Discussion:
President Bush Makes Another Excellent Nomination To The Supreme Court
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-05 07:28:00 UTC
Permalink
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.

Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.

This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.

Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from those on the
Leftover Left.

Great Political Theatre...

Pogues On The Run...

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
James Toupin
2005-10-05 07:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...

James
Post by D. Spencer Hines
This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.
Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from those on the
Leftover Left.
Great Political Theatre...
Pogues On The Run...
Enjoy!
How Sweet It Is!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Andrew Venor
2005-10-05 17:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.

ALV
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.
Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from those on the
Leftover Left.
Great Political Theatre...
Pogues On The Run...
Enjoy!
How Sweet It Is!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Vince
2005-10-05 17:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.

Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal opinions
is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming it's ice cream.

Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.

After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough for
bushlickers.

Vince
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-05 18:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal opinions
is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough for
bushlickers.
Nevertheless, if senate Republicans stay behind the nomination, she is
probably in. There is nothing in her record -- so far -- to support the
Democrats' repudiating the Gang of 14 deal and mounting a filibuster, it
seems to me.

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2005-10-05 18:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal opinions
is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough for
bushlickers.
Nevertheless, if senate Republicans stay behind the nomination, she is
probably in. There is nothing in her record -- so far -- to support the
Democrats' repudiating the Gang of 14 deal and mounting a filibuster, it
seems to me.
Grey Satterfield
Possibly true but it is why history will not be kind to Bush or his
toadies.

Interestingly Bush also continues his effective disinterest in women
with children. With the exception the Secretary of education, where
having children in the schools is essentially a job requirement, I don't
think any women with children to a top job

Vince
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 08:50:01 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/05 12:27 PM, in article
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an
Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another
excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a
born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to
being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the
Judiciary might
be nice...
<snip>
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl
Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed
to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or
Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to
the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to
conceal their legal
opinions.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, members of the AFH
bar, but if an attorney revealed legal advice or other
privileged communications with a previous client in a public
forum without her client's permission, a subpoena (which
might be overturned) or other legal compulsion, but wouldn'
t that normally be grounds for disbarment?

<snip scatological comments that illustrate the intellectual
limitations of their author>
Nevertheless, if senate Republicans stay behind the
nomination, she is
probably in. There is nothing in her record -- so far --
to support the
Democrats' repudiating the Gang of 14 deal and mounting a
filibuster, it
seems to me.
And if they did, it would probably break the deal under
which Bill Frist has, so far, stayed his finger from
pressing the "nuclear option" of amending Senate rules to
end gratuitous filibustering to prevent cloture on
confirmation votes. Works for me - Frist and his people
should have gone nuclear before this.

In fact, the nominee currently under examination in the
Senate may be of greatest service as a overpowering
temptation for the Usual Suspects to abuse their power once
more in full public view, then mount a filibuster because
the lady wouldn't break attorney-client privilege to get a
job in the Supreme Court.

The Gang of Fourteen doesn't realize what asses they made of
themselves in the Roberts confirmation hearings, apparently.
Public patience with their antics is wearing thin when
Congress' attention is sorely needed to deal with hurricane
relief and other pressing issues involving the public
welfare.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
David M. Silver
2005-10-06 09:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, members of the AFH
bar, but if an attorney revealed legal advice or other
privileged communications with a previous client in a public
forum without her client's permission, a subpoena (which
might be overturned) or other legal compulsion, but wouldn'
t that normally be grounds for disbarment?
Vance: Let me ask you something important. Why would you think any
"member of the AFH bar" want to express an opinion on a topic like this
cross-posted to forums containing threads that most of us filter out to
keep nutcases such as the originator of this thread out of our hair?

No, I don't think any regular member of the "AFH" bar or any other would
give you an _opinion_ on the topic ever if otherwise disposed to do so.

On the other hand, if you seriously want to pay for the research time,
you know the usual prices and usual procedure to obtain comprehensive
legal opinions. Maybe someone has the spare time, and is thinking about
a substantial down payment towards buying a new car. I understand Miers
tools around in a nice new red mercedes convertible ... . Be nice to be
able to afford one of those. ;-D

[others: don't expect a reply--I'm filtering out the thread (my usual
option) after I click "Post"]
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-06 19:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Yes, the Leftover, Loony Left is truly in shock and fearing imminent
cardiac arrest.

From their twisted, blinkered and anserine point of view it's not just:

"How dare Bush nominate a conservative woman to the Supreme Court!

It's:

"How dare Bush nominate a born-again Christian to the Supreme Court!"

Great Political Theatre!

Stay tuned..

Pogues On The Run...

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Bryn
2005-10-06 18:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, the Leftover, Loony Left is truly in shock and fearing imminent
cardiac arrest.
"How dare Bush nominate a conservative woman to the Supreme Court!
"How dare Bush nominate a born-again Christian to the Supreme Court!"
Great Political Theatre!
Stay tuned..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-05-senate-detainees_x.htm


Posting from soc.culture.scottish
--
Bryn

"I am not Roo," said Piglet loudly.

"I am Piglet!"

"Yes, dear, yes," said Kanga soothingly.

"And imitating Piglet's voice too!
So clever of him."



To email remove GREMILNS
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-09 15:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryn
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, the Leftover, Loony Left is truly in shock and
fearing imminent
cardiac arrest.
From their twisted, blinkered and anserine point of view
"How dare Bush nominate a conservative woman to the
Supreme Court!
"How dare Bush nominate a born-again Christian to the
Supreme Court!"
Great Political Theatre!
Stay tuned..
For those from both extremes of the political continuum who
have a problem with Miers' concentration in corporate law, I
have two words - Elihu Root.

On graduating from law school, Root started his own law firm
and for the next thirty years did nothing but practice
corporate law.

Then Root became (in the words of his biography on
nobelprize.org) "one of the most brilliant administrators in
American history," serving under William McKinley as
secretary of war from 1899 to 1904, reorganizing the
administrative system of the War Department, founding the
War College, enlarging West Point, creating a general staff
and generally restoring discipline within the department.

Root returned to the private practice of law in 1904, but at
President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation became secretary
of state, bringing the consular service under Civil Service
and removing it from the spoils system; maintained the "open
door" policy in the Western Pacific, negotiating many
important agreements with Japan, Latin America, and Canada.

The issue isn't about Miers being shallow in judicial
experience. If she sat for the Texas bar and was admitted
to practice, she has that sufficient and necessary knowledge
in the Constitution of the United States to competently
practice law. At what point do people cross over from being
"ordinary lawyers" to "authorities on the Constitution?"

The issue is (a) extremist Democrats being unhappy with not
being able to govern through a new appointee to the Supreme
Court and (b) extremist Republicans being unhappy with not
being able to govern through a new appointee to the Supreme
Court.

That both parties have a problem with Miers is a large point
in her favor.

The idea that Bush is willing to buck pressure from both
sides to not deliver a partisan nominee to the Supreme Court
to either side of the abortion controversy is a large point
in his favor.
Post by Bryn
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-05-senate-detainees_x.htm
I don't know anyone whose opinion I respect on the issue
that has an issue with that bill.

And the comment from the White House spokesman regarding
it's being a bad bill because it's duplicative... stuuuupid.
If Congress wants additional assurances that the law of the
land with respect to treatment of prisoners will be
followed, by all means, it should have them. It costs
absolutely nothing, and compels the White House and
Department of Defense to do nothing which they are already
not legally obliged to do.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Vince
2005-10-09 17:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, the Leftover, Loony Left is truly in shock and
fearing imminent
cardiac arrest.
From their twisted, blinkered and anserine point of view
"How dare Bush nominate a conservative woman to the
Supreme Court!
"How dare Bush nominate a born-again Christian to the
Supreme Court!"
Great Political Theatre!
Stay tuned..
For those from both extremes of the political continuum who
have a problem with Miers' concentration in corporate law, I
have two words - Elihu Root.
On graduating from law school, Root started his own law firm
and for the next thirty years did nothing but practice
corporate law.
Then Root became (in the words of his biography on
nobelprize.org) "one of the most brilliant administrators in
American history," serving under William McKinley as
secretary of war from 1899 to 1904, reorganizing the
administrative system of the War Department, founding the
War College, enlarging West Point, creating a general staff
and generally restoring discipline within the department.
Root returned to the private practice of law in 1904, but at
President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation became secretary
of state, bringing the consular service under Civil Service
and removing it from the spoils system; maintained the "open
door" policy in the Western Pacific, negotiating many
important agreements with Japan, Latin America, and Canada.
I missed however the part where he was on the Supreme Court
Post by Vance P. Frickey
The issue isn't about Miers being shallow in judicial
experience. If she sat for the Texas bar and was admitted
to practice, she has that sufficient and necessary knowledge
in the Constitution of the United States to competently
practice law.
as do several million others


At what point do people cross over from being
Post by Vance P. Frickey
"ordinary lawyers" to "authorities on the Constitution?"
Can't say, but I ve published more on the constitution than she has and
I would claim to be an expert on constitutional law.
Post by Vance P. Frickey
The issue is (a) extremist Democrats being unhappy with not
being able to govern through a new appointee to the Supreme
Court and (b) extremist Republicans being unhappy with not
being able to govern through a new appointee to the Supreme
Court.
That both parties have a problem with Miers is a large point
in her favor.
The idea that Bush is willing to buck pressure from both
sides to not deliver a partisan nominee to the Supreme Court
to either side of the abortion controversy is a large point
in his favor.
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to

Vince
robin hood
2005-10-09 18:21:32 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas

of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.''
Those attributes should help her in a new job that requires her to
advise Mr. Bush not only on national security and military law -- a
large part of the counsel's responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer.
''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips
are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former
director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give
the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''
Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and

assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to
reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday.
But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the
kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush

likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment
reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of
his inner circle to critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
robbinhood zorro
2005-10-10 01:56:20 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?

A Nov 24, 2004 Description:

A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas
of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.'' Those attributes should
help her in a new job that requires her to advise Mr. Bush not only on
national security and military law -- a large part of the counsel's
responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer. ''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all
the chips are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh,
former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will
give
the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''
Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and
assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to
reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday. But her history, and comments from
friends, suggest that she is the kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes
and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush likes on his staff: tough, direct
and intensely loyal. Her appointment reflects the president's
determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to
critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
robin hood zoro
2005-10-10 03:51:59 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas
of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.'' Those attributes should
help her in a new job that requires her to advise Mr. Bush not only on
national security and military law -- a large part of the counsel's
responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 -- but also on continuing legal
investigations, including an inquiry into who in the administration
leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover officer. ''She's the kind of
person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,''
said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give the president advice
unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.'' Ms. Miers, 59,
currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and assistant to
the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to reporters since
arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a request for an
interview on Friday. But her history, and comments from friends,
suggest that she is the kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and
Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush likes on his staff: tough, direct and
intensely loyal. Her appointment reflects the president's
determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to
critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
robin hood zoro
2005-10-10 04:20:13 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas

of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.'' Those attributes should
help her in a new job that requires her to advise Mr. Bush not only on
national security and military law -- a large part of the counsel's
responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 -- but also on continuing legal
investigations, including an inquiry into who in the administration
leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover officer. ''She's the kind of
person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,''
said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give the president advice
unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.'' Ms. Miers, 59,
currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and assistant to
the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to reporters since
arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a request for an
interview on Friday. But her history, and comments from friends,
suggest that she is the kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and
Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush likes on his staff: tough, direct and
intensely loyal. Her appointment reflects the president's
determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to
critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
robin hood
2005-10-13 20:49:06 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas



of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.'' Those attributes should
help her in a new job that requires her to advise Mr. Bush not only on
national security and military law -- a large part of the counsel's
responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 -- but also on continuing legal
investigations, including an inquiry into who in the administration
leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover officer. ''She's the kind of
person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,''
said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give the president advice
unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.'' Ms. Miers, 59,
currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and assistant to
the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to reporters since
arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a request for an
interview on Friday. But her history, and comments from friends,
suggest that she is the kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and
Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush likes on his staff: tough, direct and
intensely loyal. Her appointment reflects the president's
determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to
critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
robin hood zoro
2005-10-15 00:21:40 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas



of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.''
Those attributes should help her in a new job that requires her to
advise Mr. Bush not only on national security and military law -- a
large part of the counsel's responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer.
''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips
are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former
director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give
the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''
Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and



assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to
reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday.
But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the
kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush



likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment
reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of
his inner circle to critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-09 21:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.

Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-09 23:10:44 UTC
Permalink
I'm going to correct Satterfield's atrocious English here.

This will undoubtedly make him think I'm "pompous" -- as is his anserine
wont.

Satterfield thinks anyone who has the courage to stand up to him and
point out that he consistently posts gibberish -- citing chapter and
verse -- is "pompous" -- because Satterfield is flummoxed, flustered and
flabbergasted -- having no other reasonable response.

The word Satterfield is fumbling for below is "EMINENTLY" not
imminently.

Hilarious!

DSH

"Grey Satterfield" <***@oscn.net> wrote in message news:BF6EF542.1DE70%***@oscn.net...

| Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would
have
| had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the
only
| reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John
Roberts's
| confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
| imminently [sic] well qualified [sic] nominees [sic] to the Court in
the past 50 years. Blue
| state [sic] Democratic senators know that the Vince's [sic] among
their constituency
| would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee.
It's sad,
| but there it is.
|
| Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-10 00:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I'm going to correct Satterfield's atrocious English here.
This will undoubtedly make him think I'm "pompous" -- as is his anserine
wont.
Satterfield thinks anyone who has the courage to stand up to him and
point out that he consistently posts gibberish -- citing chapter and
verse -- is "pompous" -- because Satterfield is flummoxed, flustered and
flabbergasted -- having no other reasonable response.
The word Satterfield is fumbling for below is "EMINENTLY" not
imminently.
Hilarious!
Now David has been reduced to playing Usenet "Gotcha" with a spelling flame
-- which shows almost as bad form as top-posting. As I have observed on
more than one occasion, he really does try WAY too hard.

Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
| had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
| reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
| confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
| imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past
| 50 years. Blue state Democratic senators know that the Vince's
| among their constituency would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any
| Bush appointee. It's sad, but there it is.
|
| Grey Satterfield
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-09 21:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Grey Satterfield
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism


Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-09 23:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Roberts is a neo=fascist.
Vinnie, you wouldn't know a neo-fascist if one was up your ass.
--
This space for let.
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-10 00:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
There is nothing in Roberts's record to support this slander but according
to liberal Democrats it has to be so. After all, Roberts was nominated by
the Fascist, George W. Bush.

Grey Satterfield
Kurt Ullman
2005-10-10 00:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
There is nothing in Roberts's record to support this slander but according
to liberal Democrats it has to be so. After all, Roberts was nominated by
the Fascist, George W. Bush.
And it was so nice of Vince to immediately confirm your view
above. Timing is everything..

----------------------------------
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Vince
2005-10-10 01:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
There is nothing in Roberts's record to support this slander but according
to liberal Democrats it has to be so. After all, Roberts was nominated by
the Fascist, George W. Bush.
And it was so nice of Vince to immediately confirm your view
above. Timing is everything..
----------------------------------
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Her is what Brown shirt lite looks like


The Court’s decision in Rasul had nothing
say about enforcing any Geneva Convention. Its holding
federal courts had habeas corpus jurisdiction had no effect
Eisentrager’s interpretation of the 1929 Geneva Convention.
That interpretation, we believe, leads to the conclusion that
1949 Geneva Convention cannot be judicially enforced.

We hanged germans for less

Vince
Howard C. Berkowitz
2005-10-10 04:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years.
Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
There is nothing in Roberts's record to support this slander but according
to liberal Democrats it has to be so. After all, Roberts was nominated by
the Fascist, George W. Bush.
And it was so nice of Vince to immediately confirm your view
above. Timing is everything..
----------------------------------
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Her is what Brown shirt lite looks like
The Court’s decision in Rasul had nothing
say about enforcing any Geneva Convention. Its holding
federal courts had habeas corpus jurisdiction had no effect
Eisentrager’s interpretation of the 1929 Geneva Convention.
That interpretation, we believe, leads to the conclusion that
1949 Geneva Convention cannot be judicially enforced.
I now have a brainbug trying to picture the Lace-trimmed Beige Blouses.
Vince
2005-10-10 01:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee. It's sad,
but there it is.
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
There is nothing in Roberts's record to support this slander but according
to liberal Democrats it has to be so. After all, Roberts was nominated by
the Fascist, George W. Bush.
Grey Satterfield
I would suggest that his conclusion in hamdan that the Geneva convention
of 1949 cannot be judicially enforced is precisely the kind of Brown
shirt lite that Bush needs


The Court’s decision in Rasul had nothing
say about enforcing any Geneva Convention. Its holding
federal courts had habeas corpus jurisdiction had no effect
Eisentrager’s interpretation of the 1929 Geneva Convention.
That interpretation, we believe, leads to the conclusion that
1949 Geneva Convention cannot be judicially enforced.


At Nuremburg We hanged germans who made similar postivist claims

Vince
HawkCW4
2005-10-13 17:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years.
Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee.
It's sad,
but there it is.
Grey Satterfield
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
Vince
Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now I
have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
wrong with America today.

You will be pleased to know we are through.

Ed
USA Ret
Vince
2005-10-13 17:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
OFCS of course she is a "partisan" nominee. She was chosen because she
is a right wing republican whose record can be concealed behind attorney
client privilege. Loyal republicans who never spent a moment thinking
for themselves will fall into line and vote for this ludicrous
appointment because Grofaz tells them to
Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would have
had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the only
reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John Roberts's
confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
imminently well qualified nominees to the Court in the past 50 years. Blue
state Democratic senators know that the Vince's among their constituency
would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee.
It's sad,
but there it is.
Grey Satterfield
Roberts is a neo=fascist. Brownshirtlite
Judges are not umpires, they are in many cases arbitrators. Roberts
falls squarely in the Taney mould and in the tradition of the German
judges who followed the Nazi postivism
Vince
Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now I
have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
wrong with America today.
You will be pleased to know we are through.
Ed
USA Ret
Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.

Vince
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-13 19:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
Roberts is nearly deranged. In light of Vince's emotional and
unsubstantiated charges, could Howard reasonably claim that applying the
term "Angry Left" to Vince's remarks would be inappropriate in this
instance? Somehow, I don't think so.

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2005-10-13 19:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
Roberts is nearly deranged. In light of Vince's emotional and
unsubstantiated charges, could Howard reasonably claim that applying the
term "Angry Left" to Vince's remarks would be inappropriate in this
instance? Somehow, I don't think so.
Grey Satterfield
"The Supreme Court's Rasul decision did give district courts
jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of Guantanamo
detainees such as Hamdan. But Rasul did not render the Geneva Convention
judicially enforceable. That a court has jurisdiction over a claim does
not mean the claim is valid. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 90
L. Ed. 939, 66 S. Ct. 773 (1946). The availability of habeas may obviate
a petitioner's need to rely on a private right of action, see Wang v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140-41 & n.16 (2d Cir. 2003), but it does not
render a treaty judicially enforceable. We therefore hold that the 1949
Geneva Convention does not confer upon Hamdan a right to enforce its
provisions in court. See Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F.2d 625, 629 (6th
Cir. 1978)."



Substitute jews or blacks and you get the idea. International treaties
and laws may say you have rights, but unless you buy enough votes in
the legislature, you have no more rights then Dred Scott or a Jew in Dachau


Vince



Vince
robin hood zoro
2005-10-14 04:52:32 UTC
Permalink
http://www.progressiveu.org/200559-the-culture-of-corruption
robbin hood
2005-10-15 05:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood zoro
http://www.progressiveu.org/200559-the-culture-of-corruption
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL HEARINGS AGAINST
HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?

A Nov 24, 2004 Description:

A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth
Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers: The woman President Bush
appointed this week as White House counsel, Harriet Miers, is hardly
known in Washington but has a history in Texas of handling years of
scandal at the state's lottery commission. The president, who once
retained her as his personal lawyer, described her in 1996 as ''a pit
bull in Size 6 shoes.''
Those attributes should help her in a new job that requires her to
advise Mr. Bush not only on national security and military law -- a
large part of the counsel's responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer. ''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all
the chips are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh,
former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will
give the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he
wants.'' Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for
policy and assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked
to reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday.
But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the
kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush
likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment
reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of
his inner circle to critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-14 04:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Grey Satterfield <***@oscn.net> wrote:

:On 10/13/05 12:39 PM, in article ZcOdnYwFWaUlBtPeRVn-***@comcast.com, "Vince"
:<***@firelaw.us> wrote:
:
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.

This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.

This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.

In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
La N
2005-10-14 04:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.
This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.
This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.
In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
Geeze ... I agree ... reluctantly. Vince, if you want our nomination to
the Supreme Court, you are absolutely going to have to tone down your
rhetoric ...%)

I think we should play matchmaker for Vincent and his equally mean-spirited
counterpart to the right ...%)

I give you ... the cattiest of catties, the dominatrix of Howard's dreams
... Ann Coulter!

- nilita

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

DOES THIS LAW DEGREE MAKE MY RESUME LOOK FAT?
October 12, 2005


A Supreme Court nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush
to start acting like "Buy One, Get One Free" Hillary Clinton. At least
President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general.
(Remember the good old days when first ladies only got to pick the poet
laureate and the White House china pattern?)

Between cooking segments on the "Today" show this week, Laura rolled out the
straw-man - sorry, "straw-person" - argument that the criticism of Miers was
rooted in "sexism" (which is such a chick thing to say).

I'm a gyno-American, and I strenuously object.

The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's
claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they
could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John
Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop
allowing girls to go to law school.

Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments.
Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her
back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the
Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law
firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a
woman?

I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women,
but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880.
And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the "most qualified"
of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75.

By 1950, there were more than 6,000 women lawyers, three female partners at
major law firms and three female federal judges. She may be a nut who
belonged to a subversive organization, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated
first in her class from Columbia Law School - and that was before Harriet
Miers was applying to law school.

Women have been graduating at the top of their classes at the best law
schools for 50 years. Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students
at the nation's top law schools (and more than 50 percent at all law
schools).

Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush
administration and its few remaining defenders - the claim of "elitism." I
also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit
and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores,
but I don't like that development either.

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard
is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a
differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous."
Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is
very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.

Contrary to the Bush administration's disingenuous arguments, it's not
simply that Miers did not attend a top law school that makes her unqualified
for the Supreme Court. (But that's a good start!) It's that she did not go
on to rack up any major accomplishments since then, either.

Despite the astonishing fact that Miers was THE FIRST WOMAN to head the
Texas Bar Association - a dumping ground for losers, by the way - Miers has
not had the sort of legal career that shouts out "Supreme Court material"!
That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has
achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender.

There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material,
but - oddly enough - not when we're talking about an appointment to the
Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter
defended Miers on the grounds that "Miers' professional qualifications are
excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law" - and Specter
ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very
professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing."

The other straw-man argument constantly being hawked by the Bush
administration is that Miers' critics object that she's never been a judge.
To quote another Bush - Read my lips: No one has said that. So please stop
comparing Miers to Justice Byron White (first in his class at Yale Law
School) or Justice William Rehnquist (first in his class at Stanford Law
School).

It's also not what The New York Times claims, which is that conservatives
oppose Miers because they don't know how she will vote. We didn't know how
Roberts would vote! As I recall, I was the only conservative complaining
about that.

The problem with Miers is something entirely different - and entirely within
the meaning of "advice and consent": Miers is no more qualified to sit on
the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren't going
to change that; they will just make it more obvious.

I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter
than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job
Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to
force people who care about the court to say that.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
--
.



- nilita
Vince
2005-10-14 11:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.
This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.
This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.
In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
Ok Fred

Where do you think the right of "self defense" comes from?
If the Umpire looks in his rule book and doesn't find it
does that mean it doesnt exist?

That is the issue of positivism

And, for the record it has nothing to with liberal or conservative as
such. It has to do with the nature of law and justice.
Think o apartheid and you get the idea

Vince
Vince
2005-10-14 12:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has
frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.
This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.
This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.
In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
Ok Fred
Where do you think the right of "self defense" comes from?
If the Umpire looks in his rule book and doesn't find it
does that mean it doesnt exist?
That is the issue of positivism
And, for the record it has nothing to with liberal or conservative as
such. It has to do with the nature of law and justice.
Think o apartheid and you get the idea
Vince
Let me add this language from a Roberts decision

It deals with the federal energy regulatory commissions obligation to
give equal consideration to economic development and environmental
factors.


A. Brady and Creekmore begin with the Federal Power Act. They assert
that, in approving the marina expansion, FERC abdicated its duty to
give "equal consideration" to the non-development purposes specified in
Section 4(e) of the FPA, including protection of fish and wildlife,
recreational opportunities, and other aspects of environmental quality,
and failed to ensure that the project is "best adapted to a
comprehensive plan" that incorporates such non-development purposes, as
required by Section 10(a)(1) of the FPA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e), 803(a)(1).
See Pet. Br. at 26.

Congress directed that FERC consider a variety of factors in making
licensing decisions under the FPA, but the decision about how to weigh
those factors remains with FERC. The judicial role is "narrowly
circumscribed," and "the statutory 'equal consideration' requirement
does not change the standard of review that we, as an appeals court,
apply." U.S. Dep't of Interior, 952 F.2d at 543, 545. FERC decides how
to balance the various elements listed in the FPA; our task is to ensure
that it considers the statutory factors and that its decisions meet the
threshold standards of non-arbitrariness and substantial evidence.

Contrary to petitioners' suggestion, FERC did not fail to consider
non-development public uses. See Order Approving Non-Project Use, 105
FERC at 61,506-07 (discussing, in addition to "visual character and
scenic quality," impacts on "fish and wildlife, air and water quality,
ambient noise levels, [and] shoreline access," as well as "boating use
and navigational safety"). Nothing on the face of FERC's order suggests
a disregard of the considerations listed in the FPA. While Brady and
Creekmore would strike the balance differently, against further
development, the policy decision about how to weigh the pertinent
factors is FERC's to make. The amendments to the FPA that added the
"equal consideration" language "were aimed primarily at increasing
FERC's sensitivity to environmental concerns," but those amendments "do
not give environmental factors preemptive force." U.S. Dep't of
Interior, 952 F.2d at 545.


MIKE BRADY AND CHERYL CREEKMORE, PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, INTERVENOR
No. 04-1058
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
416 F.3d 1; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13558
March 4, 2005, Argued
July 8, 2005, Decided


So Congress passes a statute requiring equal consideration but the court
eviscerates the statute by saying that the Agency not the court gets to
say what "equal consideration" means because he claims Congress did not
clearly assign that task to the courts and instead that issues of
adminstrative discretion control.

This runs counter to 50 years of APA inpterpretation where the
compliance of an agency with a statute is weighed by the courts in the
light of the history and purpose of the statute.

As Breyer and Scalia wrote in an unrelated dissent

"Nonetheless, that leeway is not unlimited. It is bounded, for example,
by the scope of the statute that grants authority and by the need for
the agency to show a "rational connection" between the regulations and
the statute's purposes. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 56. We must determine
whether, despite the leeway given experts on technical subject matter,
agency regulations exceed these legal limits. See id., at 43; Overton
Park, supra, at 416; Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)
(requiring agency action to be set aside if "arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"). And,
reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that they do. After
considering the incumbents' objections and the Commission's responses,
I cannot find that "rational connection" between statutory purpose and
implementing regulation that the law demands. State Farm, supra, at 56."

Supreme court precedent requires a failry searching look, what Harold
Leventhal called a "hard look" not merely a perusal on the "face" of the
agency action

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-14 19:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Brannigan, like many Angry-Left "Liberals", WANTS judges to be
Legislating from the bench.

Although he calls himself a Democrat, he actually doesn't trust the
People and their elected representatives in State Legislatures and the
Congress to make Right Decisions and Write Good Law.

So, Brannigan and many other Left-Wing loons just like him ENCOURAGE
judges to Legislate from the bench as Philosopher Kings -- and they want
judges and justices appointed who share that philosophy and who will
indeed Legislate from the bench.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-14 20:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Brannigan, like many Angry-Left "Liberals", WANTS judges to be
Legislating from the bench.
Although he calls himself a Democrat, he actually doesn't trust the
People and their elected representatives in State Legislatures and the
Congress to make Right Decisions and Write Good Law.
So, Brannigan and many other Left-Wing loons just like him ENCOURAGE
judges to Legislate from the bench as Philosopher Kings -- and they want
judges and justices appointed who share that philosophy and who will
indeed Legislate from the bench.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Judges make law, they don't write statutes.
making law from the bench is their job.
The entire law of negligence is judicallly created.

The common-law forms a major part of the law of many countries,
especially those with a history as British territories or colonies. It
is notable for its inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting a
consensus of centuries of judgments by working jurists.
...


Statutes which reflect English common law are understood always to be
interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a
number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the
point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily be
seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed
by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US
states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the
intention of restating the common law position in a single document
rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to
their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach
the common law of crime as practiced in England in 1750, since the
colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as
practiced in England only after that date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-14 13:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Vince <***@firelaw.us> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Grey Satterfield <***@oscn.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On 10/13/05 12:39 PM, in article ZcOdnYwFWaUlBtPeRVn-***@comcast.com, "Vince"
:> :<***@firelaw.us> wrote:
:> :
:> :> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> :> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> :> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> :> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> :> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:> :
:> :With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:> :both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:> :Roberts is nearly deranged.
:>
:> This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
:> Lefty Loon ideology.
:>
:> This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
:> don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
:> idiotic.
:>
:> In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
:
:Ok Fred
:
:Where do you think the right of "self defense" comes from?
:If the Umpire looks in his rule book and doesn't find it
:does that mean it doesnt exist?

Actually, yes, it does. It starts off with the 9th and 10th
amendments to the Constitution (you know, the ones that, together with
the 2nd, liberals like to pretend don't exist). Then it gets codified
into various State laws precisely what is and is not 'self-defense'.
That's why things that are perfectly legal as 'self-defense' in Texas
or Arizona will get you sent to prison in Maryland or New Jersey.

See, for example, Arizona Criminal Code 13-404.

:And, for the record it has nothing to with liberal or conservative as
:such. It has to do with the nature of law and justice.

Which has a lot to do with "liberal or conservative as such".

:Think o apartheid and you get the idea

Well, no, I don't. This is just another thing you drag in when the
'Nazi' claim fails.
--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-14 20:07:45 UTC
Permalink
:Fred J. McCall wrote: :> Grey Satterfield
assertions that have no content? Roberts, like :> :> Taney and the
Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist :> :> world
rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own :>
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney
, the :> :> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under
Roberts. :> : :> :With all due respect to Vince on other issues,
where he has frequently shown :> :both knowledge and judgment, the
foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice :> :Roberts is nearly
deranged. :> :> This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who
disagrees with his :> Lefty Loon ideology. :> :> This sort of
stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They :> don't
understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric :>
idiotic. :> :> In this they are very much like the Religious Far
Right. : :Ok Fred : :Where do you think the right of "self defense"
comes from? :If the Umpire looks in his rule book and doesn't find it
:does that mean it doesnt exist?
Actually, yes, it does. It starts off with the 9th and 10th
amendments to the Constitution (you know, the ones that, together
with the 2nd, liberals like to pretend don't exist). Then it gets
codified into various State laws precisely what is and is not
'self-defense'. That's why things that are perfectly legal as
'self-defense' in Texas or Arizona will get you sent to prison in
Maryland or New Jersey.
Did the right exist prior to codification?
Does it exist where its not codified?
See, for example, Arizona Criminal Code 13-404.
see john adams and the Boston massacre.

you can codify the common law

but it does not create it

Self defense was a common law right
even agaisnt police officers

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without
warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of
that resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party
resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if
the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be
murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to
manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer,
at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant,
for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.
[*535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following
pages; 2 Hawk. P.C. 129, sec. 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84,
97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L. star page 15; 1 East P.C. c. 5, page 328;
Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 E. & B. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798;
Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox's Crim. Cas. 4; Rafferty v. The People, 69 Ill.
111; S.C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer have no right
to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest
him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the
assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."

JOHN BAD ELK v. UNITED STATES.
No. 350.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
177 U.S. 529; 20 S. Ct. 729; 44 L. Ed. 874; 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1823
Submitted February 26, 1900.
April 30, 1900, Decided
:And, for the record it has nothing to with liberal or conservative
as :such. It has to do with the nature of law and justice.
Which has a lot to do with "liberal or conservative as such".
not really
The distintion between common and civil law is nto a differnce between
liberal and conservative.

The constitution was a document created by commmon law specialists.
none had training in civil codes
:Think o apartheid and you get the idea
Well, no, I don't. This is just another thing you drag in when the
'Nazi' claim fails.
Do you recall how slavery was outlawed in Britian? By a judge

..The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of
being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only
positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons,
occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from
memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it,
but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from
a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law
of England; and therefore the black must be discharge

Lord Mansfield

The constituional structure of England was such that common law rights
could be overridden by statute but existed none the less.

When interpreting the cosntituion the concpets of the common law are
critical.

"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is
necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the
language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of
its history." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888)

Common law judges are not umpires


Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-15 03:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Vince Brannigan <***@firelaw.us> wrote:

:Self defense was a common law right
:even agaisnt police officers

I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself against
a police officer.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-15 04:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Self defense was a common law right
:even agaisnt police officers
I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself against
a police officer.
this has already been corrected

my poor typing and an errant spell checker switched Iranians for Iraqis

Iraqis are overwhelmingly Arab

Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-15 14:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Vince Brannigan <***@firelaw.us> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan <***@firelaw.us> wrote:
:>
:> :Self defense was a common law right
:> :even agaisnt police officers
:>
:> I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
:> of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself against
:> a police officer.
:>
:
:this has already been corrected
:
:my poor typing and an errant spell checker switched Iranians for Iraqis
:
:Iraqis are overwhelmingly Arab

Uh, I think this reply belongs on another article, Vinnie....

[I rather figured something like that was what happened. I was pretty
sure you knew better than what you had apparently said.]
--
"If it's the fool who likes to rush in.
And if it's the angel who never does try.
And if it's me who will lose or win
Then I'll make my best guess and I won't care why.
Come on and get me, you twist of fate.
I'm standing right here, Mr Destiny.
If you want to talk, well then I'll relate.
If you don't, so what? 'Cuz you don't scare me.
-- "Gunfighter", Blues Traveler
Vince
2005-10-15 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> :Self defense was a common law right
:> :even agaisnt police officers
:>
:> I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
:> of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself against
:> a police officer.
:>
:this has already been corrected
:my poor typing and an errant spell checker switched Iranians for Iraqis
:Iraqis are overwhelmingly Arab
Uh, I think this reply belongs on another article, Vinnie....
[I rather figured something like that was what happened. I was pretty
sure you knew better than what you had apparently said.]
This one was bizarre
I had two windows open and switched between them as I was posting some
material on self defense for this thread, that never got posted so I
just reposted it.

oh well

Vince
Vince
2005-10-15 14:07:50 UTC
Permalink
:Self defense was a common law right :even agaisnt police officers
I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself
against a police officer.
I agree that some states have changed the common law rule
However It still is the law of Maryland

Reading these cases shows how the common law works.
And why judges are not umpires enforcing a rule book
This is Judical lawmaking in the common law tradition



Maryland case

Right to Resist an Illegal Arrest

Chief Judge Murphy, in his dissent, makes a suggestion that merits
serious consideration. This Court recognized in Sugarman v. State, 173
Md. 52, 57, 195 A. 324 (1937), the long-standing common law rule that
"one illegally arrested may use any reasonable means to effect his
escape, even to the extent of using such force as is reasonably
necessary…..Petitioner comes now before this Court and asks us to
abolish the long-standing rule that permits a person to resist an
unlawful arrest in most circumstances, the position suggested by Chief
Judge Murphy's dissent below. In its brief, the State argues after
discussing the abrogation of the privilege in other jurisdictions and
the limitations imposed by this Court….

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that "any action to abrogate the
common law right to resist an illegal warrantless arrest should be made
by the Legislature."

Under the principle of stare decisis, "for reasons of certainty and
stability, changes in decisional doctrine ordinarily should be left to
the Legislature." …..Nonetheless, stare decisis does not preclude this
Court from changing a common law rule where, "in light of changed
conditions or increased knowledge, . . . the rule has become unsound in
the circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, no longer
suitable to our people."

This Court has recognized that in determining whether a long-standing
common law rule now conflicts with modern policy, the declaration of
public policy normally is the function of the Legislature. In that same
vein, we have said that the Legislature's failure to change a common
law rule is reflective of this state's public policy. …
Upon deliberating whether to change judicially the common law, we first
must consider whether the existing rule, here the right of a person
illegally arrested to resist such arrest, "is 'unsound in the
circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, no longer suitable
to our people,), when ordinarily such a determination is made by the
legislature. This consideration must be made by analyzing "the public
policy concerns raised by the parties and by the other courts which have
grappled with this issue."

Petitioner essentially argues the right to resist an unlawful arrest
should be abrogated on public policy grounds because it promotes violent
interactions between peace officers and the public, few people actually
are aware of or are able to contemplate use of the rule during the heat
of an arrest situation, and the rule endangers the safety and lives of
officers and arrestees. Petitioner also cites to the various cases and
legislative enactments of our sister states that already have abolished
the common law rule. Respondent does not counter petitioner's policy
arguments other than to assert that most of the states that have
abolished the right to resist have done so legislatively, and that the
Legislature is the proper entity to abrogate the common law rule,
particularly given our discussion of some of the negative aspects of
this rule in Rodgers and the Legislature's failure thereafter to make
any changes responsive to our concerns.

We believe the points raised by petitioner have merit. We cannot say,
however, that the right to resist is unsound or unsuitable to a modern
society. Were we to abrogate the common law rule, the only remaining
remedies for an unlawful arrest would be release followed by a civil or
criminal action, such as an action for false imprisonment. We have said
that such remedies often may be inadequate.

Furthermore, the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of the holdings
of our cases, including Rodgers, which was decided over twenty years
ago. Even though we have criticized several aspects and outcomes of
the application of the right to resist, the Legislature has failed to
respond to this criticism as it has yet to alter or abolish the common
law privilege in spite of the period of time this issue has been
discussed in our cases. This position of deference to the Legislature,
where appropriate, is consistent with many of our cases….. (declining to
judicially alter doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of
comparative negligence because the Court was "unable to say that the
circumstances of modern life have so changed as to render contributory
negligence as vestige of the past" and is instead a "fundamental and
basic policy consideration[] properly to be addressed by the legislature

In our opinion in Kelley, however, we were able to perceive from State
Legislative and Congressional enactments a public policy and relied on
that legislative policy in our recognition of a cause of action in
strict liability for the manufacturer of those particular weapons. The
parties in this case have pointed us to no similar legislative
pronouncements with respect to the matter of the abolishment of the
right to resist an unlawful arrest. Further, as we have indicated, of
those states that have abolished the right to resist an illegal arrest,
the majority have done so by legislative enactment.


STATE OF MARYLAND v. KEVIN JOSEPH WIEGMANN
No. 13, September Term, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
350 Md. 585; 714 A.2d 841; 1998 Md. LEXIS 581

The Wiegman case was cited as good law as late as 2004


Just thought this was interesting enough to follow up on
Another Maryland case gave a history of self defense
It is an excellent resume of the common law in action and development


ROOSEVELT PRESTON SYDNOR v. STATE OF MARYLAND
No. 83, September Term, 2000
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
365 Md. 205; 776 A.2d 669; 2001 Md. LEXIS 462


The right to act in self-defense has been regarded as a natural right,
taken all but for granted, but, as a legal defense to a charge of
homicide, it was not part of early English common law. Although much of
its development is of historical interest only, the theoretical
underpinnings of that development still have some influence. As noted by
Joseph Beale, from the beginning of the jurisdiction of the king's
courts over crime to the reign of Edward I in the Thirteenth Century,
homicide could be justified only when committed in execution of the
king's writ or, by custom, when apprehending an outlaw who resisted.
Joseph H. Beale, Jr., Retreat from a Murderous Assault, 16 HARV. L. REV.
567, 567-68 (1903).

The privilege to use deadly force in self-defense developed from two
strains of English law. Blackstone, citing both Hawkins and Hale,
observed that there were three kinds of homicide -- justifiable,
excusable, and felonious. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 4 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS
OF ENGLAND 177 (1769). Justifiable homicide was one "owing to some
unavoidable necessity, without any will, intention, or desire, and
without any inadvertence or negligence, in the party killing, and
therefore without any shadow of blame." Id. at 178. It was a homicide
committed by the absolute command of the law, either for the advancement
of public justice (as where a public officer kills in the execution of
his or her office) or for the prevention of some atrocious crime which
could not otherwise be avoided. Id. at 179-80. As to the latter,
Blackstone noted, as an example, that "if any person attempts a robbery
or murder of another, or attempts to break open a house in the night
time, (which extends also to an attempt to burn it,) and shall be killed
in such attempt, the slayer shall be acquitted and discharged." Id. at
180. "This reaches," he continued, "not to any crime unaccompanied with
force, as picking of pockets; or to the breaking open of any house in
the day time, unless it carries with it an attempt of robbery also." Id.
In the case of a justifiable homicide, Blackstone stated, the slayer was
entirely without fault and was entitled to acquittal. No duty to
retreat, in an effort to avoid the need to use deadly force, attended a
justifiable homicide.

An excusable homicide, according to Blackstone, could be of two types --
per infortunium, or misadventure, and se defendendo, or self-defense.
The first was where one doing a lawful act, without any intention to
harm, unfortunately killed another, as where the head of a hatchet being
lawfully used by a person flew off and killed a bystander. The second
type, he made clear, was distinguishable from the justifiable variety of
homicide "calculated to hinder the perpetration of a capital crime" and
concerned the case of a person protecting himself or herself "from an
assault, or the like, in the course of a sudden brawl or quarrel, by
killing him who assaults him." Id. at 183-84. In that situation, which
the writers of the time called chance-medley, the right of natural
defense did not include attacking the assailant, and, to excuse
homicide by a plea of self-defense, "it must appear that the slayer had
no other possible means of escaping from his assailant." Id. at 184.
Thus, "the law requires, that the person, who kills another in his own
defence, should have retreated as far as he conveniently or safely can,
to avoid the violence of the assault, before he turns upon his assailant
. . . ." Id. at 184-85.

.....To that practical extent, the two forms of defense -- justifiable
and excusable homicide -- merged; they did not merge, however, with
respect [***12] to the duty to retreat in an effort to avoid the need
for deadly force. That issue, initially germane only with respect to
what formerly was an excusable homicide, remained a focal point of
debate and, to some extent, remains so today.

The views expressed by Blackstone are consistent with those stated by
East, Hawkins, Hale, and Foster. See EAST, supra, 219-22; WILLIAM
HAWKINS, 1 PLEAS OF THE CROWN 79-88 (John Curwood ed., 8th ed. 1824);
MATTHEW HALE, 1 HISTORY OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN 478-92 (1847); FOSTER,
supra, 273-78. Thus, Foster wrote:

"In the case of justifiable self-defence the injured party may repel
force by force in defence of his person, habitation, or property,
against one who manifestly intendeth and endeavoureth by violence or
surprize to commit a known felony upon either. In these cases he is not
obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary till he findeth himself
out of danger, and if in a conflict between them he happeneth to kill,
such killing is justifiable."

FOSTER, supra, at 273 (emphasis added). On the other hand:

"He therefore who, in the case of mutual conflict, would excuse himself
upon the foot of self-defence must shew, that before a mortal stroke
given he had declined any farther combat and retreated as far as he
could with safety; and also that he killed his adversary through mere
necessity, and to avoid immediate death. If he faileth in either of
these circumstances he will incur the penalties of manslaughter."

Id. at 277.

As Wharton noted, when these two rules were construed with relation to
each other, the duty of an assaulted person to retreat seemed to depend
on whether killing the assailant under the circumstances would be
justifiable or merely excusable. If the former, there was no duty to
retreat; if the latter, there was. FRANCIS WHARTON, THE LAW OF HOMICIDE,
§ 291 (Frank H. Bowlby ed., 3d ed. 1907). Beale took issue with that
approach. Though acknowledging that the line between the authority to
stand one's ground and the duty to retreat to avoid the necessity of
killing was consistent with the distinction in the old law between
justifiable and excusable homicides -- between homicides committed in
execution of the law and those committed in private defense -- Beale
asserted that Foster failed, in the case of an excusable homicide, to
distinguish between the function of retreat as a means of avoiding the
need to kill, and its function to avoid responsibility for the combat,
and that, in effect, he blurred the distinctions between justifiable and
excusable homicides. Beale, supra, at 575-76.

Noting a split of authority in the United States on whether, generally,
a person under attack by another may stand his ground and resist with
deadly force or must retreat if retreat is possible, Beale took as the
prevailing rule that "there is no need of retreat, but the assailed may
kill the assailant if it is otherwise necessary to save his own life,"
that "if retreat would not (so far as the assailant can see) diminish
the danger, he may defend himself on the spot," and that "if one is
assailed in his own dwelling-house, which is his castle, he is not
obliged to withdraw therefrom and leave himself in that respect
defenseless." Id. at 579. He urged, however, that no killing that is not
necessary can be justified, that it is not necessary to kill in
self-defense when the person under attack can defend himself/herself by
withdrawing, and that "the only property which the law permits him to
protect by killing a wrongdoer is his dwelling-house, and that only when
its protection is necessary to the safety of his person." Id. at 580-81.

Perkins and Boyce, writing in 1982, favored Foster's view, rather than
that of Beale. They regarded the majority American view to be that a
blameless person who is the subject of a "murderous assault" may stand
his or her ground and use deadly force if reasonably necessary to save
himself/herself. They acknowledged, however, that a substantial minority
of jurisdictions had adopted the view that even an innocent victim of a
murderous assault must elect an obviously safe retreat, if available,
rather than resort to deadly force, unless (1) the victim is in his/her
home at the time, (2) the assailant is one he/she is lawfully attempting
to arrest, or (3) the assailant is a robber. See ROLLIN PERKINS AND
RONALD BOYCE, CRIMINAL LAW 1119-37 (3d ed. 1982). See also Self-Help:
Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American
Society, 37 Vand. L. Rev. 845, 882-83 (1984) (noting the split of
authority on whether deadly force may be used without safe retreat but
asserting that "because a successful retreat prevents harm to both
aggressors and defenders, a duty to retreat before [***16] the use of
deadly force seems to be a desirable limitation on the privilege of
self-defense").

The initial distinctions, trumpeted in some of the early commentary and
applied in some 19th Century cases, have, indeed, become blurred, and
the law now, governed in many States by statute, seems inclined to limit
one's ability to use deadly force to the situation where such force is
reasonably necessary to protect oneself from imminent threat of death or
serious injury. n2 The duty to retreat, other than from one's own home,
if retreat is safely possible, is a consideration, though a critical
one, in determining the necessity for using deadly force, as is the
prospect of standing one's ground and resisting with non-deadly force.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


n2 Approximately 35 States have statutes that define the circumstances
when deadly force is permissible. Only one, in Texas, comes close to
allowing the victim of a robbery to use deadly force against the fleeing
robber for the purpose of recovering the stolen property, absent a
continuing imminent danger from the robber of death or serious bodily
harm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.42.



Thats how the common law works.
They are not umpires enforcing a rule book

Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-15 14:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Vince <***@firelaw.us> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan <***@firelaw.us> wrote:
:>
:> :Self defense was a common law right :even agaisnt police officers
:>
:> I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
:> of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself
:> against a police officer.
:
:I agree that some states have changed the common law rule
:However It still is the law of Maryland

In Texas, it's almost described as a duty to resist law enforcement
officers who are exceeding their authority, to the point where THEY
can be charged if you kill one in the process.

Arizona, on the other hand, makes it illegal to resist a law
enforcement officer, even if you believe the arrest is illegal.

All in all, I prefer the Texas rule on this one.
Vince
2005-10-15 15:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> :Self defense was a common law right :even agaisnt police officers
:>
:> I suggest you check your local laws. Most states (with the exception
:> of Texas, I believe) make it illegal to try to defend yourself
:> against a police officer.
:I agree that some states have changed the common law rule
:However It still is the law of Maryland
In Texas, it's almost described as a duty to resist law enforcement
officers who are exceeding their authority, to the point where THEY
can be charged if you kill one in the process.
Arizona, on the other hand, makes it illegal to resist a law
enforcement officer, even if you believe the arrest is illegal.
All in all, I prefer the Texas rule on this one.
In Maryland there is a distinction between a "defective" arrest and an
unlawful one. i.e. if the officer has a defective warrant, the arrest is
still lawful and may not be resisted

Vince

Grey Satterfield
2005-10-14 12:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.
This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.
This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.
In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
I agree. Vince is a classic example of a bright, well educated fellow who
has been robbed of his judgment with respect to George W. Bush and every
decision Bush makes. The 2000 election was held and decided nearly five
years ago and it still makes Vince and the other members of the Angry Left
crazy.

Grey Satterfield
Drew Remsen
2005-10-14 15:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Who can argue with bald assertions that have no content? Roberts, like
:> Taney and the Nazi judges is clearly a postivist. In the positivist
:> world rights belong to those who own the legislature. If you dont own
:> the legislatorue, you have no rights. Ask the Blacks under Taney , the
:> Jews under the nazis or the guantanamo detainees under Roberts.
:With all due respect to Vince on other issues, where he has frequently shown
:both knowledge and judgment, the foregoing jeremiad against Chief Justice
:Roberts is nearly deranged.
This is classic Vinnie when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his
Lefty Loon ideology.
This sort of stupidity is why they can't seem to win elections. They
don't understand that most people merely find such fringe rhetoric
idiotic.
In this they are very much like the Religious Far Right.
I agree. Vince is a classic example of a bright, well educated fellow who
has been robbed of his judgment with respect to George W. Bush and every
decision Bush makes. The 2000 election was held and decided nearly five
years ago and it still makes Vince and the other members of the Angry Left
crazy.
Grey Satterfield
You and your angry left canard. I'm beginning to think it's a mantra you
use to mollify your realization that you voted in a disaster for an
administration.
Other than beginning this War on Terror (but subsequently messing it up
big time), just what decisions that this administration has made are you
proud of?
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-14 17:33:21 UTC
Permalink
On 10/14/05 10:40 AM, in article
Post by Drew Remsen
Post by Grey Satterfield
I agree. Vince is a classic example of a bright, well educated fellow who
has been robbed of his judgment with respect to George W. Bush and every
decision Bush makes. The 2000 election was held and decided nearly five
years ago and it still makes Vince and the other members of the Angry Left
crazy.
You and your angry left canard. I'm beginning to think it's a mantra you
use to mollify your realization that you voted in a disaster for an
administration.
Other than beginning this War on Terror (but subsequently messing it up
big time), just what decisions that this administration has made are you
proud of?
Howard Berkowitz has a fairly balanced view of who is a member of the "Angry
Left" and who is not. I suggest that Howard would concede that Vince's
delusional ravings to the effect that Chief Justice Roberts is as much a
Fascist as were the judges in Nazi Germany qualify Vince for membership in
the Angry Left. Drew, himself, has shown a significant lack of fairness
with respect to anything having to do with the Bush administration. HINT TO
THE ANGRY LEFT: the 2000 election is over, you lost; the 2004 election is
over, you lost again; live with it.

Grey Satterfield
Jim Elwell
2005-10-14 19:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Howard Berkowitz has a fairly balanced view of who is a member of the "Angry
Left" and who is not. I suggest that Howard would concede that Vince's
delusional ravings to the effect that Chief Justice Roberts is as much a
Fascist as were the judges in Nazi Germany qualify Vince for membership in
the Angry Left. Drew, himself, has shown a significant lack of fairness
with respect to anything having to do with the Bush administration. HINT TO
THE ANGRY LEFT: the 2000 election is over, you lost; the 2004 election is
over, you lost again; live with it.
Uh, Grey? GWB's approval rating is down to 39% in
the latest polls. That ain't just due to the
influence of the hypothesized, monolithic Angry Left
(they don't have the numbers).

The 2000 and 2004 elections are, indeed, over.

It would seem that some mainstream voters are pissed
off (or disappointed) by his subsequent policy
decisions since then.

The time seems ripe to abandon the "Angry Left"
canard. Folks of all stripes seem to be
uncomfortable with GWB's leadership. The
appointment of Miers seems to have inflamed the
"Angry Right", in particular.

-Jim
Howard C. Berkowitz
2005-10-15 02:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Grey Satterfield
Howard Berkowitz has a fairly balanced view of who is a member of the "Angry
Left" and who is not. I suggest that Howard would concede that Vince's
delusional ravings to the effect that Chief Justice Roberts is as much a
Fascist as were the judges in Nazi Germany qualify Vince for membership in
the Angry Left. Drew, himself, has shown a significant lack of fairness
with respect to anything having to do with the Bush administration. HINT TO
THE ANGRY LEFT: the 2000 election is over, you lost; the 2004 election is
over, you lost again; live with it.
Uh, Grey? GWB's approval rating is down to 39% in
the latest polls. That ain't just due to the
influence of the hypothesized, monolithic Angry Left
(they don't have the numbers).
The 2000 and 2004 elections are, indeed, over.
It would seem that some mainstream voters are pissed
off (or disappointed) by his subsequent policy
decisions since then.
The time seems ripe to abandon the "Angry Left"
canard. Folks of all stripes seem to be
uncomfortable with GWB's leadership. The
appointment of Miers seems to have inflamed the
"Angry Right", in particular.
A curse, or a blessing, on both houses. Roberts struck me as a
reasonable man, with the caveat that an attorney's advice in an
adversarial or potentially adversarial situation, especially political,
is not necessarily predictive of judicial opinion. The Nazi judicial
types actually varied a lot, the archetype being the abhorrent
Freisler, may he have suffered under the beam that crushed him. I'm
blanking on the name, and will have to hunt it down, of an SS internal
anticorruption investigator that Himmler, for Himmler's often strange
reasons, gave a hunting license and protection. This investigator was
apparently uncorruptible, and, IIRC, became a respected part of the
postwar German legal system.

A digression while I'm at it -- I had occasion recently to read the
sentences of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (not the 4-power IMT) in
the Einsatzgruppe trial. The verdict on Otto Ohlendorf should be more
widely read as an example of classic tragedy -- the Tribunal regretted
deeply that his acts were such that he must hang, as they saw his
complex personality, of someone in the Nazi leadership who had a
conscience -- and then made some terribly bad decisions.

Yes, 2000 and 2004 are over. Even if they were "stolen", there is a
time to move on and run a country. I'm personally tired of hearing
what now comes across as a continued tale sound and fury, told by
people who should know better, signifying nothing.

Returning to the Angry Right, I find myself, as hopefully a member of
the mainstream, delighted to see the karmic wheel rolling over Rove and
DeLay, and the religious conservatives turning into wet hens at the
Miers nomination. Who knows? Are Bush's low ratings indicative that he
is turning away from some of his extreme base? OTOH, while I think
he's a decent and likable man, I find most of his presidential
decisions to be terrible.

Still, seeing the attack dog social conservatives seething is something
to appreciate. I'd rather see Grover Nordquist be indicted than Ann
Coulter shortening her skirts.
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-15 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <***@gettcomm.com> wrote:

:Still, seeing the attack dog social conservatives seething is something
:to appreciate. I'd rather see Grover Nordquist be indicted than Ann
:Coulter shortening her skirts.

And this is a prime example of letting ideology overwhelm everything.
All things considered, I'd rather look at legs. ;-)
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-15 03:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Grey Satterfield <***@oscn.net> wrote:

:On 10/14/05 10:40 AM, in article
:OjQ3f.14210$***@tornado.tampabay.rr.com, "Drew Remsen"
:<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> Grey Satterfield wrote:
:>> I agree. Vince is a classic example of a bright, well educated fellow who
:>> has been robbed of his judgment with respect to George W. Bush and every
:>> decision Bush makes. The 2000 election was held and decided nearly five
:>> years ago and it still makes Vince and the other members of the Angry Left
:>> crazy.
:>
:> You and your angry left canard. I'm beginning to think it's a mantra you
:> use to mollify your realization that you voted in a disaster for an
:> administration.
:> Other than beginning this War on Terror (but subsequently messing it up
:> big time), just what decisions that this administration has made are you
:> proud of?
:
:Howard Berkowitz has a fairly balanced view of who is a member of the "Angry
:Left" and who is not. I suggest that Howard would concede that Vince's
:delusional ravings to the effect that Chief Justice Roberts is as much a
:Fascist as were the judges in Nazi Germany qualify Vince for membership in
:the Angry Left. Drew, himself, has shown a significant lack of fairness
:with respect to anything having to do with the Bush administration. HINT TO
:THE ANGRY LEFT: the 2000 election is over, you lost; the 2004 election is
:over, you lost again; live with it.

Even more important than "live with it" is LEARN from it! Folks like
Vince, Drew, and others don't seem to have figured out that acting
like extremist loons does nothing other than alienate people who
aren't already firmly in their camp. They're analogous to those
idiots on the Right who think that anyone who isn't living on their
particular loon farm should be run out of the Republican Party.

BOTH these far-loon fringes just don't seem to understand that they
are a MINORITY and alienating the rest of us is hardly the way to win
elections.
--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.
Howard C. Berkowitz
2005-10-15 02:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Remsen
You and your angry left canard.
Sorry, but you have now given me a mental image I cannot banish, of an
uncooperative control airfoil.
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-14 20:47:05 UTC
Permalink
"Grey Satterfield" <***@oscn.net> wrote in message news:BF75133C.1E14D%***@oscn.net...

| I agree. Vince...has been robbed of his judgment with respect
| to George W. Bush and every decision Bush makes. The
| 2000 election was held and decided nearly five years ago
| and it still makes Vince and the other members of the Angry
| Left crazy.
|
| Grey Satterfield
-----------------------------------------

No one on the Angry Left is more angry and crazy about the 2000 Election
than Albert Alfred Gore, Junior.

DSH
--------------------------------------------

"Gore: I Don't Plan to Run for President"

Oct 12, 2005

By MATTIAS KAREN

"STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday
he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the
United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000
election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a
candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an
economic forum in Sweden.

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had
become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said,
referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working
families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We
would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a
different country."

Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration
policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Mike Feldman, Gore's spokesman, did not immediately comment on Gore's
remark when reached by phone in Washington.

Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee,
called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous."

"To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and
reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he
still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in
Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

BINGO!!! -- DSH

Gore also reiterated his criticism that the Bush administration was too
slow in responding to the crisis in New Orleans after the city's levees
failed during Hurricane Katrina. He said that should have been
predicted.

"There were specific warnings that the levees might break," he said.
"But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely
way."

He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the
threats that global warning pose to the environment.

"My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk
from terror, and that's appropriate," he said. "But why should we be so
tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is
concerned?"

Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an
investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political
endeavors.

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to
have that," Gore said.

He declined to comment on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible run
for the White House in 2008, but he said he believes the country is
ready for a female president.

"Of course a woman could get elected president," he said. "I am not
going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite
premature."
--------------------

Gore proves he is still a master of frothing rants and Making A Fool of
Himself.

How fortunate we were to avoid him as President.

Gore = The Tennessee Wuss.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-13 19:08:16 UTC
Permalink
I reckon so.

Vincent Brannigan of the University of Maryland, College Park, is an
excellent poster boy for the Criminal Academic Class [CAC] which infects
our colleges, universities and secondary schools -- "Liberal" Loons of
the Leftover Left -- Angry as Hell -- and CERTAINLY not willing to
listen to the Voice of the People -- when they "Vote The Wrong Way" --
as they have in the eyes of the Angry-Left in the past three National
Elections -- 2000, 2002, 2004.

Brannigan and his cohorts in crime, such as Gans, do their best to fill
young skulls full of mush -- but their task is growing more difficult
each day because the students are getting wise to them and seeing what
frauds and charlatans they are -- just as you have seen through
Brannigan.

And that's a Good Thing.

DSH

"HawkCW4" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:XBw3f.42566$***@fed1read03...

| Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now
I
| have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
| wrong with America today.
|
| You will be pleased to know we are through.
|
| Ed
| USA Ret
Vince
2005-10-13 18:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I reckon so.
Vincent Brannigan of the University of Maryland, College Park, is an
excellent poster boy for the Criminal Academic Class [CAC] which infects
our colleges, universities and secondary schools -- "Liberal" Loons of
the Leftover Left -- Angry as Hell -- and CERTAINLY not willing to
listen to the Voice of the People -- when they "Vote The Wrong Way" --
as they have in the eyes of the Angry-Left in the past three National
Elections -- 2000, 2002, 2004.
Brannigan and his cohorts in crime, such as Gans, do their best to fill
young skulls full of mush -- but their task is growing more difficult
each day because the students are getting wise to them and seeing what
frauds and charlatans they are -- just as you have seen through
Brannigan.
And that's a Good Thing.
DSH
I agree that you and Ed operate at the same analytical/intellectual
level and I'm sure the Republican party would like to have more like you
to raise their party's average intellectual capability

In the meantime I will soldier on regardless

next week those of you near Santander Spain can catch my talk on

The Regulatory Use of Advanced Fire Engineering Research:Problems With
Classification, Innovation and Legislation
http://grupos.unican.es/gidai/jtoct05/pdefinitivoev.htm

After that I go to Frankfurt and Bonn. There is a good Irish pub in
Cologne, I'm happy to meet anyone for a drink

Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now
I
| have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
| wrong with America today.
|
| You will be pleased to know we are through.
|
| Ed
| USA Ret
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-13 19:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now
I
| have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
| wrong with America today.
|
| You will be pleased to know we are through.
[Execrable top-post corrected -- again]
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I reckon so.
Vincent Brannigan of the University of Maryland, College Park, is an
excellent poster boy for the Criminal Academic Class [CAC] which infects
our colleges, universities and secondary schools -- "Liberal" Loons of
the Leftover Left -- Angry as Hell -- and CERTAINLY not willing to
listen to the Voice of the People -- when they "Vote The Wrong Way" --
as they have in the eyes of the Angry-Left in the past three National
Elections -- 2000, 2002, 2004.
Brannigan and his cohorts in crime, such as Gans, do their best to fill
young skulls full of mush -- but their task is growing more difficult
each day because the students are getting wise to them and seeing what
frauds and charlatans they are -- just as you have seen through
Brannigan.
And that's a Good Thing.
I agree that you and Ed operate at the same analytical/intellectual
level and I'm sure the Republican party would like to have more like you
to raise their party's average intellectual capability
In the meantime I will soldier on regardless
next week those of you near Santander Spain can catch my talk on
The Regulatory Use of Advanced Fire Engineering Research:Problems With
Classification, Innovation and Legislation
http://grupos.unican.es/gidai/jtoct05/pdefinitivoev.htm
After that I go to Frankfurt and Bonn. There is a good Irish pub in
Cologne, I'm happy to meet anyone for a drink
As noted in an earlier post, I think that Vince's emotional remarks about
Chief Justice Roberts clearly demonstrated Vince's membership in the Angry
Left wing of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it makes me uncomfortable
for the willfully obnoxious Republican-apologist-on-all-issues Hines to make
the point. What is it about "pots" and "kettles"?

Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-13 21:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Pogue Satterfield THINKS he is a Reasonable Oklahoma Conservative.

But he is NOT.

He is a MUGWUMP.

He sits on the fence, with his mug on one side and his wump [rump] on
the other.

Perched there on the fence, he preens, poses, pontificates and
prattles -- extremely proud of himself -- thinking he has seized the
Moral High Ground -- and throwing rocks and his own excrement at both
sides.

Hilarious!

A Mugwump and his brain are soon parted -- because his mug soon winds up
inside his wump.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Vince
2005-10-13 20:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| Thanks for that Vince. I have seen enough of your arrogance, and now
I
| have seen enough of your stupidity. You are the epitome of what is
| wrong with America today.
|
| You will be pleased to know we are through.
[Execrable top-post corrected -- again]
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I reckon so.
Vincent Brannigan of the University of Maryland, College Park, is an
excellent poster boy for the Criminal Academic Class [CAC] which infects
our colleges, universities and secondary schools -- "Liberal" Loons of
the Leftover Left -- Angry as Hell -- and CERTAINLY not willing to
listen to the Voice of the People -- when they "Vote The Wrong Way" --
as they have in the eyes of the Angry-Left in the past three National
Elections -- 2000, 2002, 2004.
Brannigan and his cohorts in crime, such as Gans, do their best to fill
young skulls full of mush -- but their task is growing more difficult
each day because the students are getting wise to them and seeing what
frauds and charlatans they are -- just as you have seen through
Brannigan.
And that's a Good Thing.
I agree that you and Ed operate at the same analytical/intellectual
level and I'm sure the Republican party would like to have more like you
to raise their party's average intellectual capability
In the meantime I will soldier on regardless
next week those of you near Santander Spain can catch my talk on
The Regulatory Use of Advanced Fire Engineering Research:Problems With
Classification, Innovation and Legislation
http://grupos.unican.es/gidai/jtoct05/pdefinitivoev.htm
After that I go to Frankfurt and Bonn. There is a good Irish pub in
Cologne, I'm happy to meet anyone for a drink
As noted in an earlier post, I think that Vince's emotional remarks about
Chief Justice Roberts clearly demonstrated Vince's membership in the Angry
Left wing of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it makes me uncomfortable
for the willfully obnoxious Republican-apologist-on-all-issues Hines to make
the point. What is it about "pots" and "kettles"?
Grey Satterfield
My remarks on Judge Roberts are not emotional. They are based on his
legal positions. I did my undergraduate thesis on the Nuremberg War
crimes trials. They were a true breakthrough in international law.
Under the Nuremburg doctrine neither the rights of the powerful or the
the powerless were determined solely by national positive law.

This was a powerful doctrine , created in the USA by its interpretaions
of the 14th amendment

To give an example beloved of the right wing , should the right of self
defense depend on a statue being passed giving the right, or is it
inherent in Justice Cardozo's scheme of ordered liberty

" Fundamental too in the concept of due process, and so in that of
liberty, is the thought that condemnation shall be rendered only after
trial. .... The hearing, moreover, must be a real one, not a sham or a
pretense. ...... For that reason, ignorant defendants in a capital case
were held to have been condemned unlawfully when in truth, though not in
form, they were refused the aid of counsel...... The decision did not
turn upon the fact that the benefit of counsel would have been
guaranteed to the defendants by the provisions of the Sixth Amendment if
they had been prosecuted in a federal court. The decision turned upon
the fact that in the particular situation laid before us in the evidence
the benefit of counsel was essential to the substance of a hearing. ....
Our survey of the cases serves, we think, to justify the statement that
the dividing line between them, if not unfaltering throughout its
course, has been true for the most part to a unifying principle."

Justice Cardozo in Palko

These are not the words of an "umpire". as Roberts describes the job.

These are the words of a judge dispensing justice

Vince
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-13 23:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
As noted in an earlier post, I think that Vince's emotional remarks about
Chief Justice Roberts clearly demonstrated Vince's membership in the Angry
Left wing of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it makes me uncomfortable
for the willfully obnoxious Republican-apologist-on-all-issues Hines to make
the point. What is it about "pots" and "kettles"?
My remarks on Judge Roberts are not emotional. They are based on his
legal positions. I did my undergraduate thesis on the Nuremberg War
crimes trials. They were a true breakthrough in international law.
Under the Nuremburg doctrine neither the rights of the powerful or the
the powerless were determined solely by national positive law.
I suggest that by objective standards Vince's remarks about Chief Justice
Roberts are, not to put to fine a point on it, excessive.

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2005-10-14 00:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
As noted in an earlier post, I think that Vince's emotional remarks about
Chief Justice Roberts clearly demonstrated Vince's membership in the Angry
Left wing of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it makes me uncomfortable
for the willfully obnoxious Republican-apologist-on-all-issues Hines to make
the point. What is it about "pots" and "kettles"?
My remarks on Judge Roberts are not emotional. They are based on his
legal positions. I did my undergraduate thesis on the Nuremberg War
crimes trials. They were a true breakthrough in international law.
Under the Nuremburg doctrine neither the rights of the powerful or the
the powerless were determined solely by national positive law.
I suggest that by objective standards Vince's remarks about Chief Justice
Roberts are, not to put to fine a point on it, excessive.
Grey Satterfield
Justices of the Supreme court are not"umpires"

Vince
Andrew Venor
2005-10-05 18:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't
have any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the
Court either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal opinions
is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough for
bushlickers.
Vince
Actually Justice Byron White was a close advisor and a "personnel buddy"
of President John F. Kennedy since they met as students in Europe in the
late 1930's.

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/whiteb.htm

ALV
Jim McLaughlin
2005-10-05 19:56:09 UTC
Permalink
So, too, was Fortas a buddy of Johnson's, as wellas ohnson's personal
lawyer.
--
Jim McLaughlin

Reply address is deliberately munged.
If you really need to reply directly, try:
jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom

And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom
address.
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't
have any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the
Court either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal opinions
is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough for
bushlickers.
Vince
Actually Justice Byron White was a close advisor and a "personnel buddy"
of President John F. Kennedy since they met as students in Europe in the
late 1930's.
http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/whiteb.htm
ALV
Vince
2005-10-05 20:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim McLaughlin
So, too, was Fortas a buddy of Johnson's, as wellas ohnson's personal
lawyer.
unquestionably a buddy and crony
But I dont think he ever was Johnsons lawyer as president

Vince
Vince
2005-10-05 20:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by Vince
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might
be nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't
have any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the
Court either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the president
who used executive or attorney client privilege to conceal their legal
opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal
opinions is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming
it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I don't
need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good enough
for bushlickers.
Vince
Actually Justice Byron White was a close advisor and a "personnel buddy"
of President John F. Kennedy since they met as students in Europe in the
late 1930's.
http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/whiteb.htm
ALV
But none of their communications was supposedly attorney client etc.

He was a friend but not a crony
Abe fortas was an lbj crony


Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-06 05:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to the
president who used executive or attorney client privilege to
conceal their legal opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's legal
opinions is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down claiming
it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for grofaz I
don't need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was good
enough for bushlickers.
Meanwhile the Bush haters want to filibuster any nomination who won't
violate professional ethics and describe how they'll vote. They're
so full of bile they'd whine and call names if Jesus Christ was the
nominee. 'Turdsicle' is the name for liberal brain-freeze. Can't
call it 'brainsicle', after all, since their heads are just full of
crap with no brain to speak of.

Beside, how DARE Bush nominate a woman! Why, doesn't he know that
the 'all-blow-and-no-go' Democrats reserve that sort of thing for
themselves?
--
This space for let.
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 09:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Vince
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to
the
president who used executive or attorney client privilege
to
conceal their legal opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's
legal
opinions is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf down
claiming
it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for
grofaz I
don't need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was
good
enough for bushlickers.
Meanwhile the Bush haters want to filibuster any
nomination who won't
violate professional ethics and describe how they'll vote.
They're
so full of bile they'd whine and call names if Jesus
Christ was the
nominee.
ESPECIALLY of Jesus Christ were the nominee. After all,
Ginsberg's still in the Court, so the "token Jew" spot's
already full. And the Gang of Fourteen's famous antipathy
toward "born-again Christians" would seem to extend to the
Founder of their faith. :-)
Post by Fred J. McCall
'Turdsicle' is the name for liberal brain-freeze. Can't
call it 'brainsicle', after all, since their heads are
just full of
crap with no brain to speak of.
Fred, please don't encourage this guy. Otherwise, we may
have to rename this NG alt.fan.scatology.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Beside, how DARE Bush nominate a woman! Why, doesn't he
know that
the 'all-blow-and-no-go' Democrats reserve that sort of
thing for
themselves?
That's what cracks me up... when Bush nominates an
African-American, immediately the Left starts slinging
racist remarks; when he nominates a woman, the sexism in the
Gang of Fourteen's barely off-podium remarks can be cut with
a knife; and so far, the President hasn't been able to
locate a nominee whose religious preferences _aren't_
objectionable to the Gang Who Can't Stop Filibustering.

Misconduct of this scale on the part of Republican senators
would be front-page, non-stop 60 Minutes/60 Minutes
II/Dateline/PBS News Hour/Lou Dobbs on CNN/ABC "20/20"
subject matter.

The Gang of Fourteen aren't only hypocrites themselves; they
have a three layer defense team of hypocrites watching their
back in the press. PBS's coverage alone runs the gamut
from slightly leftist (Jim Lehrer) to rabidly leftist (Bill
Moyers), with Tucker Carlson as a sole exception.

By the way, I wonder how Bill Moyers likes his shoe
leather - with chutney or A-1 Sauce? His impassioned
defense of Fidel groupie, violent anti-Semite and sponsor of
narcotrafficante and other Latin American terrorism, and
member of the Expanded Axis of Evil Hugo Chavez from that
mean old Bush on his PBS show "NOW" should be replayed, and
replayed, and replayed as a clear demonstration of what Bill
Moyers is all about. He and Ramsey Clark are wonderful
bookends - LBJ insiders who have turned their old boss's
visceral hatred of Communist subversion and terrorism inside
out and 180 degrees.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Howard C. Berkowitz
2005-10-06 13:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance P. Frickey
ESPECIALLY of Jesus Christ were the nominee. After all,
Ginsberg's still in the Court, so the "token Jew" spot's
already full. And the Gang of Fourteen's famous antipathy
toward "born-again Christians" would seem to extend to the
Founder of their faith. :-)
Make it the Irish spot. After all, JC was a bachelor at 30, spent his
evenings drinking with the bhoys, and his mither thought he was God.
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 08:33:46 UTC
Permalink
"Vince" <***@firelaw.us> wrote in message news:vuudnZD1LbmYkNneRVn-***@comcast.com...

<snip>
Post by Vince
But they were not personal buddies and legal counsel to
the president who used executive or attorney client
privilege to conceal their legal opinions.
Appointing a crony and then denying access to the crony's
legal opinions is a "turdsicle" that Bushlickers will wolf
down claiming it's ice cream.
Brain dead bushlickers will say If its good enough for
grofaz I don't need the facts.
After all bush said there were WMDs in Iraq and that was
good enough for bushlickers.
clip clop clip clop... plop.

plonk.
James Toupin
2005-10-06 07:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Venor
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a
born-again Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be
nice...
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
While that is true, I do believe that they at least had experience arguing
cases before the Supreme Court. Ms, Meirs does not.

James
Post by Andrew Venor
ALV
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.
Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from those on the
Leftover Left.
Great Political Theatre...
Pogues On The Run...
Enjoy!
How Sweet It Is!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
D. Patterson
2005-10-06 07:50:53 UTC
Permalink
James Toupin wrote:

[....]
Post by James Toupin
Post by Andrew Venor
James
Then again Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren didn't have
any experience in the Judiciary before being appointed to the Court
either. Nor did Associate Justices William Moody or Byron White.
While that is true, I do believe that they at least had experience arguing
cases before the Supreme Court. Ms, Meirs does not.
James
[....]


Sure, we can see how you would be stupid enough to think that arguing
one or a few cases before the U.S. Supreme Court was somehow more
important than arguing contemporary cases before U.S. District Courts
and state courts within the past quarter of a century, which too many
other Supreme Court Justices have not done.
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-05 18:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...
James
I finally found something that James and I agree on.

Grey Satterfield
James Toupin
2005-10-06 07:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...
James
I finally found something that James and I agree on.
I hope you aren't too shocked by this. It had to happen sometime...

:-)
James
Post by Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-06 12:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Toupin
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...
James
I finally found something that James and I agree on.
I hope you aren't too shocked by this. It had to happen sometime...
:-)
James
Still, I'm gratified. :>)

Grey Satterfield
La N
2005-10-06 15:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by James Toupin
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by James Toupin
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
How sad that her Judicial qualifications extend only to being "a born-again
Christian". Some actual experience in the Judiciary might be nice...
James
I finally found something that James and I agree on.
I hope you aren't too shocked by this. It had to happen sometime...
:-)
James
Still, I'm gratified. :>)
Grey Satterfield
I like these group hug moments ...%)

- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-05 19:10:59 UTC
Permalink
"THE NEXT JUSTICE"

"Harriet Miers
Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real people."

BY JOHN CORNYN
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The Wall Street Journal

"Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's
selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the
aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with
questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know
and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe
she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not
select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the
open seat. I think this criticism is misplaced. For one thing, there is
no evidence that service on the federal court of appeals is a
prerequisite for distinguished service on the Supreme Court: 41 of the
109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial
experience at all when they were nominated. These include several
luminaries from the school of judicial restraint, including the late
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an
asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real
people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of
experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices
who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were
nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who
understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people.

This experience gap is a real one. With the exception of the newly
confirmed chief justice, John Roberts, no justice on the court has been
an advocate in a court of law in the past 25 years, and Chief Justice
Roberts was involved only at the appellate level. ******

Harriet Miers, by contrast, has a long and successful career as a lawyer
representing corporate and individual clients in a variety of state and
federal courts. I am confident that this background provides her with an
understanding of the burdens of modern litigation, a recognition of the
problems with frivolous lawsuits and an appreciation for tort reform.
******

Others have criticized the president because Ms. Miers is a close
confidante, implying that she would not be qualified but for their
relationship. I could not disagree more. Of course, the president is
going to be inclined to nominate someone he knows, likes and has
confidence in. He is not going to nominate someone he does not know or
someone he does not like. So long as she is otherwise qualified to the
Supreme Court, Ms. Miers's long and valuable service to the president
should count in her favor, not against her.

And, moreover, there is little question that she is up to the job. She
has been a true trailblazer for women in the law. She was the first
woman hired by her law firm--one of the most prominent in Texas. She was
the first woman to serve as president of her law firm. She was the first
woman to serve as president of the Dallas Bar Association. She was the
first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association. And her
accomplishments do not end at the Lone Star border.

For the past five years, she has worked at the highest levels in the
White House, including serving as the president's closest legal adviser.
Few lawyers in America have a more impressive resume. And none have more
of the president's confidence.

It is true that she was not educated at East Coast universities and has
not spent her entire career inside the Beltway. This, again, is a plus
in my book, not a minus. Anyone who has followed the Supreme Court in
recent years knows that what the institution needs most is a dose of
life beyond Washington. Last year, the court permitted a public display
of the Ten Commandments in Texas, but not in Kentucky. It took nine
justices on the court 10 different opinions to explain why this was so.
The court is dangerously out of touch with America. Ms. Miers will help
bring it back down to earth.

Ultimately, I think some people are uneasy about Harriet Miers because
they are unfamiliar with her.

To some extent, this is understandable. She has worked outside the
limelight her entire career, always serving others. But it is important
to take a deep breath and not rush to judgment. As the confirmation
process unfolds, Americans will learn a great deal more about Ms. Miers,
and they will like what they see.

I have been fortunate enough to know Harriet for much of her career. I
know that she believes, as I do, that judges should not legislate from
the bench. I know that she believes, as I do, that judges are not some
sort of elite anointed to impose their preferences on the rest of us. I
know that she understands that unelected judges who serve in a democracy
have a limited role--to apply the law as it was written by the people's
representatives. She aptly described her judicial philosophy on Monday
when she said, "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true
to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our
society." The courts, she continued, have "obligations to strictly apply
the laws and the Constitution."

I am confident that when the American people get to know Ms. Miers as I
have, they will be as supportive as I am of her nomination."

"Mr. Cornyn is a Republican senator from Texas and a member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He served previously as attorney general of
Texas, as well as a justice on the state Supreme Court."
----------------------------------------------

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-05 18:17:57 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article upU0f.1144$***@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a Senator from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to flog the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to say?

Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"THE NEXT JUSTICE"
"Harriet Miers
Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real people."
BY JOHN CORNYN
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The Wall Street Journal
"Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's
selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the
aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with
questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know
and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe
she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not
select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the
open seat. I think this criticism is misplaced. For one thing, there is
no evidence that service on the federal court of appeals is a
prerequisite for distinguished service on the Supreme Court: 41 of the
109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial
experience at all when they were nominated. These include several
luminaries from the school of judicial restraint, including the late
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an
asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real
people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of
experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices
who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were
nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who
understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people.
This experience gap is a real one. With the exception of the newly
confirmed chief justice, John Roberts, no justice on the court has been
an advocate in a court of law in the past 25 years, and Chief Justice
Roberts was involved only at the appellate level. ******
Harriet Miers, by contrast, has a long and successful career as a lawyer
representing corporate and individual clients in a variety of state and
federal courts. I am confident that this background provides her with an
understanding of the burdens of modern litigation, a recognition of the
problems with frivolous lawsuits and an appreciation for tort reform.
******
Others have criticized the president because Ms. Miers is a close
confidante, implying that she would not be qualified but for their
relationship. I could not disagree more. Of course, the president is
going to be inclined to nominate someone he knows, likes and has
confidence in. He is not going to nominate someone he does not know or
someone he does not like. So long as she is otherwise qualified to the
Supreme Court, Ms. Miers's long and valuable service to the president
should count in her favor, not against her.
And, moreover, there is little question that she is up to the job. She
has been a true trailblazer for women in the law. She was the first
woman hired by her law firm--one of the most prominent in Texas. She was
the first woman to serve as president of her law firm. She was the first
woman to serve as president of the Dallas Bar Association. She was the
first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association. And her
accomplishments do not end at the Lone Star border.
For the past five years, she has worked at the highest levels in the
White House, including serving as the president's closest legal adviser.
Few lawyers in America have a more impressive resume. And none have more
of the president's confidence.
It is true that she was not educated at East Coast universities and has
not spent her entire career inside the Beltway. This, again, is a plus
in my book, not a minus. Anyone who has followed the Supreme Court in
recent years knows that what the institution needs most is a dose of
life beyond Washington. Last year, the court permitted a public display
of the Ten Commandments in Texas, but not in Kentucky. It took nine
justices on the court 10 different opinions to explain why this was so.
The court is dangerously out of touch with America. Ms. Miers will help
bring it back down to earth.
Ultimately, I think some people are uneasy about Harriet Miers because
they are unfamiliar with her.
To some extent, this is understandable. She has worked outside the
limelight her entire career, always serving others. But it is important
to take a deep breath and not rush to judgment. As the confirmation
process unfolds, Americans will learn a great deal more about Ms. Miers,
and they will like what they see.
I have been fortunate enough to know Harriet for much of her career. I
know that she believes, as I do, that judges should not legislate from
the bench. I know that she believes, as I do, that judges are not some
sort of elite anointed to impose their preferences on the rest of us. I
know that she understands that unelected judges who serve in a democracy
have a limited role--to apply the law as it was written by the people's
representatives. She aptly described her judicial philosophy on Monday
when she said, "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true
to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our
society." The courts, she continued, have "obligations to strictly apply
the laws and the Constitution."
I am confident that when the American people get to know Ms. Miers as I
have, they will be as supportive as I am of her nomination."
"Mr. Cornyn is a Republican senator from Texas and a member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He served previously as attorney general of
Texas, as well as a justice on the state Supreme Court."
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 11:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"THE NEXT JUSTICE"
"Harriet Miers
Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real
people."
BY JOHN CORNYN
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The Wall Street Journal
<snip>
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article
This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a Senator
from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to flog
the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to say?
Grey Satterfield
In what way is it claptrap?

Have you proof that any of Sen. Cornyn's statements below
about Ms. Miers is false, or even that they are not proven?

And since when is the administration not permitted spokesmen
to explain its acts to the media? (Even if those spokesmen
are US Senators?)

Certainly Bush's predecessor had plenty of partisans and
spokespeople in the Senate, especially during his
impeachment trial, and just as certainly, Bush's opponents
are not shy about voicing and writing their opinions.

What else are senators - any of them - going to say but what
benefits their goals and ambitions?
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-06 12:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article
This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a Senator
from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to flog
the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to say?
In what way is it claptrap?
Have you proof that any of Sen. Cornyn's statements below
about Ms. Miers is false, or even that they are not proven?
And since when is the administration not permitted spokesmen
to explain its acts to the media? (Even if those spokesmen
are US Senators?)
Certainly Bush's predecessor had plenty of partisans and
spokespeople in the Senate, especially during his
impeachment trial, and just as certainly, Bush's opponents
are not shy about voicing and writing their opinions.
What else are senators - any of them - going to say but what
benefits their goals and ambitions?
My definition of claptrap is, "pompous or pretentious talk or writing." I
don't thing that what Senator Cornyn wrote is necessarily untrue, I simply
think that it is unconvincing bombast because of who Cornyn is. I would
have had the same reaction if the puff piece had been written by a senator
from a Democratic president's and his supreme court nominee's home state.

Grey Satterfield
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 20:23:03 UTC
Permalink
On 10/6/05 6:11 AM, in article
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article
This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a Senator
from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to flog
the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to say?
In what way is it claptrap?
Have you proof that any of Sen. Cornyn's statements below
about Ms. Miers is false, or even that they are not
proven?
And since when is the administration not permitted
spokesmen
to explain its acts to the media? (Even if those
spokesmen
are US Senators?)
Certainly Bush's predecessor had plenty of partisans and
spokespeople in the Senate, especially during his
impeachment trial, and just as certainly, Bush's
opponents
are not shy about voicing and writing their opinions.
What else are senators - any of them - going to say but
what
benefits their goals and ambitions?
My definition of claptrap is, "pompous or pretentious talk
or writing." I
don't thing that what Senator Cornyn wrote is necessarily
untrue, I simply
think that it is unconvincing bombast because of who
Cornyn is. I would
have had the same reaction if the puff piece had been
written by a senator
from a Democratic president's and his supreme court
nominee's home state.
Fair enough. Just was curious if Cornyn had actually lied
before witnesses.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-06 23:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance P. Frickey
On 10/6/05 6:11 AM, in article
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article
This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a Senator from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to flog the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to say?
In what way is it claptrap?
Have you proof that any of Sen. Cornyn's statements below
about Ms. Miers is false, or even that they are not
proven?
And since when is the administration not permitted spokesmen to explain its
acts to the media? (Even if those spokesmen are US Senators?)
Certainly Bush's predecessor had plenty of partisans and spokespeople in the
Senate, especially during his impeachment trial, and just as certainly,
Bush's opponents are not shy about voicing and writing their opinions.
What else are senators - any of them - going to say but what benefits their
goals and ambitions?
My definition of claptrap is, "pompous or pretentious talk or writing." I
don't thing that what Senator Cornyn wrote is necessarily untrue, I simply
think that it is unconvincing bombast because of who Cornyn is. I would have
had the same reaction if the puff piece had been written by a senator from a
Democratic president's and his supreme court nominee's home state.
Fair enough. Just was curious if Cornyn had actually lied
before witnesses.
Indeed. The most interesting part of this process is still to come because
the Democrats will do a background check on Ms. Miers that will give new
meaning to the term, "Opposition Research."

Grey Satterfield
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-09 16:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On 10/6/05 3:23 PM, in article
Post by Vance P. Frickey
On 10/6/05 6:11 AM, in article
Post by Vance P. Frickey
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 10/5/05 2:10 PM, in article
This is unconvincing claptrap to me. Cornyn, a
Senator from Texas, is
clearly the administration's designated henchman to
flog the Miers
nomination in the media. What else is he going to
say?
In what way is it claptrap?
Have you proof that any of Sen. Cornyn's statements
below
about Ms. Miers is false, or even that they are not
proven?
And since when is the administration not permitted
spokesmen to explain its
acts to the media? (Even if those spokesmen are US
Senators?)
Certainly Bush's predecessor had plenty of partisans
and spokespeople in the
Senate, especially during his impeachment trial, and
just as certainly,
Bush's opponents are not shy about voicing and writing
their opinions.
What else are senators - any of them - going to say but
what benefits their
goals and ambitions?
My definition of claptrap is, "pompous or pretentious
talk or writing." I
don't thing that what Senator Cornyn wrote is
necessarily untrue, I simply
think that it is unconvincing bombast because of who
Cornyn is. I would have
had the same reaction if the puff piece had been written
by a senator from a
Democratic president's and his supreme court nominee's
home state.
Fair enough. Just was curious if Cornyn had actually
lied
before witnesses.
Indeed. The most interesting part of this process is
still to come because
the Democrats will do a background check on Ms. Miers that
will give new
meaning to the term, "Opposition Research."
I just saw
- Pat Buchanan and some fellow from the Southern Baptist
Convention on "Meet the Press" arguing Miers' nomination,
and before that,
- George Will flinging his freshly severed conservative
credentials into that Temple of Cybele which is the ABC
Sunday morning show.

The Democrats needn't exert themselves - knee-jerk
conservatives, sensing their chance for a slam-dunk reversal
of Roe v. Wade going down the tubes, are doing everything to
Miers that they'd wish to do.

But the Dems will let slip the Keyhole Sniffers of War and
waste a lot of money not finding anything with which to
crucify Miers themselves - at least nothing smacking of
salacious gossip or DeLay-esque impropriety.

The bright thing for the Senate Democratic Caucus to do just
now is to embrace Miers warmly - to make sure everyone knows
they think they can count on Miers to uphold Roe v. Wade,
overwrought "penumbras" emanating from the Fourth Amendment
and all. The right wing of Bush's own party will do what
little else is required.
Grey Satterfield
2005-10-05 18:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a born-again
Christian.
This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.
Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from those on the
Leftover Left.
I haven't read what Kristol has to say but I did read Will's piece this
morning. I was left the impression that he had a hidden agenda: he has
never forgiven Bush for signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
bill. The McCain Feingold issue is so unrelated to Ms. Miers qualifications
that it makes me question Will's judgment. In the absence of dramatically
damaging revelations about Ms. Miers, I believe there will be few if any
Republican defections when the vote on her confirmation is held.

I must say, though, Ms. Miers qualifications for appointment to the supreme
court are marginal, at best, and the nomination seems to have been the act
of a damaged president trying to make sure that he isn't embarrassed by
having one of his supreme court nominees rejected by the senate.

Grey Satterfield

Grey Satterfield
D. Patterson
2005-10-05 18:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Grey Satterfield wrote:

[....]
Post by Grey Satterfield
I haven't read what Kristol has to say but I did read Will's piece this
morning. I was left the impression that he had a hidden agenda: he has
never forgiven Bush for signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
bill. The McCain Feingold issue is so unrelated to Ms. Miers qualifications
that it makes me question Will's judgment. In the absence of dramatically
damaging revelations about Ms. Miers, I believe there will be few if any
Republican defections when the vote on her confirmation is held.
I must say, though, Ms. Miers qualifications for appointment to the supreme
court are marginal, at best, and the nomination seems to have been the act
of a damaged president trying to make sure that he isn't embarrassed by
having one of his supreme court nominees rejected by the senate.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
It would have been much more interesting if she was one of those judges
who had never been a lawyer or a member of the bar association.
Vance P. Frickey
2005-10-06 10:40:57 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/05 2:28 AM, in article
Post by D. Spencer Hines
President Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers to be an
Associate Justice
on the Supreme Court of the United States -- another
excellent
nomination. She is eminently qualified for the job.
Harriet Miers, like President Bush himself, is also a
born-again
Christian.
This is going to give many "Liberals" and others on the
Leftover Left
imminent, political, cardiac arrest.
Some stuck-in-the-mud, mossback "Conservatives" -- such
as George Will
and Bill Kristol have also foolishly leaped to oppose
this nomination --
demonstrating extremely poor judgement -- and perhaps
revealing
themselves as just bigots of a different flavor from
those on the
Leftover Left.
I haven't read what Kristol has to say but I did read
Will's piece this
morning.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp

Mr. Kristol's reaction for those of us who can't follow the
above link (please bear in mind that the following article
is the copyrighted property of _The Weekly Standard_ and is
reprinted below under the "fair use" provisions of US
copyright law, for the express purpose of furthering a
public discussion - re-use of this article should be done
according to copyright law):

"I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.
I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to
nominate someone with a visible and distinguished
constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan,
Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice
Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael
McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive
record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration
official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I
know of."

Everyone who sat for the bar exam and passed it, I think,
has already demonstrated no little knowledge of the
Constitution. Certainly, I wondered at times how complete
the late William Rehnquist's grounding in the Constitution
was, because he seems sometimes to have been an
enthusiastic, even Hamiltonian water-carrier for the State
versus the individual, despite the Bill of Rights - VPF.

Kristol: "I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an
unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an
appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the
Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and
that the president had to be ready to fight on
constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he
wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that
President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional
philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent
person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as
reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the
part of the president."

The problem, of course, being that George W. Bush has been a
lightning rod since taking office - if he had selected a
jurist whose qualifications would have been earned while
paring back the encroachments of government, he'd have been
accused of intransigence and being unduly confrontational.
The coprolaliac who entered this thread early on
demonstrates that no matter what Bush does, he will find
emotional and loud opposition - just because - VPF.

Kristol: "I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next
three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a
moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from
weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What
are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are
the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress
in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected
officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork
for conservative leadership after Bush?"

Kristol's not being fair to the President; he's reading a
lot into this decision that's not apparent to me, such as
this demoralization thing he complains of. There are so
many near-term challenges for which Bush will have to expend
massive political capital; he can be forgiven for trying to
conserve that commodity for a time when it will really come
in handy. And the fact is, we just don't _know_ Harriet
Miers. Bush does. We pay him to make judgments like that.
but I did read Will's piece this morning. I was left the
impression that he had a hidden agenda: he has
never forgiven Bush for signing the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform bill. The McCain Feingold
issue is so unrelated to Ms. Miers qualifications
that it makes me question Will's judgment.
I started questioning Will's judgment when he started
appearing on the ABC Sunday morning show. There, Will
appears to be an amiable strawman who is there to give the
other panelists a tame conservative they can bat down with
their blunted lances, and his presence on the panel gives
that show an undeserved air of quality.

Unfortunately, George Will's best days are far behind him as
an incisive commentator on politics.

At least _the McLaughlin Group_ has Tony Blankley as their
token conservative - it'd be entertaining to see how long it
would take Blankley (placed in Will's seat on the ABC show)
to turn Stephanopoulos et al into mulch in a panel
discussion.
In the absence of dramatically
damaging revelations about Ms. Miers, I believe there will
be few if any
Republican defections when the vote on her confirmation is
held.
I must say, though, Ms. Miers qualifications for
appointment to the supreme
court are marginal, at best, and the nomination seems to
have been the act
of a damaged president trying to make sure that he isn't
embarrassed by
having one of his supreme court nominees rejected by the
senate.
Agreed. Bush seems to have punted when he was on the
opposition's twenty-five yard line, first and ten - not
unduly difficult scoring position. Of course, the
President could be looking ahead to the partisan Inquisition
over Katrina that the Democrats have promised him and
conserving political strength, or there might be other
problems ahead of which we know nothing. This could be
another case like many of Eisenhower's in which people are
judging decisions without having all of the facts.

People here in Denver who care about the issue at all are
saying that Miers may be a strawman of a different sort -
one that the Democrats can make a large show of opposing so
the Republicans can say "OK, we tried to be reasonable; we
took heat from Dobson and company trying to serve you up a
political moderate. Now we're going nuclear and you're not
going to like who we put up for this seat afterwards."
Perhaps this is convoluted reasoning, but Washington, DC is
a convoluted place.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail

"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."

Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-07 18:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

"Conservative" pogues and poguettes, full of righteous anger, are
running in tight little circles and chasing their tails over the
nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

They are totally unaware of what fools they are making of themselves.

Great Political Theatre!

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
A***@aol.com
2005-10-10 12:03:56 UTC
Permalink
To avoid jumping to conclusions like I sometimes do, I spent some time
studying the situation before mouthing off. So far I have found nothing
negative about the nomination, and a number of positives, so I think
Bush made a wise choice. Anyways, it is probably better at the moment
for Bush to be criticized from the right than the left, if only to take
some of the wind out of the sails of the critics on the left :-)

Most of the negatives in the media about what has happened during
Bush's second term are just hot air, as far as I can see. The critics
on the left have yet to offer a *single* practical, constructive
suggestion that was feasible to implement. Their criticism had only the
object of creating a negative perception in the public mind, rather
than any constructive purpose. It was all a fraud perpetrated on the
gullible public, in other words, with the political object of gaining
more votes in future elections. Meanwhile Bush has the responsibility
of taking constructive actions to solve real problems, despite the
critics, and so far it is hard to think of a single concrete
improvement that could have been made on his policies. All the
suggested improvements I have heard from the left were unworkable in
practice, and had an ulterior political motive, namely to screw things
up if Bush were so foolish as to adopt those suggestions, and in the
meantime make him look as bad as possible. But those critics have done
nothing constructive to solve our real problems.
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-10 03:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Satterfield is so ignorant he thinks writing "imminently" for
"eminently" is just a simple spelling error -- it is not.

It is also a fundamental error of getting the wrong word.

"Imminently" and "eminently" are two completely separate words with
completely different meanings -- any lawyer worth the powder to blow him
to hell should know that.

Plus, he makes a passel of other errors as well. See below.

Satterfield The Illiterate Lawyer Strikes Again!

The man is a walking, talking one-man comedy act.

Great Fun To Watch, However!

DSH
--------------------------------------

| Note, however, that Vince and other liberal Democrats of his ilk would
have
| had equally harsh things to say about ANY Bush nominee. That is the
only
| reason 22 (?) Democratic senators shamefully voted against John
Roberts's
| confirmation as Chief Justice, although Roberts is perhaps the most
| imminently [sic] well qualified [sic] nominees [sic] to the Court in
the past 50 years. Blue
| state [sic] Democratic senators know that the Vince's [sic] among
their constituency
| would be deeply offended by a vote to confirm any Bush appointee.
It's sad,
| but there it is.
|
| Grey Satterfield
robin hood
2005-10-12 00:08:16 UTC
Permalink
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?


A Nov 24, 2004 Description:


A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
On Nov. 20, 2004, Elisabth Bumiller of The Times profiled Ms. Miers:
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas

of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.''
Those attributes should help her in a new job that requires her to
advise Mr. Bush not only on national security and military law -- a
large part of the counsel's responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer.
''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips
are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former
director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give
the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''
Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and

assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to
reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday.
But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the
kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush

likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment
reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of
his inner circle to critical positions for his second term....


<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html>
Mark Test
2005-10-12 02:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or have
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
Post by robin hood
A Woman Of Low Profile In a Job High-Powered
The woman President Bush appointed this week as White House counsel,
Harriet Miers, is hardly known in Washington but has a history in Texas
of handling years of scandal at the state's lottery commission. The
president, who once retained her as his personal lawyer, described her
in 1996 as ''a pit bull in Size 6 shoes.''
Those attributes should help her in a new job that requires her to
advise Mr. Bush not only on national security and military law -- a
large part of the counsel's responsibilities since Sept. 11, 2001 --
but also on continuing legal investigations, including an inquiry into
who in the administration leaked the name of a C.I.A. undercover
officer.
Facts would be nice. This CIA "operative" was not undercover,
no cover blown. (no crime either, her neighbors even knew she was CIA)
Post by robin hood
''She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips
are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former
director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give
the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''
Ms. Miers, 59, currently serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and
That's nice, a qualified judge would be nicer.
Post by robin hood
assistant to the president. She has rarely, if ever, talked to
reporters since arriving in Washington in 2001, and she declined a
request for an interview on Friday.
Good on her.
Post by robin hood
But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the
kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush
likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment
reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of
his inner circle to critical positions for his second term....
Nothing wrong with rewarding loyality, but SC Justice?
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-12 03:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or have
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
After his term or after impeachment the president t can be tried like
any other person. or have the kneejerkneoconbrowshirtlitebushlikers
changed that part of the Constitution too?

Nixon accepted a pardon to avoid criminal trial. he resigned to avoid
impeachment

Vince
Mark Test
2005-10-13 05:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or have
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
After his term or after impeachment the president t can be tried like
any other person. or have the kneejerkneoconbrowshirtlitebushlikers
changed that part of the Constitution too?
And this has what to do with a SC nomination?????
Post by Vince Brannigan
Nixon accepted a pardon to avoid criminal trial. he resigned to avoid
impeachment
And this has what to do regarding idiot R hood's rant?????

Since in your opinion Bush will simply accept a pardon (like all those
crooks who Clinton pardoned).
Vince
2005-10-13 11:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or have
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
After his term or after impeachment the president t can be tried like
any other person. or have the kneejerkneoconbrowshirtlitebushlikers
changed that part of the Constitution too?
And this has what to do with a SC nomination?????
Nothing
It has to do with your incorrect statement about the Constitution
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Nixon accepted a pardon to avoid criminal trial. he resigned to avoid
impeachment
And this has what to do regarding idiot R hood's rant?????
Since in your opinion Bush will simply accept a pardon (like all those
crooks who Clinton pardoned).
Didnt say that.
I simply pointed out that you can try an ex president in the Courts


Vince
Mark Test
2005-10-15 02:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or have
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
After his term or after impeachment the president t can be tried like
any other person. or have the kneejerkneoconbrowshirtlitebushlikers
changed that part of the Constitution too?
And this has what to do with a SC nomination?????
Nothing
It has to do with your incorrect statement about the Constitution
Incorrect? You try a sitting President in the Senate. You brought
up the "after" President stuff, yes we all know he's just a regular
citizen after his term is up.
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Nixon accepted a pardon to avoid criminal trial. he resigned to avoid
impeachment
And this has what to do regarding idiot R hood's rant?????
Since in your opinion Bush will simply accept a pardon (like all those
crooks who Clinton pardoned).
Didnt say that.
I simply pointed out that you can try an ex president in the Courts
I see, and I was talking about a sitting President, a slight disconnect
between
us....

Mark
robbin hood zoro
2005-10-15 04:03:02 UTC
Permalink
you lose Mark... and I wasn't even fighting you.
Vince
2005-10-15 11:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood
IS BUSH STACKING COURT TO GET READY FOR THE CRIMINAL TREASON HEARINGS
AGAINST HIM, ROVE, LIBBY, ET AL?
Uh, NO....you try a President in the Senate...not Supreme Court, or
have
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Mark Test
the libs changed that part of the Constitution too????
After his term or after impeachment the president t can be tried like
any other person. or have the kneejerkneoconbrowshirtlitebushlikers
changed that part of the Constitution too?
And this has what to do with a SC nomination?????
Nothing
It has to do with your incorrect statement about the Constitution
Incorrect? You try a sitting President in the Senate. You brought
up the "after" President stuff, yes we all know he's just a regular
citizen after his term is up.
Post by Mark Test
Post by Mark Test
Post by Vince Brannigan
Nixon accepted a pardon to avoid criminal trial. he resigned to avoid
impeachment
And this has what to do regarding idiot R hood's rant?????
Since in your opinion Bush will simply accept a pardon (like all those
crooks who Clinton pardoned).
Didnt say that.
I simply pointed out that you can try an ex president in the Courts
I see, and I was talking about a sitting President, a slight disconnect
between
us....
Exactly where in the constitution does it say a sitting president is
immune from criminal process?

Vince
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...