On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:40:25 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


"Prometheus"

I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were
in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on
the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the
people out-of-touch is sickening.


I used that phrase but was unable to get you to understand that
I was talking about the liberal leadership.

"That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there."

The NE is the liberal leadership?

No one has, as yet, explained just
what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch
with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with
*y'all*?


You could start by understanding what you're reading and hearing.

You could be a lot more clear.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:16:57 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:

Sorry, no, yourself. The justification for the war was WMD and their
use against the USA. No WMD found and certainly nothing
(infrastruture, weapsons, or even evidence of such) has been foudn
that would be anywhere close to being an imminent threat to the USA.
I believe the rationale has deteriorated to "he's a bad man".

Not true. Not even close.

WMD was one of several justifications for the war, but not the only one, and
not even the primary one. Others included continued failure to comply with
numerous UN Security Council resolutions, and harboring and supporting
terrorists. These were stated very clearly *before* the invasion.

I know *I'm* the inconsistant one, but since when is Bush concerned
about the UN?

Before you say Saddam had no connection to terrorism... answer these
questions: Who was Abu Nidal? And where was he living, at the time of his
death?

If he happened to live in Canada, would we have to overthrow them,
too?
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On 12 Nov 2004 12:05:52 -0800, (David Hall)
wrote:

Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far
worse than being aborted.

I really don't need to point out how pathetic that staement is...but
I'm going to anyhow. And you call me a self-rightous prick...

I didn't say I wasn't one as well... The difference between you and I
is that if you need or want to do something, I don't feel the absolute
moral imperative to tell you what you must do with your life. That's
it in a nutshell. I can be a prick if I like, I can be
self-righteous, arrogant, selfish, and rude- and accept whatever
consequences arise from those traits. My freedom, however, doesn't
give me the right to make laws forcing you to pretend to agree with my
views.

Why do you feel that you have the right to impose your morality and
judgement on others? Jesus told you?


Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"Prometheus"
"Fletis Humplebacker"


"Prometheus"

I'll admit, I had to get to bed when about half of the results were
in. It sure looked like almost all of them closely divided based on
the coverage I was following. Regardless, calling almost half the
people out-of-touch is sickening.


I used that phrase but was unable to get you to understand that
I was talking about the liberal leadership.

"That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there."


Wise words.


The NE is the liberal leadership?


Many do come from there, yes, but again, no one claimed
they were limited to the region. I guess your understanding
and attempt to spin is what's wrong with liberalism.


No one has, as yet, explained just
what we're (the so-called "reality based" community) all out of touch
with. Jesus and his M-16? How do we get back into touch with
*y'all*?


You could start by understanding what you're reading and hearing.

You could be a lot more clear.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam


Nothing was unclear. You're trying to make an argument instead
of dealing with the issue. Just like a liberal.

Prometheus did say:

If he happened to live in Canada, would we have to overthrow them,
too?

I Lee Valley doesn't get their prices in line, we may have to.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far
worse than being aborted.

I really don't need to point out how pathetic that staement is...but
I'm going to anyhow. And you call me a self-rightous prick...

I didn't say I wasn't one as well... The difference between you and I
is that if you need or want to do something, I don't feel the absolute
moral imperative to tell you what you must do with your life. That's
it in a nutshell. I can be a prick if I like, I can be
self-righteous, arrogant, selfish, and rude- and accept whatever
consequences arise from those traits. My freedom, however, doesn't
give me the right to make laws forcing you to pretend to agree with my
views.

Why do you feel that you have the right to impose your morality and
judgement on others? Jesus told you?


Well, you seem to have read my posts but not understood my position. I believe
that I was VERY clear that I am not a religious person. I am not sure that
there is a soul or any sort of afterlife or any kind of diety - is that an
agnostic? I'm not sure. My position on abortion is based on my logic that the
baby is human 1 minute after birth, to me it must be human 5 minutes earlier,
and 5 minutes before that etc. Somewhere along the line recently I believe that
you said something about brain activity possibly marking the point of
"humanity" and that makes at least some sense to me. However, at whatever point
that humanity starts I simply cannot differentiate between a human outside of
its mother and one inside of her. I find it absolutely no different to force
the morality of not killing a human while inside of its mother than forcing the
morality of not killing a human while outside of its mother. I assume that you
too believe that we can force our morality on others by enforcing a ban on
killing already born people. I just do not see anything religious about that
and do not understand why pro-choice folks always have to come back to "you're
just a religious nutcase" to defend what is to me an indefensable position.

BTW, I never called you a Nazi or a slave owner or most of those other names
you claim I did. I said that the moral positions taken in all three instances
(slavery, holocost, and abortion) are similar in that in all instances those
who perpetrate (or who accept) offered the position that the innocent wasn't
really human.

Once we got to the point where the stated position is that children born into
nasty situations would be better off dead, I did go a bit nuts. People can and
do rise above the conditions of their birth and childhood. Very few people who
have lived through or are living in a life of hell want to be dead. I don't
know what the suicide rate is, but while far too high it is miniscule compared
to the number of abortions or for that matter to the number poor unloved
children. Recently Chris Reeves passed away. To many people the life of a
severely paralyzed person like Mr. Reeves was not worth living, yet he wanted
to live and he lived and fought for 10 years after his accident. We can't
evaluate and determine whether a life is "worth" living. I am generally
against abortion. Even I, however, can accept it to protect the mother's life
or to protect her from significant health risks (a type of self-defense). Also,
in direct contradiction to most of what I have stated, I am accepting of it
when it is known that the fetus is severly, permanently and irreparably
disabled to the point that it will suffer and die shortly after birth or will
have no mental capabilities, etc.

I have ranted far too much on this issue for a woodworking forum and I will at
least TRY to shut up now. (note that this is NOT a vow, however)

Dave Hall

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:27:43 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:51:36 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

.... snip

If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a
position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on
numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about
pardoning those on death row.

I realize that you probably won't let a little thing like a fact penetrate
your skull, but Texas governors don't have the power to pardon those on
death row. I always have to chuckle when the death penalty comes up in this
debate. Seems that most pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty.
Translation: kill the innocent and protect the guilty. Personally, I'm also
against the death penalty.

I'm for the death penalty. It just always seemed very odd to me that
someone can hate abortion in the name of life, and then sanction the
killing of criminals (aside from yourself, as stated above). If Texas
governors don't have the power to pardon death-row inmates, then of
course my statement above is not valid.


How does this seem inconsistent? The death penalty is applied as a
consequence of actions perpetrated by the one being so punished, assuring
that said person will no longer pose a threat to society. The killing
perpetrated in abortion is the consequence of another's actions being
carried out against an innocent life; similar to killing the child of a
murderer rather than killing the one who committed the murder. I have
never understood the rationale of the argument that if one opposes abortion
that it is inconsistent to support the death penalty.

.... snip

Read that "threat to society" as "for the good of society" and it no longer
becomes a leap. The environuts must surely applaud the Chinese one-child
policy, though I do recall some uncomfortable newsreaders trying to work up
some disdain for the practice of forced abortion.

Save the rainforest, abort a Brazilian!

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
How does this seem inconsistent? The death penalty is applied as a
consequence of actions perpetrated by the one being so punished, assuring
that said person will no longer pose a threat to society. The killing
perpetrated in abortion is the consequence of another's actions being
carried out against an innocent life; similar to killing the child of a
murderer rather than killing the one who committed the murder. I have
never understood the rationale of the argument that if one opposes
abortion
that it is inconsistent to support the death penalty.

... snip

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:27:43 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:


On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:51:36 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:


... snip

If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a
position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on
numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about
pardoning those on death row.

I realize that you probably won't let a little thing like a fact penetrate
your skull, but Texas governors don't have the power to pardon those on
death row. I always have to chuckle when the death penalty comes up in this
debate. Seems that most pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty.
Translation: kill the innocent and protect the guilty. Personally, I'm also
against the death penalty.

I'm for the death penalty. It just always seemed very odd to me that
someone can hate abortion in the name of life, and then sanction the
killing of criminals (aside from yourself, as stated above). If Texas
governors don't have the power to pardon death-row inmates, then of
course my statement above is not valid.



How does this seem inconsistent? The death penalty is applied as a
consequence of actions perpetrated by the one being so punished, assuring
that said person will no longer pose a threat to society. The killing
perpetrated in abortion is the consequence of another's actions being
carried out against an innocent life; similar to killing the child of a
murderer rather than killing the one who committed the murder. I have
never understood the rationale of the argument that if one opposes abortion
that it is inconsistent to support the death penalty.

... snip

It probably has something to do with a proscription in the bibles of
several religions. In the Christian King James version it is "Thou
shalt not kill".
mahalo,
jo4hn

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:21 GMT, jo4hn wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:27:43 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:
.... snip

I'm for the death penalty. It just always seemed very odd to me that
someone can hate abortion in the name of life, and then sanction the
killing of criminals (aside from yourself, as stated above). If Texas
governors don't have the power to pardon death-row inmates, then of
course my statement above is not valid.



How does this seem inconsistent? The death penalty is applied as a
consequence of actions perpetrated by the one being so punished, assuring
that said person will no longer pose a threat to society. The killing
perpetrated in abortion is the consequence of another's actions being
carried out against an innocent life; similar to killing the child of a
murderer rather than killing the one who committed the murder. I have
never understood the rationale of the argument that if one opposes abortion
that it is inconsistent to support the death penalty.

... snip

It probably has something to do with a proscription in the bibles of
several religions. In the Christian King James version it is "Thou
shalt not kill".
mahalo,
jo4hn

A better translation of the original languages is, "Thou shalt not
murder". However, that is misapplication of a proscription to individuals
being applied to the state. There are numerous citations, in both Old and
New Testaments in which the power of life and death is granted to the state
for the sake of preserving civil order. For example, "... But if you do
wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing ..." in Romans
13 which talks about submission to the authorities.

What seems more inconsistent is those who are pro-abortion and against
the death penalty. In the former case, they cede the right to kill an
innocent life for the consequences of the action of someone else, while in
the latter, they decry the killing of someone as a consequence for having
taken an innocent life.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:21 GMT, jo4hn wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:27:43 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:

... snip

I'm for the death penalty. It just always seemed very odd to me that
someone can hate abortion in the name of life, and then sanction the
killing of criminals (aside from yourself, as stated above). If Texas
governors don't have the power to pardon death-row inmates, then of
course my statement above is not valid.



How does this seem inconsistent? The death penalty is applied as a
consequence of actions perpetrated by the one being so punished, assuring
that said person will no longer pose a threat to society. The killing
perpetrated in abortion is the consequence of another's actions being
carried out against an innocent life; similar to killing the child of a
murderer rather than killing the one who committed the murder. I have
never understood the rationale of the argument that if one opposes abortion
that it is inconsistent to support the death penalty.

... snip

It probably has something to do with a proscription in the bibles of
several religions. In the Christian King James version it is "Thou
shalt not kill".
mahalo,
jo4hn


A better translation of the original languages is, "Thou shalt not
murder". However, that is misapplication of a proscription to individuals
being applied to the state. There are numerous citations, in both Old and
New Testaments in which the power of life and death is granted to the state
for the sake of preserving civil order. For example, "... But if you do
wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing ..." in Romans
13 which talks about submission to the authorities.

What seems more inconsistent is those who are pro-abortion and against
the death penalty. In the former case, they cede the right to kill an
innocent life for the consequences of the action of someone else, while in
the latter, they decry the killing of someone as a consequence for having
taken an innocent life.

Ah. So the Bible should read something like "Thou shalt not take the
life of a human being (anything that is two cells or more that is or has
even the remotest possibility of becoming a viable sentient life form)
unless any government sanctions it". The latter covers your ass for war
and other governmental foolishness. OK. Now I understand.
mahalo,
jo4hn

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:13:33 GMT, jo4hn wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:21 GMT, jo4hn wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:27:43 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:

... snip


... snip

It probably has something to do with a proscription in the bibles of
several religions. In the Christian King James version it is "Thou
shalt not kill".
mahalo,
jo4hn


A better translation of the original languages is, "Thou shalt not
murder". However, that is misapplication of a proscription to individuals
being applied to the state. There are numerous citations, in both Old and
New Testaments in which the power of life and death is granted to the state
for the sake of preserving civil order. For example, "... But if you do
wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing ..." in Romans
13 which talks about submission to the authorities.

What seems more inconsistent is those who are pro-abortion and against
the death penalty. In the former case, they cede the right to kill an
innocent life for the consequences of the action of someone else, while in
the latter, they decry the killing of someone as a consequence for having
taken an innocent life.

Ah. So the Bible should read something like "Thou shalt not take the
life of a human being (anything that is two cells or more that is or has
even the remotest possibility of becoming a viable sentient life form)
unless any government sanctions it". The latter covers your ass for war
and other governmental foolishness. OK. Now I understand.

Depends upon whether you consider maintaining a civilized society
government foolishness or not. But of course you knew that. Your argument
is typical of the mental gymnastics that need to be performed in order to
sanction the destruction of innocent lives for the convenience of others.
Nature has very few step functions, conception is one of those times in
which a step function occurs; prior to conception, you have two cells with
the potential for life. Following conception, a life has begun.

In article . net, jo4hn wrote:

It probably has something to do with a proscription in the bibles of
several religions. In the Christian King James version it is "Thou
shalt not kill".

Many Biblical scholars believe that a better translation is "thou shalt not
commit murder." It's certainly more consistent with other portions of the
Mosaic law, which prescribe the death penalty for various crimes.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Prometheus wrote:

I don't believe that people senselessly shoot other people on a lark, so I

must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I

have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that
they

absolutely must not shoot another person, I would have to impose my
morality

on them.

They probably do, but that is an entirely different issue. A living
person walking down the street is not in a gray area when it comes to
whether or not they are a "person".

But you believe in erring on the side of caution, you said so yourself. So
anything in that "gray area" should be treated as if it is a living person,
because you're not sure if it is or not.

So how are the two situations different?

[snip rant]

You didn't answer the question.

An embryo floating in a woman's belly has no senses or mental
processes before a certain point. Someone walking down the street
does.

So if this is your standard, I take it you would support the threshold that I
proposed earlier, defining (legally) the beginning of life as the commencement
of electrical activity in the brain (and prohibiting abortion after that
point)?

If so, we really don't have much to argue about.


What about it? It has no experiences, no connections to this Earth.
It loses nothing but possibilities- each one of us loses
possibilities every time we make a decision, but that is the price of
existance.

IOW, you just don't care.

Whatever happened to "err on the side of caution"? Those were *your* words,
not mine.

As this thread as go on, I realize you're right. I don't care. I had
blithely assumed that I was not for abortion, but on second thought, I
could actually give a crap if someone else is doing it- same as I
really don't care when the Palestinians and Israelis blow one another
up. Just keep it the hell off my lawn, and don't try take my freedom
from me because of it.

So any sort of injustice, anywhere, anytime, doesn't bother you, as long as
you're not personally affected?

Sad.

Terrible that I can't be a one-track zealot.

Even worse that you can't make a consistent, cogent statement of your beliefs.

This damn thing wasn't even about abortion pro or con in the first
place- it was a response to someone who wanted examples of the
religious right forcing morality on others. I don't give a crap about
abortion. I do care about facists destroying our country because
people focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others. The folks
who voted for Bush for whatever reason have asked for more death than
abortion is likely to cause in a decade.

Reality check time again.

Abortion kills one-point-two MILLION unborn babies EVERY YEAR in the U.S.;
thus, in a decade, abortion causes TWELVE MILLION deaths in this country
alone.

Please explain what the folks who voted for Bush have done, or will do, that
"asks for" more than twelve million deaths.

While you're at it, please explain, if you can, what on earth you even meant
when you said that.

I'm not consistant about
abortion- because I don't think about it much

That's part of the problem -- lots of folks don't think about much.

, and don't really care to.

That's another part of the problem -- lots of folks don't want to think about
it. It's not a pleasant thing to consider. It's much easier to ignore it, than
to acknowledge the fact that our society tolerates the killing of over a
million unborn babies every year, and has been tolerating it for over thirty
years. That's a very unpleasant thing to think about.

Why don't you spend hundreds of hours researching anti-trust
legislation or the finer points of environmental law? Hell, perhaps
you do. Pick your issues- this one isn't one of mine, I just don't
like being called a murderer because I don't get on a white horse and
go off to stick my fingers in someone else's pie.

I didn't call you a murderer, and (maybe I missed it) I didn't see anyone else
call you that either. But by your own admissions, you tolerate it: you
acknowledged that you think it possible that fetuses at some stage of
development have souls, yet you say you would permit aborting them anyway.
That adds up to tolerating something that you think might be murder. Make of
that what you will.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Prometheus wrote:

My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection
to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to
observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should
be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be
somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks,

Oh, bull**** -- "observe and think" doesn't happen until 10 to 14 YEARS.

That's the bull****. More learning goes on in the first two years
than any other point in your life.

You evidently don't have children of your own. :-)

The short answer is no, because it is illegal.

Why?

Because going to jail interferes with my freedom. And because they
have not initiated force aginst me.

Being poisoned with saline solution, or dismembered with a scalpel or a
suction hose, interferes with a fetus's freedom to develop and grow. And the
fetus has not initiated force against anyone.


If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a
position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on
numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about
pardoning those on death row.

I'm opposed to capital punishment in most cases, too.

I'm not, just making a point.

In other instances, it is OK to kill someone who is initiating the use
of physical force against you, intending to cause you serious harm or
death. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another to prevent them from
continuing to kill or trying to kill others. In all cases, they must
initiate the use of force, and killing is the last resort.

Fine -- now how does that justify killing an unborn child?

It doesn't, and was not intended to.

Then why bring it up?

Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than
animals?

We think, we reason, we have souls... I could go on, but if you really think
that humans are no different from lower animals... Wow.

In an awful lot of cases, no- I do not think that humans are much
different than "lower animals". I have no more right to assume that
I'm "better" than a dolphin because I'm human than I do to assume that
I'm "better" than a Frenchman because I'm American.

Then I assume you're a vegetarian.

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution by protecting the cases that
fall into the "straw man" category. The others need to examine their
values for themselves.

So for the overwhelming majority of cases in which abortion is performed for
reasons of convenience, your position is "tough luck, fetus, too bad" ?

Lot of tough luck in the world.

So it's ok to deliberately *increase* it? IMO, we should do what we can to
*decrease* it.

"Err on the side of caution" means _don't_ kill something that you think might
be a human being.

You really ought to quit, you know -- the farther you take this, the more
inconsistent you become. You're in a hole. Stop digging.

Nah, maybe I'll hit China.

How apropos. They love your viewpoint about abortion there -- they even take a
bit further than you do, and force abortions on women who don't want them.

And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept
by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being
reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted.

So rather than work to correct those problems, better that we just kill them
all from the get-go. Lots easier that way, isn't it?

What are you doing, personally, to correct the problems? How many
adopted children do you have?

I have enough to do, raising the two biological children I already have. But I
do provide what financial support I'm able to, to organizations that help out
better than I would be able to.

But what I'm doing, personally, wasn't the topic of discussion here. We were
talking about your ideas that it's better to kill babies at the start, rather
than risk having them grow up unloved.

You're in a hole. Stop digging. You're making yourself look like a lunatic.

Just ****ed off.

Whatever.

Every seed has the potential to grow, but if they all did, there would
be no room in your garden.

Ahh, now comes the overpopulation argument. Also false.

It is?

Yes.

Who called you a murderer? Not me.

Probably not. The thread is too long and mixed with other crap for me
to care to pick back through everything to find the reference.

Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted
owl doesn't have a soul? Sometimes you just need to make the call for
yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think.

I figured it out all for myself, thank you, that trees don't have souls. Sorry
you're having such a hard time with it.

Good for you. I think they may. I just don't consider that a reason
not to cut them down.

Think about what you've just said.

There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over
their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally
killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like
it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell
because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a
capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are
degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says
something is so, that doesn't make it true.

Wow.

They believe in their morality just as fervantly as you do. If they
were the majority, would that make them right to force it on you?

Turn it around: if a majority believed that there was nothing immoral in
randomly killing any other human adult, for no reason at all, would that make
it right to permit it?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Prometheus wrote:
On 12 Nov 2004 12:05:52 -0800, (David Hall)
wrote:

Being an unwanted child and being reminded that you are one is far
worse than being aborted.

I really don't need to point out how pathetic that staement is...but
I'm going to anyhow. And you call me a self-rightous prick...

I didn't say I wasn't one as well... The difference between you and I
is that if you need or want to do something, I don't feel the absolute
moral imperative to tell you what you must do with your life.

Nobody is trying to tell you, or anyone else, "what you must to with your
life."

We're telling you what you must *not* do with _someone_else's_ life.

That's
it in a nutshell. I can be a prick if I like, I can be
self-righteous, arrogant, selfish, and rude- and accept whatever
consequences arise from those traits. My freedom, however, doesn't
give me the right to make laws forcing you to pretend to agree with my
views.

But you obviously think that it does give you the right to make laws
permitting you to inflict your version of morality, or lack thereof, on an
innocent unborn child. Still having that same trouble with consistency, I see.

Why do you feel that you have the right to impose your morality and
judgement on others? Jesus told you?

Why do you feel that *you* have that right?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Todd Fatheree wrote:

: Yeah, we need more activist judges legislating from the bench instead of
: interpreting the law as it stands.



Can you define "activist judge", please?

-- Andy Barss

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
Todd Fatheree wrote:

: Yeah, we need more activist judges legislating from the bench instead of
: interpreting the law as it stands.

Can you define "activist judge", please?

That would be one who decides cases on the basis of what he thinks the law
"should" say, rather than what the law actually *does* say. Harry Blackmun is
a good example; ever actually *read* his opinion in Roe vs. Wade?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

This makes me sick. As staunch conservatives, you successfully
attacked a dictionary definition. Congratulations! As an American
liberal, I find it nauseating for two political ideologies, which are
not necessarily opposites, to attack each other like that. Were you
aware that liberal was once thought of as being in favor of laissez
fairee economics (that's basically leave it be capitalism for those of
you that didn't know), equality, and freedom. As far as I am aware, at
least the last two still apply. Both liberals and conservatives alike
are working towards the common goal of keeping the big government off
of the little people's backs. We may work at it in different ways, but
the ultimate goal is the same. Conservatives tend to see this
difference in taxes which they believe suppress individual freedom
(quite likely so). Liberals tend to see this difference in restrictive
measures such as the Patriot Act, which eerily resembles the search and
seizure policies of the USSR. Both the USSR policies and the Patriot
acts were written as protective measures from both outer and inner
forces.

Liberals are painted as communists and Conservatives are painted as
Nazis. Neither is true. We are ALL working for the betterment of our
societies, just in different ways. Maybe we should stop fighting each
other and work together to achieve this common goal-

Here are two definitions of liberal and conservative. I'll leave it to
you to guess which is which. Regardless of what meaning you have
imposed on these two words, maybe it would be good to take a look back
and see what they truly stand for.


1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he
ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his
morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought
to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid
medical insurance -- now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe
to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the
meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredie nt and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what
he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes
is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the
laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work.
It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees
because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy
liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want
his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or bec omes unemployed, he'll get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't
think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some
bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some
godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers
who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided
that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and
earned more money over his lifetime.Joe is home from work.

He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the
country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest
in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety
standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in
the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk
show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans
have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout
his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals
ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
should take care of themselves,
just like I have."

Should you be ashamed of being a Patriot? I don't think so!

Of course, the Conservative "think tank" that fill this post with
comments will never agree. Ignorance works like that!

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

No, just be aware of why you are where you are, and understandwhere
you
are going:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005858

-Doug



Good post Doug!
Thanks!

Prometheus wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:04:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Prometheus
wrote: g.

It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth.

Yes, it is.

I thought it was only legal in the first two trimesters.

We have here an example of the ways that "advocates" for various political
agendas lie. Abortion per se is legal at any time in most states. The
activists leave you to assume that "abortion" = "abortion on demand".
Third trimester abortion _on_demand_ is in general not allowed (I don't
know the laws in all states--there may be one that allows it but I would be
very surprised), however third-trimester abortion when "medically
necessary" as defined by the laws is usually allowed.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Medically necessary - a majority of people find it appropriate that 3rd
trimester abortions must be medically necessary, but have no clue on what
medically necessary means in practice as guided by judicial mandate. Read
more on the Doe v. Dalton case, which gets at the definition of what
constitutes a risk to the health of the mother. "Health" includes direct
bodily risk....along with psychological well being and emotions - just a
couple of the several vagaries and ambiguities.

To say abortion is available on demand is not a lie. And to say 3rd
trimester abortions only occur when medically necessary uses an absurd
definition of both "medical" and "necessary".

I'll borrow some sloganeering from a bumper sticker I saw recently:

As a former fetus, I am against abortion.




"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Prometheus wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:04:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Prometheus
wrote: g.

It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth.

Yes, it is.

I thought it was only legal in the first two trimesters.

We have here an example of the ways that "advocates" for various political
agendas lie. Abortion per se is legal at any time in most states. The
activists leave you to assume that "abortion" = "abortion on demand".
Third trimester abortion _on_demand_ is in general not allowed (I don't
know the laws in all states--there may be one that allows it but I would
be
very surprised), however third-trimester abortion when "medically
necessary" as defined by the laws is usually allowed.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Paul B Deemer wrote:

more carefully selected half-truths snipped

Get some cortisone in that knee Deemer before it jerks into the frame of
your Unisaw and you break your foot.

Now, go out and read the statutes, not what people tell you is the law.
While SCOTUS might rule on the definition of "medical necessity" in the
absence of a statutory definition, a statutory definition, unless found to
be discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional, overrides the definition
provided by SCOTUS.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is too short to waste arguing with
empty-headed advocates of this and that. If you don't like what SCOTUS has
ruled then get yourself admitted to the Federal bar and find a test case
and take it up with _them_ if they're willing to listen to you.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

We have here an example of the ways that "advocates" for various political
agendas lie. Abortion per se is legal at any time in most states. The
activists leave you to assume that "abortion" = "abortion on demand".
Third trimester abortion _on_demand_ is in general not allowed (I don't
know the laws in all states--there may be one that allows it but I would be
very surprised), however third-trimester abortion when "medically
necessary" as defined by the laws is usually allowed.

And "medically necessary" reasons include the mother's *mental* health, which
for all practical purposes means the mother's convenience.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Paul B Deemer wrote:

Medically necessary - a majority of people find it appropriate that 3rd
trimester abortions must be medically necessary, but have no clue on what
medically necessary means in practice as guided by judicial mandate. Read
more on the Doe v. Dalton case, which gets at the definition of what
constitutes a risk to the health of the mother. "Health" includes direct
bodily risk....along with psychological well being and emotions - just a
couple of the several vagaries and ambiguities.

To say abortion is available on demand is not a lie. And to say 3rd
trimester abortions only occur when medically necessary uses an absurd
definition of both "medical" and "necessary".

Get some cortisone in that knee Deemer before it jerks into the frame of
your Unisaw and you break your foot.

Ad hominem arguments are *so* persuasive...

Now, go out and read the statutes, not what people tell you is the law.

The law is for all practical purposes what the courts say that the statues
*mean*. What they actually *say* is sadly of little relevance.

While SCOTUS might rule on the definition of "medical necessity" in the
absence of a statutory definition, a statutory definition, unless found to
be discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional, overrides the definition
provided by SCOTUS.

This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is too short to waste arguing with
empty-headed advocates of this and that. If you don't like what SCOTUS has
ruled then get yourself admitted to the Federal bar and find a test case
and take it up with _them_ if they're willing to listen to you.

You're contradicting yourself here, you know... In the previous paragraph, you
claim erroneously that statutory definitions override Supreme Court
decisions, but in this paragraph you recognize correctly that Supreme Court
rulings take precedence. I wish you'd make up your mind.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

We have here an example of the ways that "advocates" for various political
agendas lie. Abortion per se is legal at any time in most states. The
activists leave you to assume that "abortion" = "abortion on demand".
Third trimester abortion _on_demand_ is in general not allowed (I don't
know the laws in all states--there may be one that allows it but I would
be very surprised), however third-trimester abortion when "medically
necessary" as defined by the laws is usually allowed.

And "medically necessary" reasons include the mother's *mental* health,
which for all practical purposes means the mother's convenience.

Another one who rather than addressing the specifics of specific statutes
decides to assume that all abortion statutes contain the words "medically
necessary" and goes on from there parading his ignorance.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Paul B Deemer wrote:

Medically necessary - a majority of people find it appropriate that 3rd
trimester abortions must be medically necessary, but have no clue on what
medically necessary means in practice as guided by judicial mandate. Read
more on the Doe v. Dalton case, which gets at the definition of what
constitutes a risk to the health of the mother. "Health" includes direct
bodily risk....along with psychological well being and emotions - just a
couple of the several vagaries and ambiguities.

To say abortion is available on demand is not a lie. And to say 3rd
trimester abortions only occur when medically necessary uses an absurd
definition of both "medical" and "necessary".

Get some cortisone in that knee Deemer before it jerks into the frame of
your Unisaw and you break your foot.

Ad hominem arguments are *so* persuasive...

Now, go out and read the statutes, not what people tell you is the law.

The law is for all practical purposes what the courts say that the statues
*mean*. What they actually *say* is sadly of little relevance.

So how many state abortion statutes contain the words "medically necessary"
and what leads you to believe that a Supreme Court definition of "medically
necessary" has any relevance when the term defined does not appear in the
statute?

While SCOTUS might rule on the definition of "medical necessity" in the
absence of a statutory definition, a statutory definition, unless found to
be discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional, overrides the definition
provided by SCOTUS.

This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

Nothing? Not even a Constitutional Amendment? Sorry, but the Supreme Court
is a court, it is not God.

Regardless, the Supreme Court would not define "medically necessary" unless
there was some question as to its meaning. And if it was defined clearly
by the statute then there would not have been such question. And if a
subsequent statute contains a statement to the effect that "for the
purposes of this statute 'medically necessary' shall be defined to
mean . . ." then unless there is a separate finding that invalidates that
definition the definition in the statute stands. You may find this
inconvenient but it does not alter the fact.

Further, if you had in fact read what I wrote and thought about it instead
of flailing your own knee you would have realized this and not put your
foot in your mouth.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is too short to waste arguing
with
empty-headed advocates of this and that. If you don't like what SCOTUS
has ruled then get yourself admitted to the Federal bar and find a test
case and take it up with _them_ if they're willing to listen to you.

You're contradicting yourself here, you know... In the previous paragraph,
you claim erroneously that statutory definitions override Supreme Court
decisions, but in this paragraph you recognize correctly that Supreme
Court rulings take precedence. I wish you'd make up your mind.

Only in your mind. If the Supreme Court says that "ironwood is wood of the
following species" and the Congress enacts a statute that says "for the
purpose of this statute 'ironwood' shall be defined as being wood of (some
other list of species) then the Supreme Court definition of ironwood will
not apply to that statute unless and until the Supreme Court decides that
there is some reason to invalidate the list that the Congress has chosen to
use. That does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot alter the list, just
that it remains in force until they _do_ alter it. There is no
contradiction between the _fact_ that if a statute defines a word then that
definition is the one that stands even if is is different from the default
definition established by the courts and even if it is completely at
variance with common usage unless and until that definition is specifically
overturned by a _subsequent_ court ruling and the fact that the Supreme
Court can specifically overturn that definition if they find it appropriate
to do so.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Paul B Deemer wrote:

Medically necessary - a majority of people find it appropriate that 3rd
trimester abortions must be medically necessary, but have no clue on what
medically necessary means in practice as guided by judicial mandate. Read
more on the Doe v. Dalton case, which gets at the definition of what
constitutes a risk to the health of the mother. "Health" includes direct
bodily risk....along with psychological well being and emotions - just a
couple of the several vagaries and ambiguities.

To say abortion is available on demand is not a lie. And to say 3rd
trimester abortions only occur when medically necessary uses an absurd
definition of both "medical" and "necessary".

Get some cortisone in that knee Deemer before it jerks into the frame of
your Unisaw and you break your foot.

Ad hominem arguments are *so* persuasive...

Now, go out and read the statutes, not what people tell you is the law.

The law is for all practical purposes what the courts say that the statues
*mean*. What they actually *say* is sadly of little relevance.

So how many state abortion statutes contain the words "medically necessary"
and what leads you to believe that a Supreme Court definition of "medically
necessary" has any relevance when the term defined does not appear in the
statute?

While SCOTUS might rule on the definition of "medical necessity" in the
absence of a statutory definition, a statutory definition, unless found to
be discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional, overrides the definition
provided by SCOTUS.

This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

Nothing? Not even a Constitutional Amendment? Sorry, but the Supreme Court
is a court, it is not God.

Regardless, the Supreme Court would not define "medically necessary" unless
there was some question as to its meaning. And if it was defined clearly
by the statute then there would not have been such question. And if a
subsequent statute contains a statement to the effect that "for the
purposes of this statute 'medically necessary' shall be defined to
mean . . ." then unless there is a separate finding that invalidates that
definition the definition in the statute stands. You may find this
inconvenient but it does not alter the fact.

Further, if you had in fact read what I wrote and thought about it instead
of flailing your own knee you would have realized this and not put your
foot in your mouth.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is too short to waste arguing
with
empty-headed advocates of this and that. If you don't like what SCOTUS
has ruled then get yourself admitted to the Federal bar and find a test
case and take it up with _them_ if they're willing to listen to you.

You're contradicting yourself here, you know... In the previous paragraph,
you claim erroneously that statutory definitions override Supreme Court
decisions, but in this paragraph you recognize correctly that Supreme
Court rulings take precedence. I wish you'd make up your mind.

Only in your mind. If the Supreme Court says that "ironwood is wood of the
following species" and the Congress enacts a statute that says "for the
purpose of this statute 'ironwood' shall be defined as being wood of (some
other list of species) then the Supreme Court definition of ironwood will
not apply to that statute unless and until the Supreme Court decides that
there is some reason to invalidate the list that the Congress has chosen to
use. That does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot alter the list, just
that it remains in force until they _do_ alter it. There is no
contradiction between the _fact_ that if a statute defines a word then that
definition is the one that stands even if is is different from the default
definition established by the courts and even if it is completely at
variance with common usage unless and until that definition is specifically
overturned by a _subsequent_ court ruling and the fact that the Supreme
Court can specifically overturn that definition if they find it appropriate
to do so.


I wish you'd make up your mind. Can the Court be overruled by a statute, or
does the Court have the power to overrule any statute it wishes? You're
stating both things at different times when it serves your purposes... and
completely ignoring the fact that, for practical purposes, any statute means
what the court(s) say it means, whether or not that bears any discernable
relationship to what the statute actually *says*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

I don't believe this is true.

As I understand it, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court is supposed to
compare the facts of a case to the Constitution, or the body of law, and
render and opinion as to whether a particular position violates the
Constitution or body of law.

So long as the law itself doesnt' violate the Constitution, the Court must
find in such a way that the law is not violated.

Change the law and the the same case will generate a different result.

Not a lawyer...


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

In article , gregg wrote:


This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

I don't believe this is true.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The Constitution means, for all
practical purposes, what the Supreme Court *says* it means, even if its plain
language says the _exact_opposite_.

As I understand it, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court is supposed to
compare the facts of a case to the Constitution, or the body of law, and
render and opinion as to whether a particular position violates the
Constitution or body of law.

So long as the law itself doesnt' violate the Constitution, the Court must
find in such a way that the law is not violated.

In an ideal world, sure... but just have a look at the McCain-Feingold
"campaign finance reform" law, and the restrictions it places on political
advertising. What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW..." does the Supreme
Court fail to understand? So we now have the bizarre situation in which nude
dancing and pornography are protected by the First Amendment, and certain
types of political statements are *not*.

Change the law and the the same case will generate a different result.

Sometimes you don't even need to change the law to get a different result,
just change the court. For example, contrast the decisions in Plessy vs
Ferguson, and Brown vs Board of Education.

Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is...

I'll only respond that I am in total agreement. Life is too short, for some
people tragically so.

Doug Miller wrote:


Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?

When Congres precludes the Court from addressing an issue

When the public votes in an amendment to the Constitution.

When a later Court decides that an earlier Court was smoking dope (Dred
Scott).

Just a few of examples.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

In article , gregg wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?

When Congres precludes the Court from addressing an issue

And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?

When the public votes in an amendment to the Constitution.

And what happens when the Court, as it recently did in the case of the
McCain-Feingold law, rules that the Amendment means the _opposite_ of what it
plainly says? What then? The language of the First Amendment is perfectly
clear: "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press" -- which McCain-Feingold *clearly* does -- and yet the Court ruled
that it does not. What now?

When a later Court decides that an earlier Court was smoking dope (Dred
Scott).

And when a still later Court reverses *that* ruling? What then?

Just a few of examples.

Indeed.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?

When Congres precludes the Court from addressing an issue

And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.


When the public votes in an amendment to the Constitution.

And what happens when the Court, as it recently did in the case of the
McCain-Feingold law, rules that the Amendment means the _opposite_ of what
it plainly says? What then? The language of the First Amendment is
perfectly clear: "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press" -- which McCain-Feingold *clearly* does -- and
yet the Court ruled that it does not. What now?

You are diving into a debate about that law. I'm not educated enough about
the law or the findings to debate the SC decision.

That's a different debate. See below.


When a later Court decides that an earlier Court was smoking dope (Dred
Scott).

And when a still later Court reverses *that* ruling? What then?

Among a zillion other things, the case can be brought through the court
system again.


Just a few of examples.

Indeed.

I suspect what you are suggesting with your "examples" is that *IF* the SC
decides to become dictatorial there's no recourse, under the Constitution,
to check them.

And this is patently untrue. Among other things, Article II, Section I.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

In article , gregg wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?

When Congres precludes the Court from addressing an issue

And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws that
abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last year. The
Court ruled that they didn't.

My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever ruling it
damn pleases?


When the public votes in an amendment to the Constitution.

And what happens when the Court, as it recently did in the case of the
McCain-Feingold law, rules that the Amendment means the _opposite_ of what
it plainly says? What then? The language of the First Amendment is
perfectly clear: "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press" -- which McCain-Feingold *clearly* does -- and
yet the Court ruled that it does not. What now?

You are diving into a debate about that law. I'm not educated enough about
the law or the findings to debate the SC decision.

There's not much subtlety in it: the law prohibits certain types of political
advertising within certain time frames preceding an election. What type, what
time frame, what purpose -- none of that matters. Amendment I flatly prohibits
any restrictions of any sort, and yet the Court ruled that it didn't prohibit
*those* restrictions.

That's a different debate. See below.


When a later Court decides that an earlier Court was smoking dope (Dred
Scott).

And when a still later Court reverses *that* ruling? What then?

Among a zillion other things, the case can be brought through the court
system again.


Just a few of examples.

Indeed.

I suspect what you are suggesting with your "examples" is that *IF* the SC
decides to become dictatorial there's no recourse, under the Constitution,
to check them.

There's always impeachment... if we can find 67 Senators with enough courage
to do the right thing.

And this is patently untrue. Among other things, Article II, Section I.

Excuse me? Article II, Section I deals with the manner of electing the
President.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

The other day I heard a radio talk-show host state that "Liberalism is a
mental disorder." I can't help but agree.

Joe

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:55:53 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:



My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever ruling
it damn pleases?

As the SC did in obliterating the tenth amendment when they determined
that Social Security was OK as part of the commerce clause of the
constitution?

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

In article , Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:55:53 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:



My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever ruling
it damn pleases?

As the SC did in obliterating the tenth amendment when they determined
that Social Security was OK as part of the commerce clause of the
constitution?

That would be another example, sure. It's time to throw all their damned tea
in the harbor again.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , Doug Winterburn
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:55:53 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:



My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever
ruling
it damn pleases?

As the SC did in obliterating the tenth amendment when they determined
that Social Security was OK as part of the commerce clause of the
constitution?

That would be another example, sure. It's time to throw all their damned
tea
in the harbor again.

Yep Doug you are right there about the tea thing. In point of fact here's
what TJ and the Boys in Philly had to say about the very thing.


--
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces
a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future Security.
-- The Declaration of Independence,
Action of the Second Continental Congress
July 4, 1776 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Cocking back my old Coonskin Cap and Rooting around for my buckskins.
Beej

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.