Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2005 General Board Posts >> supreme court
        
(Message started by: maffumatt on Jul 1st, 2005, 6:08pm)
Title: supreme court
Post by maffumatt on Jul 1st, 2005, 6:08pm
Ought to be interesting politics, Time for Bush to use that political capital he bragged about, if not he's a lame duck.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 7:58pm

on 07/01/05 at 19:43:37, cazman wrote:
yeah your right he is lame duck there for he should be shot


You would be surprised who monitors this site, Bro.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by maffumatt on Jul 1st, 2005, 8:32pm
doesnt take much to bring them out of the woodwork does it? My point being less than an hour after her announcement Kennedy is already complaining about her replacement even though one hasn't been named. This is a test for Bush that he can't afford to lose. The liberial democrats are going to try to block any person he nominates, its time he steps up to the bat and put someone in there who will stand up for the constitution and not bow to liberal pressure.
It will be fun to watch the rocks fall though, gona see alot of screaming dems lose their cool and come unglued  on this topic.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:03pm

on 07/01/05 at 20:32:51, maffumatt wrote:
My point being less than an hour after her announcement Kennedy is already complaining about her replacement even though one hasn't been named. .


Do you mean Fatboy?

http://fatboy.cc/
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by maffumatt on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:12pm
yes that fat boy
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:23pm
Where else can you drown a chick and serve your country?

This fat MF'er should have gone his brothers route!!
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:28pm
same place a man who hit the slopes (cocaine) and got a DWI can become president
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:32pm

on 07/01/05 at 21:28:37, E-Double wrote:
same place a man who hit the slopes (cocaine) and got a DWI can become president


I guess that the same as killing a young lady?
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:35pm
not at all but it shows just the same that either those who vote do not care baout some people's past indiscretions, are too  ignorant or that people can just make it in life based upon a name
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:41pm

on 07/01/05 at 21:35:15, E-Double wrote:
not at all but it shows just the same that either those who vote do not care baout some people's past indiscretions, are too  ignorant or that people can just make it in life based upon a name


Thats why I dont vote.....they all suck.

Please save your "You cant complain if you dont vote"

I have an opinion, I dont need shit to let you all know what that is ;;D
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:44pm
You can complain all ya want but those who are supposed to care won't hear ya.

There have been one or two local elections that I did not participate in because of that reason.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Jonny on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:47pm
When it comes to pick who will hurt you the least its pretty damn sad.....I think you will agree, Bro
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 1st, 2005, 9:49pm
It definitely sucks when many people vote based upon not who is the better potential leader but who is the lesser evil...

A shame but seems to be the reality these days
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jul 1st, 2005, 10:38pm
Just to set the record straight, the liberals or democrats or whatever you want to call them have passed over  90% of all nominees Bush has sent up there.
I really dont want to talk politics, but maybe you should compare that to the amount of declines that the republican congress did for Mr Clinton.  It was over 40 people for just the 9th circuit alone.  
Funny thing is: I didnt hear the republicans whining about it back then.
hmmmmmmmm.........
BMonee
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jul 1st, 2005, 10:40pm
Hey, obviously people dont vote based on smarts.  Just look at Marion Barry.  The dude smoked crack on camera and got re-elected.
How silly
BMonee
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 1st, 2005, 11:03pm
When politics and politicians play such a huge role in determining who doles out decision from the hightest court in the land - Expect politics to replace justice regardless of who picks em'

There's no such thing as liberal's law or conservative's law - This is just what the Sheeple in America accept as  justice.

And Jonny's right - we pick our representatives (employees) based on who we think will do the least harm.  The real problem is that when these bastards screw us we excuse this as politics.

Both sides of this broken political system screw us to benefit folks that pad their pockets and fill up their party's war chests.  "The People" have become a joke because we sit back like a bunch of scared lambs instead of collectively standing up and refusing to accept any more of this crap.

If The Founding Father's came back and saw how far "The People" have let their "Government By The People - For The People" degrade, They would stick their quill pens in our asses and return to England.

Tom        

 



 
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by maffumatt on Jul 1st, 2005, 11:48pm

on 07/01/05 at 23:03:26, burnt-toast wrote:
There's no such thing as liberal's law or conservative's law - This is just what the Sheeple in America accept as  justice.

 

Tell that to the people that are going to lose their homes in Conn. Pay attention to the vote 5/4

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Charlie on Jul 2nd, 2005, 2:59am
I'm already worn out from the cable news on this. Reading about California kidnappings and entertainer criminals is enough and easier on my psyche.

Never fear. You can depend on the Bush crowd to come up with someone who thinks life in the 13th century was progressive. It's all abortion and nothing but. It's the elephant in the room every time.

Charlie
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by sandie99 on Jul 2nd, 2005, 5:37am
Guys, picture this: president Schwarzenegger! Now that would be scary future, eh? ;;D

I read once that some fourtune teller is certain that he'll be America's president in future. I laughed about 10 minutes after reading about that. I did hear that his popularity is down, so we'll see.

Then again the same guy was sure that Nicole Kidman would get another oscar from Cold Mountain and she wasn't even nominated... ::)  
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by tommyD on Jul 2nd, 2005, 8:54am
Her dissent in the Kelo eminent domain case wll be a lasting legacy for O’Conner. People will quote her warnings for a long time. EDED (eminent domain for economic development) gives adsvantage to the wealthy and influential over the homeowner and small business person.

We are being told this is a “liberal vs. conservative” thing, mostly by conservatives. But I don’t know any liberals who like the Kelo decision. I don’t know any conbservatibes who like it either. Conservatives believe in property rights. Liberals stand up for the little guy. So who does like it? Big business and technocrats (by technocrats I mean folks who work in municipal planning and economic development) and the technocrats like the “option”  but warn that a local government will use EDED at their peril....without massive popular support for the project they use it for, the city council will find themselves unelected in short order.

And other popular misconception: this is only about municipal governemnts pushing little people around. I think the biggest threat comes from the state and federal governments, who have much less election backlash to fear, pushing little people around. The feds could use EDED in Scranton, Pa., for example, and feel no repercussions in Pittsburgh. The Scranton City Council knows, or should, they would be out on thier ear next Novemeber, so they don’t try it. The feds or state don’t care if the entire city council opposes thier EDED plan....their decisions trump local government.

Kelo v. New London is government interference at its worst, and corporate welfare at its worst, all wrapped up like a birthday present for WalMart. Ain’t nothing :”liberal” about it, and the judges who concurred aren’t liberals, conservatives or whatever...they are corporatists, and they aren’t on my side.

Check out the rant from this crackpot:
http://www2.theclarionnews.com/Opinions/42609.shtml

-tommyD

P.S. to Sandy: Only people born in the US may be elected president. The US would have to amend its Constitution (and that's not easy) before Swarzennegger (a native of Austria) could run for president...
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 2nd, 2005, 9:09am
mafumatt
Quote:
[/quote]Tell that to the people that are going to lose their homes in Conn. Pay attention to the vote 5/4

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.[quote]


Burnt-Toast actually said
Quote:
[/quote]When politics and politicians play such a huge role in determining who doles out decision from the hightest court in the land - Expect politics to replace justice regardless of who picks em'

There's no such thing as liberal's law or conservative's law - This is just what the Sheeple in America accept as  justice.
[quote]


If you're gonna quote me don't leave out the information that establishes the meanings of my post just to make some kind of statement.

It's simple, you get political decisions, not justice when you let politicians and politics into the legal system.
Even simpler - the sheep we call "The People" in this country are guilty of accepting political attacks on our rights as justice.    

I have been very much aware of this Supreme Court decision - within hours of it being handed down.  Check posts on Subjects Unbelieveable? and 1st Eminend Domain Casualty After Ruling.

To clarify again - Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy - (2 Liberal, 2 Conservative and 1 Moderate) affirmed this decision.  Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas  Stevens (3 conservative, 1 conservative/moderate/liberal) dissented - This decision was entirely political and came from a mixed bag of Justices.  

I have written letters and called U.S. Senators/Reps. and State Senators/Reps. demaning the resignations of the 5 affirming Justices/demanding their help in reversing this decision.  I have also demanded that my State officials pass legislation to put up an immediate roadblock to these communistic and illegal takings in my state.  Have also been in contact with The Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition to find out what mass efforts are under way to oppose this decison.

My frustration is that there isn't massive outrage from "The People" over a decion that undermines the very basis on which our Founding Fathers defined a Free Republic -  "The Right To Own and Protect Property".  The time to act is now but as ususal all I hear is the usual whimpering and whining from folks doing nothing.

Don't fret too much Charlie - The media isn't stumbling over itself to give appropriate covererage to this step we've taken into Communism.  After all it doen't have the drama of a missing girl in Aruba.  I'm sure that there won't be any coverage on this theft of our rights next week.

Tom          
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by maffumatt on Jul 2nd, 2005, 9:30am

on 07/02/05 at 09:09:48, burnt-toast wrote:
mafumatt
Tell that to the people that are going to lose their homes in Conn. Pay attention to the vote 5/4

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Burnt-Toast actually said
When politics and politicians play such a huge role in determining who doles out decision from the hightest court in the land - Expect politics to replace justice regardless of who picks em'

There's no such thing as liberal's law or conservative's law - This is just what the Sheeple in America accept as  justice.

If you're gonna quote me don't leave out the information that establishes the meanings of my post just to make some kind of statement.

It's simple, you get political decisions, not justice when you let politicians and politics into the legal system.
Even simpler - the sheep we call "The People" in this country are guilty of accepting political attacks on our rights as justice.    

I have been very much aware of this Supreme Court decision - within hours of it being handed down.  Check posts on Subjects Unbelieveable? and 1st Eminend Domain Casualty After Ruling.

To clarify again - Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy - (2 Liberal, 2 Conservative and 1 Moderate) affirmed this decision.  Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas  Stevens (3 conservative, 1 conservative/moderate/liberal) dissented - This decision was entirely political and came from a mixed bag of Justices.  

I have written letters and called U.S. Senators/Reps. and State Senators/Reps. demaning the resignations of the 5 affirming Justices/demanding their help in reversing this decision.  I have also demanded that my State officials pass legislation to put up an immediate roadblock to these communistic and illegal takings in my state.  Have also been in contact with The Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition to find out what mass efforts are under way to oppose this decison.

My frustration is that there isn't massive outrage from "The People" over a decion that undermines the very basis on which our Founding Fathers defined a Free Republic -  "The Right To Own and Protect Property".  The time to act is now but as ususal all I hear is the usual whimpering and whining from folks doing nothing.

Don't fret too much Charlie - The media isn't stumbling over itself to give appropriate covererage to this step we've taken into Communism.  After all it doen't have the drama of a missing girl in Aruba.  I'm sure that there won't be any coverage on this theft of our rights next week.

Tom          

Finealy someone who is capeable of doing some research and back up what they say with facts. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 2nd, 2005, 10:06am

on 07/02/05 at 09:30:55, maffumatt wrote:
Finealy someone who is capeable of doing some research and back up what they say with facts. I stand corrected.


No need to stand corrected.  Just take a stand against the perverse destruction of our Constitution and individual rights in this country.  

"The People" can't continue to vote and smugly take satisfaction in saying they've done their duty.  Our duty  begins when it's time to remind so-called representatives (our employees) that they work for us - not special interests and clearly not for themselves.  

The roles of "The Government" and "The People" have been reversed.  The question is what are "The People" doing about it?

OK, no more Soap Boxin'.

Tom        
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 2nd, 2005, 10:37am

on 07/02/05 at 10:06:15, burnt-toast wrote:
No need to stand corrected.  Just take a stand against the perverse destruction of our Constitution and individual rights in this country.  

"The People" can't continue to vote and smugly take satisfaction in saying they've done their duty.  Our duty  begins when it's time to remind so-called representatives (our employees) that they work for us - not special interests and clearly not for themselves.  

The roles of "The Government" and "The People" have been reversed.  The question is what are "The People" doing about it?

OK, no more Soap Boxin'.

Tom        


Very well put!!! [smiley=thumb.gif]
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by notseinfeld on Jul 2nd, 2005, 11:33am
Weighing in on this topic which has my head spinning ala The  Exorcist it seems clear that the Supreme Court has been compromised. I'm not sure how they 'got em ' but clearly some powerful group (likely foreign) has succeeded in undoing the most basic right in our representative democracy which is the  right to property, ownership. As the country unravels and wherefore in no time flat everyone will know someone who has been railroaded with this disgusting power grab we can mark our calendars as to when the final nail was in the coffin.

Though it has been argued convincingly that there is no such thing as property ownership in the US and hasn't been since property taxes came into existence. If something can be forcibly taken from you because you didn't pay a stipend to the government then, well, it's really not yours.  You can just use it so long as you pay for it like some kind of priviledged lease.

Note that property consists of your person as well and has been incrementally broken down with laws (unconstitutional of course) limiting what you can and can't do to/with your body.  

Gonna lose my coffee now...
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Charlie on Jul 2nd, 2005, 1:24pm

Quote:
I'm not sure how they 'got em ' but clearly some powerful group (likely foreign) has succeeded in undoing the most basic right in our representative democracy which is the  right to property, ownership.

Yikes. That's right out of the 1940s and early 50s. No matter the HUAC hearings, that kind of thing died with WWII here. Politicians had nothing to do with its demise either. Get over the commie stuff. Crap like that had to work to take effect here; it didn't and it doesn't.

It would be a coup if Bush would pick a nominee not for loyalty, but for competence. So far, that isn't his history.  All he needs to do is appoint a woman and he's in. Bush isn't stupid (Just a PITA)  and it wouldn't be a surprise.

Charlie
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jul 2nd, 2005, 1:30pm
Man, this issue sucks.  It's totally friggin crazy.  I can see ED for national issues..... a bridge.....an interstate.......something for the good of many.  But this?  This is nothing more than corporate welfare and wealthy lobbyist welfare.
When i gotta work my ass off to pay $658 health insurance and hundreds a month for utilities and a starter home in my area is 200k for a fixer upper....wealthy lobbyists get a welfare gift?  whats wrong with that picture?
No party, except maybe the communist party is for this ruling.  I dont know any liberals that are pro 'wealthy welfare', on the other side, i dont know any neocons that are pro government interference into the capitalist system.  How can this supreme court make a decision on something that 95% of america is against?  
Thats not 'by the people for the people'.  thats 'by the government up your ass'.
What the hell is the world coming to?
BMonee
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Charlie on Jul 2nd, 2005, 1:45pm
You're right.  :-/

Charlie
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by E-Double on Jul 2nd, 2005, 1:49pm
agreed!!

&
Quote:
and a starter home in my area is 200k for a fixer uppercome
come to NY.....

Not quite a fixer upper but a small 3 bedroom 1 bath ranch on .25 acre.......after closing will hit me up for 440k.

That sucks but I'm still psyched!
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by cazman on Jul 2nd, 2005, 5:49pm
wow i was on some pretty hard painkillers the other day i meant to say i love president bush and i shot a lame duck in the back yard the other day and had it for lunch











ya right
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by notseinfeld on Jul 2nd, 2005, 7:00pm
ACLU weighs in as ridiculously as ever:

The American Civil Liberties Union "expressed great concern that the Bush administration will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ... with a nominee whose judicial philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the progress made in protecting individual rights over the past century."

I wonder what 'progress' has been made to civil liberties they could be referring to outside of desegregation?

Here's a possible list that the ACLU might claim beneficial in their long struggle to improve individual rights:

1. If you're found to have 10,000 in cash anywhere--be it in your car, airport, etc. the government can take that money from you because "it's likely money proferred through drugs".  Thank Max Cleland (good riddance) of Georgia for this one without a peep from the ACLU.

2. Perhaps the tightening of street and venue monitoring via cameras at every intersection and indeed at every street corner and store in that town in Florida.

3. Affirmative Discrimination anyone?

4. Asset Forfeiture allowing local police departments to seize all land and property belonging to someone (these cases ironically only involve wealthy people) for growing marijuana. see Trail's End ranch story Malibu California.

5. Encroachments and outright theft by anything and everything IRS. Can't recall a case where the ACLU went to bat for a taxpayer being steamrolled by this beaurocracy.

6. ACLU reps sitting on the border making sure that Minutemen http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8162019/  Project memebers don't violate the, ahem, right of illegally entering Mexicans. As an aside they eased up after someone got a picture of 2 of their reps sharing a joint.

7. Hate Crimes. Rights (special that is) of group ideology and classification such as THE Poor, THE gays, THE minorities, THOSE less fortunate, THE disabled, etc. Since these folks are at a life disadvantage certainly they need 'extra' protection and special treatment under the law.

8. Here's the ACLU and all they've done to be sure we're fighting fairly with the Islamic enemy:

# Filing a complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of 13 men who were arbitrarily arrested and detained after the September 11 attacks.
# Demanding information about the use of torture and other illegal interrogation techniques in U.S. detention facilities abroad, in violation of the Convention Against Torture and other laws.
# Documenting and challenging the U.S. government's misuse of the material witness statute to detain Muslim men without charges (in a joint project with Human Rights Watch).
# Monitoring military commissions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and posting daily dispatches about the proceedings.
# Promoting groundbreaking New York City legislation that would implement the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
# Fighting federal legislation that would make it an impeachable offense for federal judges to rely on international law in their decisions.
# Organizing international pressure to urge the United States to abolish the death penalty.

In summation and generally speaking, Fuck the ACLU.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jul 2nd, 2005, 8:14pm
Man, really, i dont want to talk politics, but you mentioned the minutemen and illegals.
My question is: what gives someone the "right" to enter this country illegally?  

I read a story about a mexican guy that was illegal and he DWI'd and killed a family.  He had people fighting (maybe the ACLU) that even though he is illegally here, obviously not supposed to drive, has killed a family and committed a driving felony, he still had the right to be here.  He had a trial and he was NOT deported.
Or how about the one where some group is suing the govt cause we dont provide drinking water in the arizona desert and it makes it dangerous for mexicans to walk the long distance in the hot sun.  I forget how that case was ruled, but the fact that it even got to court is depressing.
It's a sorry state of the union
BMonee
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by floridian on Jul 2nd, 2005, 8:32pm
I agree that this decision opens the door to abuses and corporate land grabs, but Congress and the individual states can (and will, I think) do something to fix it.

On the other hand, the people that are getting hysterical have active imaginations - starting with the fairy tale that property rights used to be absolute and secure, and they have recently been attacked in totally new ways.  Not true.

Property taxes and the confiscation of property for back-taxes are not recent inventions, as the alarmists believe - they go back to the original 13 colonies in this country.  Yes, tax rates were much lower way back then,  but government also provided a lot less.  My city/county could roll back my property taxes to colonial levels if they would only cut fire protection, paramedics, public libraries and schools, and roads.  Yes, friend, I hear you:  "Maybe the private sector would step in an open public libraries. "  Personally, I like having a few inspectors go out and issue citations to restaurants that cant keep their kitchen clean.  

The government has been taking land and selling or giving it to private citizens and corporations for most of the history of this country.  Ask the Sioux, the Cherokee, or members of the other tribes.  "But Flo," you are saying, "that was just some Indians ... now I could lose MY property!!"  Yes, my friend, you could.  How does it feel to be a Native American?

The history of property rights also has a curious chapter on the idea that property rights could be extended to Negroes - not that Negroes could own property,  but that they could BE property.  It took some conceptual changes to get them recognized as people, and then to make human rights trump property rights.  Made the slave 'owners' mighty sore, but they should have picked their own damn cotton.

So what am I saying?  Simply that when it comes to property rights, things were not so great in the old days, and that they aren't so bad today.  And those rights have never been absolute, they have always been weighed against community interest and the common good.  And while we've come a long way, baby, there is still some work to be done.  

Personally, I am more upset with the Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana ... the idea that medical treatment should be determined by law enforcement instead of doctors brings two words to mind: "Police" and "-State."  But we don't see people on this board getting upset about that decision, even though there is a certain medicine that helps many clusterheads, which could send them to jail.  But politics always make for strangeness.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 2nd, 2005, 9:02pm
Good points, Jonathan :)

After hearing countless stories from the Blackfoot tribe at Sioux nations regarding lost land at Glacier National Park, it became real just how much devastation had been caused to the native american people.  I was pretty young when hearing about all of that, but I still have a clear memory of much of it.  Very sad. :(

Medical marijuana - frankly I about hit the floor the day they made the ruling on that one!  Then all of the personal stories were coming out about people who had relied on it as vital to their treatment - it makes you wonder what in hell the courts were thinking when they made the decision to ban it!

Here's the one that pissed me off today...  I got dragged off to mass because my grandma is here.  First off, I already felt like shit - I can't stand or kneel in church, so I just sat there and had dark glasses on because my head hurt lots.  (Only relevant because this explains my mindset already going into this little 'talk')

Then the priest gives this whole homily on how the opening in the supreme court is an important time for Bush to put someone in the vacancy who will recognize the importance of protecting the life of an unborn child.  Then he went on to compare anyone who thinks differently to those who crucified Jesus!  He went on and on and on.....

Well, my specialty is in neonatal and I also have worked for several months in maternity this past year.  Yes I care very much about infants.  However, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion.

It just skeeves me that the Catholic church would use this as an opportunity to give homilies about abortion and condemn any person who doesn't 'protect life' to hell.

This priest was going off about how Bush faces so much conflict, even in his own family regarding this topic.  He kept talking about how he hoped Bush would make the right decision and that the country would finally turn in the right direction, as it is currently headed down the wrong path.

I would have gotten up and left if I hadn't been there with my mom, brother, and grandma...

I just don't think a religious ceremony is the appropriate time to discuss such things, no matter what the view is...  When I go to church, I am not there to discuss politics - it is about my faith, etc.  Well - that was definitely not a possibility today.

Guess the Catholic church should start praying for my soul which will surely rot in hell because I believe that women should have a choice, and despite my beliefs, I'm still required to keep an open mind when working with patients as well as present (in an unbiased manner) them with all of the options when they discuss an unwanted pregnancy.  <sigh>

Carrie
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by cazman on Jul 2nd, 2005, 9:27pm
oh boy i could go off on all of this for hours on end but evidentally even here on this page we are watched our words judged and our right could be taken away just by speaking our minds i will say only this im ashamed of my goverment and canada looks better all the time ill leave it at that wait oh yeah for big brother out there i love you president bush.












you fuck!
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:27am
Use the Federal Government's actions in States that legalized medical use of marijuana as your example.  If it's not protected, or legalized at the Federal level State laws are meaningless.  The same will be true for individual property rights.  This ruling creates an unconstitutional and may I say unholy alliance between wealthy/powerful individuals and entities that is far different from current taxation and Public Use issues.

Property taxes should be replaced by sales taxes.  Property taxes mostly impact retirees on fixed incomes and folks that have fallen on hard times.  They lose their homes, property and equity when they are sold at tax auction for a fraction of their real value.  No lifelong taxpayer should face this nightmare of losing their lifelong accumulated equity.  Sales taxes would have the folks with the most to spend paying the highest taxes.

No one wants to see important services cut - but.....
Add all or your taxes from last year and you may be surprised that nearly 60% of your annual gross income pays fed/state/local income, payroll (Nearly 3Trillion S.S. surplus has been spent on general gov. operations), property, school, sales, fed. excise, gasoline, endless hidden-(phone, electric, gas, etc.), Sin-(alchohol, tobacco, etc.), entertainment, etc., etc., etc.
Sadly we now pay more in taxes than we spend on food, clothing, healthcare, transportation and housing combined.

I guess when the governmnet has a silent and bottomless money pit to dip into they are obligated to find creative ways to waste money.  Government waste and corruption are often reported but never corrected. What are "The People" doing to demand government accountability?  High taxes do not stimulate an ecomomy or create meaningful jobs.

Native Americans were not extended individual rights which premitted greed to subsequently lead to the destruction of their culture and theft of virtually everything they owned.  This is why protecting the individual rights granted to us by The Founding Fathers is so important.

I ask the same question I always ask - What/when are "The People" going to protect (like them or not) all individual rights and freedom and demand accountability from our elected representatives?

If we don't stand up soon we're going to have the ruling and subject class structure that The Founding Fathers rebelled against.

Tom

       
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:59am
On top of local taxes for whatever county, twshp, etc you live in -- don't forget to add in city wage tax for anyone working in the big cities!  City wage tax is seriously going to be my death....

Some nurses who graduated from our program told us that the only reason they regretted taking the scholarship contract was that they were contracted into city wage tax when they may not have even thought about that prior to moving downtown!  

I know that Philly city wage tax keeps on going up and up and...
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Charlie on Jul 4th, 2005, 2:19am
Damn. I wish I could remember how to credit these quotes. When Jonny tells me this time, I'm going to put in my "handy shit" file.  Anyway....


Quote:
High taxes do not stimulate an ecomomy or create meaningful jobs.

Nevertheless: In the 1950s, taxes scraped 90% in some cases. The 50s and 60s were the most prosperous time we have seen. Of course those WWII survivors were kinda funny about paying the bills.

On picking a lifetime Supreme Court justice:

I'll never understand why people will champion a politician or judge that while perhaps on their side with one or two issues, will not care much for the of the Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, votes for censorship, thinks religion should trump science, that pulpit pounders should be able to keep medicine from exploring stem cell research which may well lead to ending so much suffering, thinks marijuana is evil for dying people screaming in pain, and that sending doctors to prison for decades for prescribing medication for the same is a swell idea, pretending that it isn't so that a substantial majority of Americans are liberal on social ideas such as abortion rights, and rights of the dying. They don't want puritans or thought police telling them how to live. In this area they just want to be left alone and pretty much behave a lot better than our elected and not elected leaders.

Still, if you like "showing your papers," and being thrown in to jail for anything not on some moralist agnena, I'm sure the far right will be happy to shove you over the edge.

Decide with your head rather thank your gut.

Charlie
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 4th, 2005, 8:46am

on 07/01/05 at 23:03:26, burnt-toast wrote:
When politics and politicians play such a huge role in determining who doles out decision from the hightest court in the land - Expect politics to replace justice regardless of who picks em'

There's no such thing as liberal's law or conservative's law - This is just what the Sheeple in America accept as  justice.

Tom  


Charlie - you're right.

Everyone gets worked into a tizzy regarding the separation of chuch and state - we can't have Commandments or Christmas displays in public places but all sessions of House and Senate begin with a prayer and Justices frequently hand down rulings based entirely on morality???  

Secondly where is the separation of the legislature and Justice system?  There was an intended and clearly defined line of demarcation - Only The House was given constitutional  power to make law - justices were to strictly interpret the written word of law - as written - not change or add words - not invent law to suite the political winds of the day.  What happend to the system of checks and balances that constitutionally defined the powers of each branch of government and kept them from blurring into the single massive bureaucracy we now endure?

Someone please take the blinders off of Lady Justice -  she's perfectly capable of seeing who's in power and rules accordingly.

Tom      
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by BobG on Jul 4th, 2005, 7:34pm

on 07/04/05 at 08:46:26, burnt-toast wrote:
all sessions of House and Senate begin with a prayer

And they won't work on Sundays and always take Christmas off. Phuckers!
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Linda_Howell on Jul 4th, 2005, 8:25pm


   
Quote:
I just don't think a religious ceremony is the appropriate time to discuss such things, no matter what the view is...  When I go to church, I am not there to discuss politics



  AND..  one priests homily, does not reflect the views of the entire Catholic Church.  Let that be known please.!!!!!!!!!!      >:(


 anymore than the (x) number of priests have committed the "unthinkable" ,  does not constitute the rest of the good, decent, hardworking, chaste men of the cloth.    :'(
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 4th, 2005, 8:33pm

on 07/04/05 at 20:25:04, Linda_Howell wrote:
   


  AND..  one priests homily, does not reflect the views of the entire Catholic Church.  Let that be known please.!!!!!!!!!!      >:(


 anymore than the (x) number of priests have committed the "unthinkable" ,  does not constitute the rest of the good, decent, hardworking, chaste men of the cloth.    :'(



I agree with that, too.  Part of what pushed me out of going to mass was that we have some priests up here who really push their political ideals on people.  My mom started pulling me out of classes when I was young because they were telling us to come to the pro-life marches as part of regular Catholic education.

Doesn't mean they are all like that.  Sucks to live in an area where they spend a whole lot of time promoting those political ideals.  Our best monsignor (sp?) retired some time ago - as well as our best priest.   :-/
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Linda_Howell on Jul 4th, 2005, 10:26pm



while I realize that this is wayyyyy off-topic for this political thread,  (like THAT) has never happened before... ;;D


Quote:
I agree with that, too.  Part of what pushed me out of going to mass
 

Nothing, but your own thoughts & values  should have done that Lizzie.  Oh...and you spelled Monsignor correctly.  ;)

Linda.  Cradle to the grave Catholic, but leaves the politics to Charlie.  ;;D
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 4th, 2005, 11:03pm
Yeah...I'm more of a true Southern baptist anymore - at least with my music, anyways!!

Something about being a part of a choir in the African and African-American tradition for about 5 years or so really changes you...

My grandmother is a very strict Irish Catholic.  Go figure that she's married to an atheist.  Anyways.....I never ever hear the end of it.  It's exhausting, to say the least!
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by vig on Jul 5th, 2005, 9:55am
don't forget, this current administration IS a faith-based one and they DO want to mix religion and politics.
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by floridian on Jul 5th, 2005, 12:41pm

on 07/03/05 at 11:27:13, burnt-toast wrote:
Use the Federal Government's actions in States that legalized medical use of marijuana as your example.  If it's not protected, or legalized at the Federal level State laws are meaningless.  The same will be true for individual property rights.  
...

Tom

       


Not as I understand it.  In the hierarchy of things, the states can prohibit the cities and counties from doing something, and the federal government can prohibit the states (and thus the counties and cities) from doing something.  For instance, in Florida, there is a state law that forbids city and county governments from taking any legal action to hold gun manufacturers accountable for selling a 'defective product'  - this has shielded gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits alleging that better safety systems could have/should have been put on guns.  That law has held up as far as I know.

The supreme court case on medical marijuana is quite logical from the standpoint of the hierarchy of powers - the states cannot allow what the Feds prohibit.  My problem is with the fact that it is the law enforcement Feds that are overruling the doctors and patients on a matter that involves the medical use of a substance, not the abuse of that substance.  Just another casualty in the 'war' against drugs.

Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 5th, 2005, 3:24pm

on 07/05/05 at 12:41:06, floridian wrote:
Not as I understand it.  In the hierarchy of things, the states can prohibit the cities and counties from doing something, and the federal government can prohibit the states (and thus the counties and cities) from doing something.  For instance, in Florida, there is a state law that forbids city and county governments from taking any legal action to hold gun manufacturers accountable for selling a 'defective product'  - this has shielded gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits alleging that better safety systems could have/should have been put on guns.  That law has held up as far as I know.


The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution.  

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.

Article III  requires that there be one court called the Supreme Court; Congress, at its discretion, can create lower courts, whose judgments and orders are reviewable by the Supreme Court.  

In the medical marijuana case, the federal government also maintains that it can prohibit the simple possession of a drug for medical purposes, even when authorized and regulated by a validly adopted state law, and even if conducted in a wholly noncommercial fashion. Such power, the federal government asserts, is necessary to maintain a comprehensive federal regulatory system for the use and distribution of drugs. Moreover, even the mere possession of drugs can “substantially affect” interstate commerce, as there is a vibrant, albeit illegal, interstate drug market.

This argument proves too much. Under the government’s reasoning there is no activity beyond Congress’s grasp — a position the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected over the past ten years. Essentially, the Justice Department maintains that the power to adopt broad economic regulatory schemes necessarily entails the power to reach the most inconsequential, noncommercial conduct that occurs wholly within the confines of a single state. Even at the height of federal power during the New Deal, the Supreme Court never authorized an assertion of federal power as expansive as is at issue here. Should the Court uphold the assertion of federal power in this case, constitutional limitations on the exertion of enumerated federal powers could well disappear.

Take what you will from these articles but the Supreme Court has jusisdiction over lower courts and State constitutions/law.

Tom
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by Charlie on Jul 5th, 2005, 3:53pm
Very little pisses me off more than the war on drugs which does nothing but fill prisons with so many decent people. This assinine zealotry mostly wrecks families and in effect is child abuse. I'm for fines. Prison solves nothing.

The pious old farts who are terrified of us are making life just peachy for billionaires and harder every day for you and me.

Conservatives were supposed to leave us be. Cicero said that the more laws, the less justice.

Charlie http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/mad crowd.gif
Title: Re: supreme court
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 5th, 2005, 4:07pm

on 07/05/05 at 15:53:03, Charlie wrote:
Cicero said that the more laws, the less justice.


Now there's the perfect statement for this day & age.

Tom


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.