17
Percentage of Iraqis who live in slum conditions in 2011: 50
Number of the 30 million Iraqis living below the poverty line: 7 million.
Number of Iraqis who died of violence 2003-2011: 150,000 to 400,000.
Orphans in Iraq: 4.5 million.
Orphans living in the streets: 600,000.
Number of women, mainly widows, who are primary breadwinners in family: 2
million.
Iraqi refugees displaced by the American war to Syria: 1 million
Internally displaced [pdf] persons in Iraq: 1.3 million
Proportion of displaced persons who have returned home since 2008: 1/8
Rank of Iraq on Corruption Index among 182 countries: 175
================================================== =========

Iraqi wasn't "bettered" it was "battered." Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
died simply because they had an insane leader - one they did not choose in
any meaningful sense of the word. To defy him was to die. It will be a
black mark on the US and the men who led us to it for decades to come.

Even worse, as we sought revenge for the people lost on 9/11, it's
reasonable to assume that many Iraqis will seek revenge for loved ones lost
in the ten year fiasco. How many of them will join with the terrorists?
That's impossible to know. Looking at current events, I think we've made
the militant Islam problem much worse as evidenced by the new Pakistani
problems. They don't like us killing their countrymen and they REALLY don't
like us killing their soldiers. Neither would we if the tables were turned.

Bush or his staffers have never really explained why Iraq, a country we
merely *thought* had the bomb, deserved invasion while North Korea with
proven nukes AND missiles remains untouched. Could it have been that Bush
was willing to take on a has-been power, like Iraq, beaten down by war and
sanctions but he was afraid to tangle with a country that had China
"watching its six?"

Or did Israeli lobbyists con us into fighting a proxy war for them? One
things's sadly obvious. No WMDs were found and no substantial Iraqi
connection to 9/11 has ever surfaced except through torture by people
*looking* for a connection. The 9/11 murderers were mostly Saudi nationals,
not Iraqis.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:48:05 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:


On the United thing, they overturned 100 year old precedent, giving
free speech rights to a corporation. as if it were a person in that
regard. .
0
Reread the actual opinion. The majority reinstated a long line of case
law saying that corps had constitutional rights. It had only been in
about the 20 years or so that this was overturned.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., in 1936 was an early case that
stated specifically that corporations had constitutional rights (under
the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and the Grosjean Court
specifically included first amendment).
"6. A corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 244."

"From the history of the subject, it is plain that the English rule
restricting freedom of the press to immunity from censorship before
publication was not accepted by the American colonists, and that the
First Amendment was aimed at any form of previous restraint upon printed
publications or their circulation, including restraint by taxation of
newspapers and their advertising, which were well known and odious
methods still used in England when the First Amendment was adopted. P.
245. [p234]
9. The predominant purpose of the grant of immunity was to preserve an
untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. P. 250.


This was reiterated in National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People v. Button in 1963 and Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm in
1990. Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the
Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the
speaker's corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784-785.

It wasn't until March of 1990 and AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494
U. S. 652, that all of a sudden corps had lost this right. All United
did was reinstute the much longer line that said corporations had
constitutional rights.

I listened to several sources and this is t he first I heard it was
only 20 years old. The others said 100, iirc.

But anyhow, the original topic was activist court, and neither side
argued this point. The justice brought it up, He didn't just decide
actively, but he chose the issue himself, something judges rarely if
ever do, and the majority of them went with it, knowing he had done
that. I think that is activist.

In article ,
micky wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:48:05 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:


On the United thing, they overturned 100 year old precedent, giving
free speech rights to a corporation. as if it were a person in that
regard. .
0
Reread the actual opinion. The majority reinstated a long line of case
law saying that corps had constitutional rights. It had only been in
about the 20 years or so that this was overturned.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., in 1936 was an early case that
stated specifically that corporations had constitutional rights (under
the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and the Grosjean Court
specifically included first amendment).
"6. A corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 244."

"From the history of the subject, it is plain that the English rule
restricting freedom of the press to immunity from censorship before
publication was not accepted by the American colonists, and that the
First Amendment was aimed at any form of previous restraint upon printed
publications or their circulation, including restraint by taxation of
newspapers and their advertising, which were well known and odious
methods still used in England when the First Amendment was adopted. P.
245. [p234]
9. The predominant purpose of the grant of immunity was to preserve an
untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. P. 250.


This was reiterated in National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People v. Button in 1963 and Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm in
1990. Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the
Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the
speaker's corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784-785.

It wasn't until March of 1990 and AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494
U. S. 652, that all of a sudden corps had lost this right. All United
did was reinstute the much longer line that said corporations had
constitutional rights.

I listened to several sources and this is t he first I heard it was
only 20 years old. The others said 100, iirc.
They said a lot of things.



But anyhow, the original topic was activist court, and neither side
argued this point. The justice brought it up, He didn't just decide
actively, but he chose the issue himself, something judges rarely if
ever do, and the majority of them went with it, knowing he had done
that. I think that is activist.

First of all it wasn't *THE justice*, it was reargued which means a
majority of the Court requested it. Also United at first asked that the
law be declared facially unconstitutional, but the lower Courts both
noted that only the Supremes could over rule their own decisions and
then United dropped it.

"Throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that
the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech. All
concede that this claim is properly before us. And " '[o]nce a federal
claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of
that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made
below.' " Lebron , supra , at 379 (quoting Yee v. Escondido , 503 U. S.
519, 534 (1992) ; alteration in original). Citizens United's argument
that Austin should be overruled is "not a new claim." Lebron, 513 U. S.,
at 379. Rather, it is--at most--"a new argument to support what has been
[a] consistent claim: that [the FEC] did not accord [Citizens United]
the rights it was obliged to provide by the First Amendment ." Ibid.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
.. .
The expected answer is "Yeah, we got one in the white house".

Expected only of fools. It's kinda funny that you were so upset about
someone allegedly slandering Rush Limbaugh and religious zealots (whom no
one elected to any office) yet you're willing to slander an American who was
elected by a MAJORITY of US citizens as President. You do it as easily as
you draw breath by calling him a Communist without a scintilla of evidence.
Stormin' Joe McCarthy.

God, it must really burn you to know your side lost the Presidential
election by a significant margin for you to be so "off the hook" and blind
to the damage you're doing to the LDS and Mitt Romney's chances by making
wild, unsubstantiated charges. People knew all about the "birther" bull,
but they voted for Obama anyway. They were telling you "we don't give a
damn about your preposterous accusations" and you *still* don't get it.

It's so ironic that a Mormon would spend so much time preaching to the choir
instead of looking for converts. The LDS church was smart enough to dump
polygamy *eventually* and to follow the customs of their country. You, on
the other hand, gleefully top post away as Mormons once flaunted their
polygamy, a decision that caused the Deseret Territory, the Mormon's
"promised land" to be chopped up and given away to others.

With a Mormon candidate poised to garner the nomination as President, you
would think all Mormons would be trying to put their best foot forward. You
would think they would be wise enough not to make unsubstantiated
McCarthy-like accusations of someone whom a majority of Americans chose to
lead them. I can think of no better aid to Obama in his bid for a second
term than to give evidence that Mormons have very strange and unverifiable
beliefs about "the leader of the free world" and so many other things. Can
I hear a hallelujah?

I think we should start calling you "Obama's Secret Weapon" Stormie because
know it or not, your unfounded accusations make a lot of people wonder "Are
Mormons playing with a full deck or do they just make things up out of thin
air?" Hmmm, golden tablets no one has ever seen, magic glasses no one has
ever found and Indians supposedly being the lost tribe of Israel.

Many people believe the LDS is a cult filled with people who don't quite
seem like your average Americans. The LDS and Mitt now have the misfortune
of having you and your baseless accusations represent Mormonism to the
readers of AHR. Enough people think there's something wrong with you and/or
Mormons *just* for your insistence on top-posting and ignoring the customs
of the group you're in. I don't think they can help themselves when they
look at Romney and wonder: "Is he secretly like Stormie?"

I imagine if Mitt were reading this thread he would take you aside privately
and say "Chris, you're not helping!"

I imagine if Obama were reading this thread he would say "Keep up the good
work, Chris - there's nothing like making absurd and unprovable charges to
make voters wonder if there isn't something wrong with members of the LDS
like Mitt Romney."

FWIW, a recent poll now shows that the Tea Party is more disliked by
Americans than Muslims and atheists. Don't count on them for help in 2012.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...party-muslims/

On other political news, the Republican Party of Virginia announced on
Twitter that "Newt Gingrich did not submit the required 10k signatures and
has not qualified for the VA primary." The Gingrich campaign quickly
announced that it would "pursue an aggressive write-in campaign" even though
Virginia laws prohibit such a write-in campaign. Yes, a man who pays
careful attention and knows the law is just what we need in the White House
and that, apparently, isn't Newt.

Even if Obama loses, the Republican nomination process has been the most
entertaining live event in years. Bachmann proves she's a know-nothing,
Perry proves he's a deer in the headlights, Cain proves he's a serial
womanizer with less than no foreign policy experience and Newt can't even
get himself on an important primary ballot. What's next? Romney starts
talking in tongues and channeling Joseph Smith? It would be funny if the
future of the US wasn't hanging in the balance.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


God, it must really burn you to know your side lost the Presidential
election by a significant margin for you to be so "off the hook" and blind
to the damage you're doing to the LDS and Mitt Romney's chances by making
wild, unsubstantiated charges. People knew all about the "birther" bull,
but they voted for Obama anyway. They were telling you "we don't give a
damn about your preposterous accusations" and you *still* don't get it.

Obama's margin was roughly the average margin for two way races over the
last few. Hardly "significant". I would argue that the signficant loss
in '08 was the Congress and that has been largely reversed. (At least
for now).
They voted for Obama post birther just like they voted for Bush
after all sorts of slander. Big whoop. Just shows that the electorate
isn't terribly interested in the weird **** brought up by either side.


It's so ironic that a Mormon would spend so much time preaching to the choir
instead of looking for converts. The LDS church was smart enough to dump
polygamy *eventually* and to follow the customs of their country. You, on
the other hand, gleefully top post away as Mormons once flaunted their
polygamy, a decision that caused the Deseret Territory, the Mormon's
"promised land" to be chopped up and given away to others.
You aren't really trying to make a point here, right? This is well
crafted and very subtle sarcasm.




Many people believe the LDS is a cult filled with people who don't quite
seem like your average Americans.
Many thought the same of Catholics around the time of JFK. Just shows
that religious bigotry is a long-standing tradition in American
politics.


FWIW, a recent poll now shows that the Tea Party is more disliked by
Americans than Muslims and atheists. Don't count on them for help in 2012.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...party-muslims/


I have a problem with any poll where we don't have access to the
actual wording, especially when it claims to be involved in trending.

On other political news, the Republican Party of Virginia announced on
Twitter that "Newt Gingrich did not submit the required 10k signatures and
has not qualified for the VA primary." The Gingrich campaign quickly
announced that it would "pursue an aggressive write-in campaign" even though
Virginia laws prohibit such a write-in campaign. Yes, a man who pays
careful attention and knows the law is just what we need in the White House
and that, apparently, isn't Newt.
Nor Obama since there are a number of states (Indiana among others)
where the petitions getting Obama on the primary ballot in '08 have been
proven to have a fair number of forged signatures. I think these laws
are only observed in the breach no matter which party.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Dec 25, 6:12*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,





*micky wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:48:05 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

On the United thing, they overturned 100 year old precedent, giving
free speech rights to a corporation. as if it were a person in that
regard. .
0
*Reread the actual opinion. The majority reinstated a long line of case
law saying that corps had constitutional rights. It had only been in
about the 20 years or so that this was overturned.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., in 1936 was an early case that
stated specifically that corporations had constitutional rights (under
the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and the Grosjean Court
specifically included first amendment).
"6. A corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 244."

"From the history of the subject, it is plain that the English rule
restricting freedom of the press to immunity from censorship before
publication was not accepted by the American colonists, and that the
First Amendment was aimed at any form of previous restraint upon printed
publications or their circulation, including restraint by taxation of
newspapers and their advertising, which were well known and odious
methods still used in England when the First Amendment was adopted. P.
245. [p234]
9. The predominant purpose of the grant of immunity was to preserve an
untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. P. 250.

This was reiterated in National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People v. Button in 1963 and Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm in
1990. Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the
Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the
speaker's corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784-785.

It wasn't until March of 1990 and AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494
U. S. 652, that all of a sudden corps had lost this right. All United
did was reinstute the much longer line that said corporations had
constitutional rights.

I listened to several sources and this is t he first I heard it was
only 20 years old. * The others said 100, iirc.

They said a lot of things.



But anyhow, the original topic was activist court, and neither side
argued this point. *The justice brought it up, *He didn't just decide
actively, but he chose the issue himself, something judges rarely if
ever do, and the majority of them went with it, knowing he had done
that. * I think that is activist.

First of all it wasn't *THE justice*, it was reargued which means a
majority of the Court requested it. Also United at first asked that the
law be declared facially unconstitutional, but the lower Courts both
noted that only the Supremes could over rule their own decisions and
then United dropped it.

"Throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that
the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech. All
concede that this claim is properly before us. And " '[o]nce a federal
claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of
that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made
below.' " Lebron , supra , at 379 (quoting Yee v. Escondido , 503 U. S.
519, 534 (1992) ; alteration in original). Citizens United's argument
that Austin should be overruled is "not a new claim." Lebron, 513 U. S.,
at 379. Rather, it is--at most--"a new argument to support what has been
[a] consistent claim: that [the FEC] did not accord [Citizens United]
the rights it was obliged to provide by the First Amendment ." Ibid.



Touche!

For a guy who doesn't like slander, lampooning, and personal attacks, you
sure do launch a lot of slander, lampooning, and personal attacks. I'll go
through your text and number what can be considered attacks.

BTW, as to the gold plates. Read the first few pages of any Book of Mormon.
The plates were shown to at least a dozen people, and there is the witness
of several people who are named.

I wonder how many other errors there are, in your writing?

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
.. .
The expected answer is "Yeah, we got one in the white house".

Expected only of fools. [1] It's kinda funny that you were so upset about
someone allegedly slandering Rush Limbaugh and religious zealots (whom no
one elected to any office) yet you're willing to slander an American who was
elected by a MAJORITY of US citizens as President. You do it as easily as
you draw breath [2] by calling him a Communist without a scintilla of
evidence.
Stormin' Joe McCarthy.[3]

God, it must really burn you [4] to know your side lost the Presidential
election by a significant margin for you to be so "off the hook" and blind
to the damage you're doing to the LDS and Mitt Romney's chances by making
wild, unsubstantiated charges. [5] People knew all about the "birther" bull,
but they voted for Obama anyway. They were telling you "we don't give a
damn about your preposterous accusations" and you *still* don't get it.[6]

It's so ironic that a Mormon would spend so much time preaching to the choir
instead of looking for converts. The LDS church was smart enough to dump
polygamy *eventually* and to follow the customs of their country. [7] You,
on
the other hand, gleefully top post away as Mormons once flaunted their
polygamy,[8] a decision that caused the Deseret Territory, the Mormon's
"promised land" to be chopped up and given away to others.[9]

With a Mormon candidate poised to garner the nomination as President, you
would think all Mormons would be trying to put their best foot forward. [10]
You
would think they would be wise enough[11] not to make unsubstantiated
McCarthy-like accusations of someone whom a majority of Americans chose to
lead them. I can think of no better aid to Obama in his bid for a second
term than to give evidence that Mormons have very strange and unverifiable
beliefs about "the leader of the free world" and so many other things. [12]
Can
I hear a hallelujah?

I think we should start calling you "Obama's Secret Weapon" [13]Stormie
because
know it or not, your unfounded accusations make a lot of people wonder "Are
Mormons playing with a full deck or do they just make things up out of thin
air?"[14] Hmmm, golden tablets no one has ever seen, magic glasses no one
has
ever found and Indians supposedly being the lost tribe of Israel.[15]

Many people believe the LDS is a cult [16[filled with people who don't quite
seem like your average Americans. [17] The LDS and Mitt now have the
misfortune
of having you and your baseless accusations represent Mormonism to the
readers of AHR. [18] Enough people think there's something wrong with you
and/or
Mormons *just* for your insistence on top-posting and ignoring the customs
of the group you're in. [19] I don't think they can help themselves when
they
look at Romney and wonder: "Is he secretly like Stormie?"[20]

imagine if Mitt were reading this thread he would take you aside privately
and say "Chris, you're not helping!"

I imagine if Obama were reading this thread he would say "Keep up the good
work, Chris - there's nothing like making absurd and unprovable charges to
make voters wonder if there isn't something wrong with members of the LDS
like Mitt Romney."[21]

FWIW, a recent poll now shows that the Tea Party is more disliked by
Americans than Muslims and atheists. [22] Don't count on them for help in
2012.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...party-muslims/

On other political news, the Republican Party of Virginia announced on
Twitter that "Newt Gingrich did not submit the required 10k signatures and
has not qualified for the VA primary." The Gingrich campaign quickly
announced that it would "pursue an aggressive write-in campaign" even though
Virginia laws prohibit such a write-in campaign. Yes, a man who pays
careful attention and knows the law is just what we need in the White House
and that, apparently, isn't Newt.[23]

Even if Obama loses, the Republican nomination process has been the most
entertaining live event in years. Bachmann proves she's a know-nothing,
[24]
Perry proves he's a deer in the headlights, [25]Cain proves he's a serial
womanizer with less than no foreign policy experience and Newt can't even
get himself on an important primary ballot. [26] What's next? Romney starts
talking in tongues and channeling Joseph Smith? [27] It would be funny if
the
future of the US wasn't hanging in the balance.

--
Bobby G.

Oh, neglected to write. PLONK! Anyone who's that vicious of an attacker and
flamer, doesn't deserve to be found on my computer screen.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

On Dec 25, 8:38*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Oh, neglected to write. PLONK! Anyone who's that vicious of an attacker and
flamer, doesn't deserve to be found on my computer screen.

--

Heh Stormin, what I enjoy the most is how one line
from you can result in endless volumes of response from the resident
socialist. Complete with links and stuff. Way to go
dude! Keep those libs busy spinning their wheels!

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Han wrote:

stuff snipped

If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were actual
communists.


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.

McCarthy waved around a list of alleged Communists that he never allowed
anyone to see (first clue that it was BS). Then there's the issue of Ess Oh
Fu&ing what if they WERE Communists? America's Bill of Rights guarantees
:"free speech" so unless they were spying for Russia or committing some
other criminal act they were entitled to espouse any political belief they
cared to. The country was as hysterical about "Commies" back then as they
are about Muslims now. The mere whisper of an allegation was enough for
someone to lose their job.

FWIW, there's been an alarming increase in sock-puppetry here. Lately, a
number of AHR members have sought to increase their exposure by cloning
themselves. Some are better than others, but it's a dangerous game because
eventually sock puppets screw up and make their true identities known. I
have a list of all the sock puppets here, but I can't let you see it until
my investigation is complete . . . (-:

--
Bobby G.

At least he's not using his time to write more legislation?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Heh Stormin, what I enjoy the most is how one line
from you can result in endless volumes of response from the resident
socialist. Complete with links and stuff. Way to go
dude! Keep those libs busy spinning their wheels!

On Dec 25, 10:41*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message

...

On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Han wrote:

stuff snipped

If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada..
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were actual
communists.

Absolutely not true. *you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.

McCarthy waved around a list of alleged Communists that he never allowed
anyone to see (first clue that it was BS). *Then there's the issue of Ess Oh
Fu&ing what if they WERE Communists? *America's Bill of Rights guarantees
:"free speech" so unless they were spying for Russia or committing some
other criminal act

You mean like Alger Hiss? The guy who libs like you claimed
was an innocent guy? But it turns out now he was in fact
working for the Russians?




they were entitled to espouse any political belief they
cared to. *The country was as hysterical about "Commies" back then as they
are about Muslims now. *The mere whisper of an allegation was enough for
someone to lose their job.

Show us a Muslim who has lost their job because of a whisper
of an allegation.




FWIW, there's been an alarming increase in sock-puppetry here. *Lately, a
number of AHR members have sought to increase their exposure by cloning
themselves. *Some are better than others, but it's a dangerous game because
eventually sock puppets screw up and make their true identities known. *I
have a list of all the sock puppets here, but I can't let you see it until
my investigation is complete . . . (-:

--
Bobby G.

My, becoming paranoid, aren't we? No sock puppets here that I see.
Only honest decent folks who call you out for the leftist crap you
continue
to post.

"Han" wrote

stuff snipped

Are they?? Or are they spouting off nonsense after a few too many?

Unfortunately, there's a rich, well-documented history of LE agencies and
particularly their confidential informants (CI's) creating crimes where
none would have existed. That's to be expected when LE agencies pay
informants in money and reduced sentences for the information they provide.
When the CI's run out of legitimate information to sell, they very often
invent what's needed to maintain their income.

The practice of trading information for guilt is so pervasive that it has
literally become a thriving business. For example, Ann Colomb and her three
sons were wrongfully convicted in 2006 of running a crack cocaine ring in
Louisiana. They were convicted based on the fabricated testimony of dozens
of jailhouse informants-participants in a for-profit snitch ring operating
in the local federal prison. As part of that ring, prisoners were buying and
selling information about pending cases to offer to prosecutors in order to
reduce their own sentences.


https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(3...ookieSupport=1

Atlanta police sought a no-knock warrant for the home of Mrs. Kathryn
Johnston. In order to get the warrant, the officers invented an imaginary
snitch, telling the magistrate judge that a non-existent "reliable
confidential informant" had bought crack at Mrs. Johnston's home. While
executing the warrant on November 21, 2006, police shot and killed the
92-year-old grandmother.

The use of informants that manufacture information to get a payday is
becoming more and more of a problem in the US.

the Secret Service discovered that one of their top former informants,
Albert Gonzalez, was running one of the largest credit card data theft rings
in the country. Gonzalez had used his connections with the government to
promote his illegal activities and also to tip off other hackers on how to
avoid detection

There are other, serious problems:

Information obtained from informants is infamously unreliable. A 2004
study by Northwestern University Law School examined all the wrongful
capital convictions discovered to date. The study concluded that over 45
percent of those innocence cases were due to the testimony of a lying
informant, making "snitches the leading cause of wrongful convictions in
U.S. capital cases."

If they are indeed real bona fide terrorists then let's go get them. But
if
they are teenagers spouting nonsense, keep an eye on them and make sure
they aren't getting in deeper.

When law enforcement offers serious sentence reductions and cold hard cash
for information, it's pretty easy to see why snitches would start making
stuff up or worse, still, actively encourage people to commit crimes so they
could profit from selling that information. What more proof is needed that
government agents often facilitate criminal activity than the now infamous
"Fast and Furious" ATF operation that put guns in the hands of criminals
that eventually led to the death of a Border Patrol agent? This stuff
happens all the time.

Providing them with (fake) bomb material
and encouraging them to go ahead is on the wrong side of the line for me.

I've got mixed feelings about this because I recall a case where informants
decided to just use gasoline to burn down a synagogue instead of dealing
with fake explosives the government provided. Where there's even a slight
possibility of someone being able to commit a terrorist act that could kill
or injure people, I think it's better to err on the safe side. Although
like you, I feel it's morally dubious, I feel as I do just because these
situations are often not in the complete control of the agents/informants
working the case.

However, I feel strongly that the new enemy combatant laws and all this BS
about removing cases from the court system to military tribunals is pretty
much antithetical to how and why the country was created. We are beginning
to replicate the Star Chamber and other legal abuses that led our
forefathers to leave England in the first place.

When the panic over 9/11 finally subsides, I expect that there will be a
number of cases bound for the Supreme Court that may invalidate some of this
dubious legislation that gives the President unchecked authority against US
citizens. That's very obviously not in keeping with the intricate series of
checks and balances written into the Constitution. I find it quite amusing
that some people are SO paranoid about terrorism and so overblow terrorists'
ability to do serious harm to the US that they'll even agree to *OBAMA*
having these incredible extra-Constitutional powers. Now *that's* hatred!
Or lunacy.

Irrelevant, insipid, SOS rant about "lib loons" snipped

I'm not going by what Homeguy said, but what else I glean from here and
there. Why should I think your truth is the only truth?

There are some people who believe they're 100% right, all of the time. I
think Bush was of that persuasion as I've never heard him admit to any
serious failing, and that's just not humanly possible. We all have weak
spots and we've all made bad decisions. The people that refuse to admit
that they could be wrong or that there are any gray areas are basically
holding up a billboard that says: "We Perfekt People" and their truths
should be evaluated in that light. (-:

I hope that law goes away, because I am just not sure the interpretation
isn't going to be what I fear.

The US goes through these cycles every few decades it seems, whether it's
the Palmer Raids and the Red Scare of the early 20's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

or the McCarthy witch hunts of the 50's or the terrorist scares of the last
two decades. The reaction is first to curtail civil liberties, then to
demonize a segment of the population as the root of all current evil.
Finally the pendulum swings and people start remembering why the Founding
Fathers put so many clauses in the Constitution to specifically deal with
government overreach and the Supreme Court starts invalidating laws that
don't pass muster. This "pulling the wagons in a circle" and finding some
group of people guilty of all the sins of society goes back at least as far
as ancient Egypt. It's just how people are. )-:

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in news:jdbd17$asf$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

Unfortunately, there's a rich, well-documented history

snip
No comment. Don't have the time to read all that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:57:09 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

They were convicted based on the fabricated testimony of dozens
of jailhouse informants-participants in a for-profit snitch ring operating
in the local federal prison. As part of that ring, prisoners were buying and
selling information about pending cases to offer to prosecutors in order to
reduce their own sentences

What agency was using these (federal prison) informants?

There is a long standing federal prison policy about confidential
informants (CI). The policy is intended to establish credibility of
the information provided. It includes procedures to protect the CI
from retaliation without giving the identification, so only an
assigned "number" is used in any reports.

The real name and CI number are locked in the Warden's safe and only
perhaps two staff members have access to that file.

The Special Investigative Supervisor (SIS) keeps a file in their
office safe with only the "number" (daily use without the CI name).

This file is a chronological list of cases and information provided.
The CI only becomes _credible_ after about three cases are proven
accurate. It also includes those instances when the information was
proven to be false. The system works and works well when followed.

Outside LE (state / local) agencies will not have access to that file
or know the credibility of the CI.

If some agency visited the federal prisoner in the visiting room, took
his / her word, and abused the information then it falls on them.

...." jailhouse informants" in local facilities pending trial are not
often validated with a history of accuracy...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Han wrote:
Peter wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is
that someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the
same time. That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to
a /real/ terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping,
but I'd like a jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor
in determining whether that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than
some bloke shooting of his big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Uh, there is no judge or jury when dealing with unlawful enemy combatants.
They are not criminals. They do not get criminal trials. They do not get
the
"rights" provided to criminal defendants.

If the president or his designee anoints someone as an unlawful enemy
combatant, they're toast.

This is really just a test of the AOIE server and not a thread revival.

Testing, testing . . .

Fest Tailed! Hog Dumper!

(I knew Dufe would . . .)

Oh, and not all of them are toast. Some got to be Supreme Court litigants
and have earned a place in the history books. What a world.

--
Bobby G.