"Roberts has also been linked to the ultra-conservative Federalist
Society. Although Roberts says he has no memory of belonging to that
organization ..."
"... his name is listed in the 1997-98 leadership directory as a
member of the steering committee of its Washington chapter, according
to the Washington Post"

Cliff wrote:

"Roberts has also been linked to the ultra-conservative Federalist
Society. Although Roberts says he has no memory of belonging to that
organization ..."

What makes the Federalist Society "ultra" conservative?
Isn't that just a swear word? Would that be a little
like the "ultra-liberal" National Lawyers Guild?


"... his name is listed in the 1997-98 leadership directory as a
member of the steering committee of its Washington chapter, according
to the Washington Post"

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:12:44 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In OT - Federalist on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:40:48 -0400, by Cliff,
we read:

"Roberts has also been linked to the ultra-conservative Federalist
Society. Although Roberts says he has no memory of belonging to that
organization ..."
"... his name is listed in the 1997-98 leadership directory as a
member of the steering committee of its Washington chapter, according
to the Washington Post"

Roberts is a federalist and a conservative, what did you expect?

Roberts is also the least likely nominee to alter the original
intent of the Constitution that you'll get from Bush.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072002431.html

Federalist Affiliation Misstated
Roberts Does Not Belong to Group

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A16

Everyone knows that, like all good Republican lawyers, John G. Roberts
Jr. is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative law and
public policy organization where right-of-center types meet to
denounce liberalism and angle for jobs in the Bush administration.

And practically everyone -- CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times
and, just yesterday, The Washington Post -- has reported Roberts's
membership as a fact. One liberal group opposed to Roberts's
nomination, the Alliance for Justice, has noted it on its Web site.


But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the
Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

"He has no recollection of ever being a member," said Dana Perino, a
White House spokeswoman who contacted reporters to correct the mistake
yesterday.

She said that Roberts recalls speaking at Federalist Society forums
(as have lawyers and legal scholars of various political stripes). But
he has apparently never paid the $50 annual fee that would make him a
full-fledged member. His disclosure forms submitted in connection with
his 2003 nomination to the D.C. Circuit make no mention of it.

How this urban legend got started is not clear. The issue probably got
clouded in part because the Federalist Society's membership is
confidential; individual members must decide whether or not to
acknowledge their affiliation.

Even some conservatives found the story plausible.

"I'm shocked that he is not," said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel of
the right-of-center Washington Legal Foundation.

Upon reflection, some Federalist Society members conceded that they
had never actually seen Roberts at meet-and-greets such as the
society's annual black-tie dinner.

"That's a good question, let me think. Now that you mention it -- no,"
was former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh's response when
asked if he had ever spotted Roberts at any Federalist events.

A related question is why Roberts would not want to be a member.

Some conservatives said that a Federalist affiliation, while a
definite plus within Bush administration circles, could only provoke
hostile questions from Senate Democrats -- so Roberts, in keeping with
his low-key approach to conservatism, just steered clear.

"It's smart from his perspective," a former Bush administration
official said.


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Mr. Canoza;

You responded to a mindless commie troll. You must be punished. Hold
out your hand.
(Whack hand with a ruler).

Sincerly,
Stuart Grey.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

What makes the Federalist Society "ultra" conservative? Isn't that just
a swear word? Would that be a little like the "ultra-liberal" National
Lawyers Guild?

The federalist society believes in the written intent of the
constitution, and the seperation of powers that it commands.

Since communist believe in the all powerful central government, in their
view America, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is "ultra
conservative" and evil. Communist hate America, and constantly work to
pervert the constitution.

The Federalist Society statement of Purpose:
http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm

* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly
dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a
centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic
community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught
simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a
group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state
of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state
exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers
is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province
and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

* The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these
principles and to further their application through its activities. This
entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium
on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also
requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms
among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

* In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a
conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all
levels of the legal community.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:16:59 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Mr. Canoza;

You responded to a mindless commie troll. You must be punished. Hold
out your hand.
(Whack hand with a ruler).

Sincerly,
Stuart Grey.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

What makes the Federalist Society "ultra" conservative? Isn't that just
a swear word? Would that be a little like the "ultra-liberal" National
Lawyers Guild?

The federalist society believes in the written intent of the
constitution, and the seperation of powers that it commands.

Since communist believe in the all powerful central government, in their
view America, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is "ultra
conservative" and evil. Communist hate America, and constantly work to
pervert the constitution.

Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

Also the rape of the search & seizure protections.

It's the neocons who embrace the nazi ideal of absolute government
control, and are the true enemies of the Constitution.

Thanks,
Rich

In article , Richard
the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:16:59 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

Also the rape of the search & seizure protections.

It's the neocons who embrace the nazi ideal of absolute government
control, and are the true enemies of the Constitution.

It wasn't the conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas,..) who were in
the majority on this 5-4 decision.

Blaming "neocons" for a liberal 5-4 decision is delusional.

And dishonest.


--Tim May

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:16:59 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:


Mr. Canoza;

You responded to a mindless commie troll. You must be punished. Hold
out your hand.
(Whack hand with a ruler).

Sincerly,
Stuart Grey.

Rudy Canoza wrote:


What makes the Federalist Society "ultra" conservative? Isn't that just
a swear word? Would that be a little like the "ultra-liberal" National
Lawyers Guild?

The federalist society believes in the written intent of the
constitution, and the seperation of powers that it commands.

Since communist believe in the all powerful central government, in their
view America, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is "ultra
conservative" and evil. Communist hate America, and constantly work to
pervert the constitution.


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco

Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer were the justices
that ruled for New London and against property rights.

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas ruled against it.

It was the liberals, not the conservatives, who ruled against your
property rights.

BTW, None of these are "neocons". Neocons, or neoconservatives, are
usually Jews, and sometimes Roman Catholics, who have changed from
liberals to conservatives. You might accuse Thomas as being a neocon, as
he is black and blacks are traditionally liberals.



- they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

Also the rape of the search & seizure protections.

It's the neocons who embrace the nazi ideal of absolute government
control, and are the true enemies of the Constitution.

Thanks,
Rich

You're going to have to find another way to accuse the conservatives of
perverting the meaning of the constitution, unless you want to argue
that Ginsburg et al are really conservatives. :-)

Tim May wrote:

It wasn't the conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas,..) who were in
the majority on this 5-4 decision.

Blaming "neocons" for a liberal 5-4 decision is delusional.

And dishonest.


--Tim May

Conservatives always get the blame for liberal decisions. Liberals never
accept responsibility.

Consider the movement for military conscription. The Democrats are
behind it, the congressmen for it are Democrats, and they have
effectively used it as a scare tactic against the Republicans.

Most people are not well informed, and don't care to be.

Consider how the main stream press has effectively propagandized the
people with this "Bush lied" fabrication. Bush's SOTU address was
exactly correct, and back up by Tony Blair, yet the main stream press
has sold their lie to many people.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.

Stop watching ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and those erroneous sound bites wont
bite you in the ass.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and
Stevens - voted in favor of the egregiously bad and
statist decision.


Stop watching ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and those erroneous sound bites wont
bite you in the ass.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

"Roberts has also been linked to the ultra-conservative Federalist
Society. Although Roberts says he has no memory of belonging to that
organization ..."
"... his name is listed in the 1997-98 leadership directory as a
member of the steering committee of its Washington chapter, according
to the Washington Post"

Roberts: Uh, Gee, "I don't remember if I was a member of that group or not."
Robert Byrd, "no, I don't remember being in the KKK." I wouldn't believe
either of them if they made such a ridiculous claim.

Roberts is a federalist and a conservative, what did you expect?

Roberts is also the least likely nominee to alter the original
intent of the Constitution that you'll get from Bush.

Translation: Roberts will rule in an ultra conservative way on every case he
is involved in, which is just what Bush wants.



But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the
Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

"He has no recollection of ever being a member," said Dana Perino, a
White House spokeswoman who contacted reporters to correct the mistake
yesterday.

Once again with the I forgot defense. Sort of like the, "I forgot that
murder was against the law" line on Saturday Night Live, only they were
joking. But they expect us to believe it when this brilliant, genius, has a
memory lapse about being a member of the Federalist Society.




She said that Roberts recalls speaking at Federalist Society forums
(as have lawyers and legal scholars of various political stripes). But
he has apparently never paid the $50 annual fee that would make him a
full-fledged member. His disclosure forms submitted in connection with
his 2003 nomination to the D.C. Circuit make no mention of it.

How this urban legend got started is not clear. The issue probably got
clouded in part because the Federalist Society's membership is
confidential; individual members must decide whether or not to
acknowledge their affiliation.

Even some conservatives found the story plausible.

"I'm shocked that he is not," said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel of
the right-of-center Washington Legal Foundation.

Upon reflection, some Federalist Society members conceded that they
had never actually seen Roberts at meet-and-greets such as the
society's annual black-tie dinner.

"That's a good question, let me think. Now that you mention it -- no,"
was former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh's response when
asked if he had ever spotted Roberts at any Federalist events.

Viet Dinh never remembers seeing him at any meetings. Well, there you go, I
guess that lays the rumor to rest. When such a non partisan guy as Viet Dinh
says something you have to buy it lock, stock, and barrel, right. NOT!

A related question is why Roberts would not want to be a member.

Maybe it would look bad if he wants to get a better job perhaps?


Some conservatives said that a Federalist affiliation, while a
definite plus within Bush administration circles, could only provoke
hostile questions from Senate Democrats -- so Roberts, in keeping with
his low-key approach to conservatism, just steered clear.


Clever wording, he never said he wasn't a member or didn't participate in
the group, he just can't remember. Yeah, that's really believable. It would
be one thing if we were talking about some meth addict or alcoholic not
remembering but the "brilliant" John Roberts. Kind of strains credulity to
think he would forget about something important like that, doesn't it?


"It's smart from his perspective," a former Bush administration
official said.

Right, not remembering is so much smarter than telling an outright lie. Of
course, Roberts would know all about that being a lawyer. Bottom line, no
rational person is going to believe that Roberts would "forget" if he was a
member of the Federalist Society. They had him listed as a steering
committee member, must have been their mistake I guess (yeah, sure). Roberts
is just following the Bush strategy of lying if it gets you what you are
after. It's a Republican thing.

Hawke

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:15:00 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Roberts is also the least likely nominee to alter the original
intent of the Constitution that you'll get from Bush.

Translation: Roberts will rule in an ultra conservative way on every case he
is involved in, which is just what Bush wants.

First of all...sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar. He may well NOT be
a member, despite your spew.

Secondly...you and your ilk seem to forget the fact that the Left LOST
the last two presidential elections. The winning president gets to
pick the people he wants in various positions. No you, not Chuckly
Shurmer, not the DNC unless it was a Democrat who won.

So quit your bitching. You had your 40 yrs to **** things up..and did
it so well that the nation recoiled to the Right. Get used to the
fact you and yours are not in power. Find a 12 step program or
something. If you are unable to deal with the angst, the Hemlock
Society has very good instructions on how to deal with your pain.

Third..it will be nice to have an Originalist on SCOTUS for a change.
Given the leftist slant of SCOTUS, its about time someone was placed
there to provide some balance. Perhaps you fail to remember it was
the Liberal judges who recently voted for emminant domain being
allowed to take your house and your property to give to another
private party, just to name one massive chunk removed from the
Constitution.

Fourth, only from your view way out there on the extreme Left, is
Roberts an "ultra conservative". For the rest of us, he is Right
Moderate, and a nice guy.

Need a crying towel or something? "I feel your pain"

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

In article , Gunner says...

Third..it will be nice to have an Originalist on SCOTUS for a change.

Ah, gunner, have you read this guy's record? By comparison to
any of the justices on the court now, he has zip for judicial
experience. The guys a wanna-be in that catagory. Really.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded
Libertarian wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:16:59 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Mr. Canoza;

You responded to a mindless commie troll. You must be punished. Hold
out your hand.
(Whack hand with a ruler).

Sincerly,
Stuart Grey.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

What makes the Federalist Society "ultra" conservative? Isn't that just
a swear word? Would that be a little like the "ultra-liberal" National
Lawyers Guild?

The federalist society believes in the written intent of the
constitution, and the seperation of powers that it commands.

Since communist believe in the all powerful central government, in their
view America, as envisioned by the founding fathers, is "ultra
conservative" and evil. Communist hate America, and constantly work to
pervert the constitution.

Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

Neocons? Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens are
neocons? New London is run by a bunch of neocons? You are
delusional.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:15:00 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

(snips)

Translation: Roberts will rule in an ultra conservative way on every case he
is involved in, which is just what Bush wants.

Care to give an example of the future "ultra conservative"
opinions we can expect from Roberts? Compared to the crap
like Kelo coming out of the court lately, they might be a
refreshing change.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On 29 Jul 2005 08:20:05 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Third..it will be nice to have an Originalist on SCOTUS for a change.

Ah, gunner, have you read this guy's record? By comparison to
any of the justices on the court now, he has zip for judicial
experience. The guys a wanna-be in that catagory. Really.

Jim

Yes, I have read his record. And it looks good. Its killing the Left
that he has so few controversial things for or against him, that they
can hook their claws into.

Notice they are calling for violations of attorney client prevlidge in
an attempt to find something, anything to use against him.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

In article , Gunner says...

Yes, I have read his record. And it looks good. Its killing the Left
that he has so few controversial things for or against him, that they
can hook their claws into.

No controversy simply because the guy's spent his career
bending over for corporations. Is that what you want? If
he thinks they can make money by banning guns, they'll do
that in a heartbeat.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Robert Sturgeon says...

Care to give an example of the future "ultra conservative"
opinions we can expect from Roberts?

They're gonna overturn roe vs wade. You can
bet your swastika on that one.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.




ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.


Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.


You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges on the courts, then the Republicans
get blamed for the liberal judges.

If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.

Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?

In article t, Rudy Canoza
says...

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and
Stevens - voted in favor of the egregiously bad and
statist decision.

Heh. Pretty soon all three branches will be *entirely*
republican. And their supporters will *still* be blubbering
and whining that thing's just ain't a working right.

It may dawn on them at this point what the trouble
really is.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:48:57 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.




ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.


Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.


You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges on the courts, then the Republicans
get blamed for the liberal judges.

If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.

Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?

Point, set and match.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On 29 Jul 2005 10:21:49 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Yes, I have read his record. And it looks good. Its killing the Left
that he has so few controversial things for or against him, that they
can hook their claws into.

No controversy simply because the guy's spent his career
bending over for corporations. Is that what you want? If
he thinks they can make money by banning guns, they'll do
that in a heartbeat.

Jim

See the bias, the hate and the bigotry in Jims post.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On 29 Jul 2005 11:24:43 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Robert Sturgeon says...

Care to give an example of the future "ultra conservative"
opinions we can expect from Roberts?

They're gonna overturn roe vs wade. You can
bet your swastika on that one.

Jim

And? Then it becomes a states rights issue. Are you aware that the
right to an abortion is part of Californias state constitution?

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.





ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.



Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.



You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges on the courts, then the Republicans
get blamed for the liberal judges.

As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed
for theirs.


If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.

Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.

You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April
2005 issue of The Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen,
says that Rehnquist is one of the greatest chief
justices ever.


Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?

I don't write to Congressmen or Senators.

On 29 Jul 2005 13:06:43 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article t, Rudy Canoza
says...

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and
Stevens - voted in favor of the egregiously bad and
statist decision.

Heh. Pretty soon all three branches will be *entirely*
republican. And their supporters will *still* be blubbering
and whining that thing's just ain't a working right.

It may dawn on them at this point what the trouble
really is.

Jim

It may take a while to correct the damage of 40 yrs of liberalism, so
hang in there for a bit.

Gunner


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Gunner wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 13:06:43 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:


In article t, Rudy Canoza
says...


Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and
Stevens - voted in favor of the egregiously bad and
statist decision.

Heh. Pretty soon all three branches will be *entirely*
republican. And their supporters will *still* be blubbering
and whining that thing's just ain't a working right.

It may dawn on them at this point what the trouble
really is.

Jim


It may take a while to correct the damage of 40 yrs of liberalism, so
hang in there for a bit.

Gunner


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli


If the performance of the Court changes, it is to be hoped that liberal
revisionism will not be replaced by conservative revisionism. The two
are equally illegitimate. The Constitution is too important to our
national well-being and to our liberties to be made into a political
weapon. Departure from its actual principles, whether in Dred Scott,
Lochner, or Roe, is inconsistent with the maintenance of constitutional
democracy.
Robert Bork

A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.
Benjamin Disraeli

Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows
Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no
redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future.
Benjamin Disraeli

The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says
government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed
out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't
work, and then get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative.
John Stuart Mill

The unpleasant sound Bush is emitting as he traipses from one
conservative gathering to another is a thin, tinny "arf" - the sound of
a lap dog.
George Will

The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first,
the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and
second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.
Edward Dowling

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?

I don't write to Congressmen or Senators.

Stuart still writes to Joseph McCarthy I expect.
--
Cliff

In article ,
says...
In article t, Rudy Canoza
says...

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and
Stevens - voted in favor of the egregiously bad and
statist decision.

Heh. Pretty soon all three branches will be *entirely*
republican. And their supporters will *still* be blubbering
and whining that thing's just ain't a working right.


Make that all four. Grover Norquist's and Tom DeLay's K
Street Project has been quite successful at pressuring
lobbying firms to purge Democrats and Democrat contributors
from their employment under the threat of loss of access.

Ned Simmons

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.






ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.




Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.




You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges on the courts, then the Republicans
get blamed for the liberal judges.


As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed for theirs.

If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.

If it wasn't for the fact that some of these judges, the Democrats even
had a majority in the Senate, I might agree.

The truth is, the Senate and the President determine who the judges will
be. Mostly the president, true, but he can't do it alone. He can't even
do it with less than 60 senators on his side.

So deals are made. You aren't naive enough to not think that deals are
made, are you?

If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.


Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices are facists or
Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb lackey for Scalia, but then
Scalia is without question the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas
could have picked worse.

You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April 2005 issue of The
Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, says that Rehnquist is one of the
greatest chief justices ever.


Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they
don't put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?


I don't write to Congressmen or Senators.

In article , Ned Simmons
says...

Make that all four. Grover Norquist's and Tom DeLay's K
Street Project has been quite successful at pressuring
lobbying firms to purge Democrats and Democrat contributors
from their employment under the threat of loss of access.

Heh. The funny part about the downfall of Enron was,
they were doing the same thing. Andy Fastow was screwing
anyone who disagreed with him or his LJM corporations,
by getting them fired.

Hopefully DeLay will wind up in the same place as Fastow.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

It may take a while to correct the damage of 40 yrs of liberalism, so
hang in there for a bit.

Why be a piker Gunner? Why not say the last *200* years?
After all, that's how long that pesky Bill of Rights has been
around, eh? Commie pinko ACLU and all that sort of thing...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. net...
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?


A cite or two might be interesting...


Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.

Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, as long as they give "just compensation."
No restrictions except "due process."

This is a state and local issue, as correctly stated by the Court majority.
And the probability that the project will go through is pretty small, given
the [righteous] outrage that the publicity has generated. Lots of states
and
local jurisdictions are now, under pressure from liberal and conservative
and
NeoCon alike, taking the issue seriously and addressing it. It is hardly a
partisan issue - in fact the best argument is that it is CONSERVATIVES
who are all for taking your land and donating it to business.

So, the righties who are getting all huffy about "liberal" Justices are just
blowing smoke (or showing their ignorance).

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.

You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges

"Liberal" here meaning "Constitutional."


on the courts, then the Republicans get blamed for the liberal judges.

As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed
for theirs.

Don't give him the benefit of the doubt that these judges are in any
way "liberal." I'd love to see him PROVE such a baseless assertion.

If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.

False. When Republicans submit fascist and/or anti-Constitutional judges
(some, by their records, are partisan rather than Constitutional, e.g Bork)
"leftists" whine; otherwise, REAL judges get approved with little fanfare.

Now, would you hire a VP of Marketing who has two years of mid-level
management experience to run the biggest corporation in America? Geo.
Bush is trying to do the equivalent... The guy isn't even QUALIFIED, for
insert deity here's sake.

Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.

A lot of the NeoCon leadership is bright. Absolutely against the America
I grew up loving, but certainly bright.

You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April
2005 issue of The Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen,
says that Rehnquist is one of the greatest chief
justices ever.


Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?


I personally haven't seen any "idiot liberal judges" being proposed. But, I
DO
read what the Republicans and others write about proposed judges.

The keys to a GOOD Justice are experience, knowledge, and impartiality
(non-partisanship). The ONLY way we have of ascertaining these qualities
is to read about their history, i.e. previous works and writings, and the
decisions they have made in the past. Which is why, of course, that the
Republicans wish to suppress all of this information when it is requested.

Unfortunately, the process becomes overly political when the Congress
doesn't do its duty and approves willy-nilly obviously unqualified or
partisan judges. The only saving grace is that, despite all the political
and financial pressure brought to bear, the lifetime appointment and the
awesomeness of the position, causes even some obstinate partisan hacks
to reassess their past and take the job seriously.

Dan

"Stuart Grey" wrote

If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.

Actually, it takes a majority of Democrats in the Senate to use a perfectly
Constitutional method (used in the past by Republicans) to insist that
unqualified partisan nominees not be rubber stamped into lifetime sinecures.

If it wasn't for the fact that some of these judges, the Democrats even
had a majority in the Senate, I might agree.

Unsure of what you just said.

The truth is, the Senate and the President determine who the judges will
be. Mostly the president, true, but he can't do it alone. He can't even
do it with less than 60 senators on his side.

And this is BAD and Unconstitutional?

I'd personally say, if the President cannot convicne 2/3 of the
Senate that a candidate is worthy, the candidate should be withdrawn.
That's what REAL statesmen would do. The idea that the highest court
in the land should be a partisan institution should chill NeoCon as well as
liberal, but NeoCons have a different agenda than leading this country -
they wish to RULE. It is a different concept than what I grew up with...

So deals are made. You aren't naive enough to not think that deals are
made, are you?

Stuey calling someone else naive? The irony. ; )

Seriously, where do you stand? First you decry the "unConstitutionality"
of needing 60 votes, then you seemingly backtrack.

Is it a good or bad policy to have bipartisan agreement on lifetime
appointments to the highest court in the land?

Dan

Dan wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. net...

Stuart Grey wrote:


Rudy Canoza wrote:


Gunner wrote:


On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:



Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?



A cite or two might be interesting...



Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.


Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE,

No, *not* for whatever purpose: for public *use*:

...nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.


Public USE, dummy, *not* public purpose.


as long as they give "just compensation."
No restrictions except "due process."

This is a state and local issue, as correctly stated by the Court majority.
And the probability that the project will go through is pretty small, given
the [righteous] outrage that the publicity has generated. Lots of states
and
local jurisdictions are now, under pressure from liberal and conservative
and
NeoCon alike, taking the issue seriously and addressing it. It is hardly a
partisan issue - in fact the best argument is that it is CONSERVATIVES
who are all for taking your land and donating it to business.

So, the righties who are getting all huffy about "liberal" Justices are just
blowing smoke (or showing their ignorance).


Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.

You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges


"Liberal" here meaning "Constitutional."



on the courts, then the Republicans get blamed for the liberal judges.

As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed
for theirs.


Don't give him the benefit of the doubt that these judges are in any
way "liberal." I'd love to see him PROVE such a baseless assertion.


If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.


False. When Republicans submit fascist and/or anti-Constitutional judges
(some, by their records, are partisan rather than Constitutional, e.g Bork)
"leftists" whine; otherwise, REAL judges get approved with little fanfare.

Now, would you hire a VP of Marketing who has two years of mid-level
management experience to run the biggest corporation in America? Geo.
Bush is trying to do the equivalent... The guy isn't even QUALIFIED, for
insert deity here's sake.


Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


A lot of the NeoCon leadership is bright. Absolutely against the America
I grew up loving, but certainly bright.


You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April
2005 issue of The Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen,
says that Rehnquist is one of the greatest chief
justices ever.



Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?



I personally haven't seen any "idiot liberal judges" being proposed. But, I
DO
read what the Republicans and others write about proposed judges.

The keys to a GOOD Justice are experience, knowledge, and impartiality
(non-partisanship). The ONLY way we have of ascertaining these qualities
is to read about their history, i.e. previous works and writings, and the
decisions they have made in the past. Which is why, of course, that the
Republicans wish to suppress all of this information when it is requested.

Unfortunately, the process becomes overly political when the Congress
doesn't do its duty and approves willy-nilly obviously unqualified or
partisan judges. The only saving grace is that, despite all the political
and financial pressure brought to bear, the lifetime appointment and the
awesomeness of the position, causes even some obstinate partisan hacks
to reassess their past and take the job seriously.

Dan

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?

Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.





Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.





You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges on the courts, then the Republicans
get blamed for the liberal judges.



As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed for theirs.


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it.


If it wasn't for the fact that some of these judges, the Democrats even
had a majority in the Senate, I might agree.

The truth is, the Senate and the President determine who the judges will
be. Mostly the president, true, but he can't do it alone. He can't even
do it with less than 60 senators on his side.

So deals are made. You aren't naive enough to not think that deals are
made, are you?

No.


If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.



Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices are facists or
Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb lackey for Scalia, but then
Scalia is without question the brightest justice on the court, so
Thomas could have picked worse.

You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April 2005 issue of
The Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, says that Rehnquist is one
of the greatest chief justices ever.


Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they
don't put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?



I don't write to Congressmen or Senators.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.


There's nothing unconstitutional about it.

The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.
The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm the
appointment of judges.

If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The constitution is supreme, ergo, the senate rule is unconstitional.

Q.E.D.

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.



There's nothing unconstitutional about it.


The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.

I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.


The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.

Right!


The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm the
appointment of judges.

No, it does not:

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in
part that the president shall have the power to
nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice
and consent" of the Senate.

While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate
vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific
requirement for judicial confirmation.

That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51
votes to confirm a judge, which has been the
historic practice. But some legal analysts say that
nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from
setting a higher standard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0425/p01s01-uspo.html


The Constitution does *not* spell out the size of the
majority required.

Understand that the Senate has *not* said that the
confirmation of a judge or justice requires 60 votes.
What they have said is that 60 votes are required to
end a filibuster. The filibuster keeps a vote from
being held on the nominee. It may have the *effect* of
making the confirmation require 60 votes, but those
votes are not on the confirmation itself. Note that
five principled Deomcratic senators, believing it
important to hold an up-or-down vote on the nominee,
could conceivably vote to end the filibuster, then vote
against the nominee.


If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The constitution is supreme, ergo, the senate rule is unconstitional.

The Senate rule is *not* in conflict with the
Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything
about forcing the Senate to hold a vote at all. WHEN
AND IF they hold a vote, then the prevailing historical
practice is that a nominee is confirmed with a 50% + 1
vote.

The only thing demonstrated with your slovenly "qed"
was your ignorance: of the Constitution, and of logic.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dan wrote:

Supreme Court decision WRT taking of private property

Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE,

No, *not* for whatever purpose: for public *use*:

...nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.


Public USE, dummy, *not* public purpose.

Public use: sell at a discount to a developer in order to generate:

tax money
economic growth (tax money included)
lower crime

The development was to be a mall (with private businesses but
standard public access laws applying) replacing supposedly
"blighted" areas of the city.

Of course, if you argue that this is not public use, then the
government agency is off the hook WRT just compensation,
isn't it! Because, if it is not public use, all that is required of
the government is due process, which there definitely was.
How is this substantially different from a person SUSPECTED
of a crime having his assets removed BEFORE A TRIAL
because he might use them in his self-defense? Damnedest
thing, precedence.

Just because I don't LIKE it doesn't mean it is not legal.

But then, holding someone (U.S. citizens, in fact) without
bail, without counsel, and without trial might just be going
across the Constitutional line.


Dan

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.




There's nothing unconstitutional about it.



The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.


I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but no matter; it is
held to be.

The constitution says thus:

Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.



The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.


Right!


The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm
the appointment of judges.


No, it does not:

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in
part that the president shall have the power to
nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice
and consent" of the Senate.

While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate
vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific
requirement for judicial confirmation.

That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51
votes to confirm a judge, which has been the
historic practice. But some legal analysts say that
nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from
setting a higher standard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0425/p01s01-uspo.html


The Constitution does *not* spell out the size of the majority required.

Understand that the Senate has *not* said that the confirmation of a
judge or justice requires 60 votes. What they have said is that 60 votes
are required to end a filibuster. The filibuster keeps a vote from
being held on the nominee. It may have the *effect* of making the
confirmation require 60 votes, but those votes are not on the
confirmation itself. Note that five principled Deomcratic senators,
believing it important to hold an up-or-down vote on the nominee, could

That is an interesting perversion of the intent of the constitution, far
more subtle, and almost reasonable, *******ization of the intent.

Well done.

If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The constitution is supreme, ergo, the senate rule is unconstitional.


The Senate rule is *not* in conflict with the Constitution. The
Constitution does not say anything about forcing the Senate to hold a
vote at all. WHEN AND IF they hold a vote, then the prevailing
historical practice is that a nominee is confirmed with a 50% + 1 vote.

The only thing demonstrated with your slovenly "qed" was your
ignorance: of the Constitution, and of logic.

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.


There's nothing unconstitutional about it.

The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.
The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm the
appointment of judges.

Oops. There is no Constitutional requirement
that I have found that the vote for anything other than treaties and
overturning vetoes has any numerical or percentile requirement.
Specifically, I found no mention of a quantity needed to approve
a judge. Perhaps I missed a paragraph...

The Senate could make a rule saying that it takes 100%
concurrence for a political appointment by the President to
be approved. Or of a single Senator, or (and this IS listed
in the Constitution) that the President can appoint "inferior
Officers," however that is defined (hard to see a Supreme
Court justice as an inferior Officer, but the phrase is
otherwise undefined).

If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The Constitution. But I fail to find a conflict...

The constitution is supreme, ergo, the senate rule is unconstitional.

Interesting logic. Flawed, like all your logic, but interesting.

Let's try your logic out, EVEN ASSUMING your "simple majority"
restriction:

If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The Senate makes a rule concerning how matters are brought
up for a vote.

The Constitution doesn't make any mention of how a vote is called.

Therefore, there is no conflict with the supreme law of the Constitution.

Holding up the appointment of a judge is clearly Constitutional, if
it follows the rules of the Senate.

Dan