The W
Views: 95673193
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.4.07 0109
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - More ammo for the Tom Delay haters Register and log in to post!
(307 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (13 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 138

Posts: 2394/6114
EXP: 31042466
For next: 620594

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 5.4.05 2005.17
Reposted on: 5.4.12 2010.02
Drudge is reporting:


    NYT PAGE ONE LEAD, WEDNESDAY, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: Ethical questions surrounding House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas intensify... A six-day trip to Moscow in 1997 by then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the trip arrangements.
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3164/5393
EXP: 26538548
For next: 593456

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 5.4.05 2011.42
Reposted on: 5.4.12 2011.53
It's really to the point where no matter what comes out, unless someone gets video of Tom DeLay working as an abortionist, those who agree with the GOP will say it's just a liberal media plot to get a good and pious man, and the Dems will yell into the empty room about his ethical concerns. He's not going anywhere, he's not going to be bumped out of power because he has fortified his position as THE conservative voice in DC, and the Dems are wasting money to pursue this. Plus it only serves to confirm the thought in people's minds that the Dems go after religious conservatives.

Let him be, let the GOP keep overreaching (check out the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (thomas.loc.gov) for more evidence of that) and just keep their heads down and not give any more evidence that they are Godless heathens. That's my way of dealing with this :)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1943/2042
EXP: 6182778
For next: 210021

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2847 days
Last activity: 61 days
#3 Posted on 5.4.05 2157.47
Reposted on: 5.4.12 2158.01


Even though it has a very slim chance of ever coming to the floor for a full vote, every single American reading this ought to check out that bill, just to see how drastically some of our elected officials want to change this nation's direction and system of government.

And they've tried to do it TWICE. Zell Miller introduced a nigh-identical bill with the sponsors of this one in 2004, which died in subcommittee.

My House rep is one of the cosponsors. I have had to fight off the urge several times to shit in an envelope and mail it to him to formally register my opinion on the subject.

But on track with the original subject, I say: attack, attack, attack, attack and attack some more. That's been the Republicans' modus operandi for the last decade, and it's worked for them pretty well, so adapt and prosper. There's certainly no shortage of target circles on DeLay and his ilk.


(edited by vsp on 5.4.05 2259)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 4579/4700
EXP: 21130781
For next: 100545

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1083 days
Last activity: 880 days
#4 Posted on 6.4.05 0657.23
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0658.28
    Originally posted by vsp
    <>Even though it has a very slim chance of ever coming to the floor for a full vote, every single American reading this ought to check out that bill, just to see how drastically some of our elected officials want to change this nation's direction and system of government.
Congress has the power to limit the scope of what the Federal juduciary can and cannot hear.

Frankly, I would question the motives of anyboy who does not support Section 201 of this statute.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 95

Posts: 1363/2683
EXP: 8619303
For next: 49335

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on 6.4.05 0727.59
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0728.00
Vsp, the only way for extremism. on both sides, to end is to allow it the light of day. People in this country aren't as "conservative" as they think. In Kansas, another two years of domination by the ultra-right in Topeka, will likely start to break their hold on state government. Hopefully, we will a still have a state that needs a government.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3165/5393
EXP: 26538548
For next: 593456

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 6.4.05 0819.50
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0820.05
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      <>Even though it has a very slim chance of ever coming to the floor for a full vote, every single American reading this ought to check out that bill, just to see how drastically some of our elected officials want to change this nation's direction and system of government.
    Congress has the power to limit the scope of what the Federal juduciary can and cannot hear.

    Frankly, I would question the motives of anyboy who does not support Section 201 of this statute.

Of course, lurking above that part of the bill is this:
    Originally posted by the bill in question
    `Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 237/545
EXP: 779684
For next: 43864

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1112 days
Last activity: 37 days
#7 Posted on 6.4.05 0840.44
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0840.44
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Frankly, I would question the motives of anyboy who does not support Section 201 of this statute.


Grimis, what would the result have been if this section 201 had been in effect at the time of Brown v. Board of education? Common law at the time the Constitution was adopted permitted slavery, fer chrissakes.

Dr. Dirt, I agree that the way to end extremism is to shed light on it. When you say "people aren't as conservative as they think", my only response is that many people in this country just don't think anyway.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 4581/4700
EXP: 21130781
For next: 100545

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1083 days
Last activity: 880 days
#8 Posted on 6.4.05 0850.23
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0852.55
    Originally posted by too-old-now
    Grimis, what would the result have been if this section 201 had been in effect at the time of Brown v. Board of education? Common law at the time the Constitution was adopted permitted slavery, fer chrissakes.
That's not analagous. In Brown the court did not cite foreign law as its precedent for the decison. They have in recent decisions, most prevelant being the decision to outlaw the execution of those who committed crimes under the age of 18.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1944/2042
EXP: 6182778
For next: 210021

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2847 days
Last activity: 61 days
#9 Posted on 6.4.05 0901.33
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0903.42
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Frankly, I would question the motives of anybody who does not support Section 201 of this statute.


Question my motives.

It's not 100% cuckoo, xenophobic though it is, until you couple it with Section 302 (signifying that a judge who even _references_ what courts and lawmakers in other civilized and allied nations are doing can be impeached and removed from the bench.) More food for thought on that concept (Slate).

But that's the least objectionable part of the bill, by far, as it's ridiculously and absurdly overbroad.

Imagine that this passes. Imagine that a state -- say, oh, Alabama -- has its judiciary overrun by Roy Moore clones. (Not TOO big a stretch, considering that Roy Moore was Chief Justice there not too long ago. Just follow my hyperbole for another minute or two.)

Alabama's legislature declares that Alabama is a Christian State[tm] and that sodomy is now a stoning-to-death offense because it's Immoral and Unholy and Against the Will and Law of Almighty God. What is the effect of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005?

1) Sections 101 and 102 remove jurisdiction from _all_ federal courts, including the Supremes, because "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" was the motivation behind the new sodomy law.

2) Section 201 locks out all other sources of judicial input. (Does a state court consider another state's courts to be a "foreign state?")

3) Section 301 locks out all prior federal court precedents, including Lawrence vs. Texas, making them non-binding.

4) Section 302 declares that any federal judge who dares to quibble with the above can be impeached, removed and replaced with a different judge who won't complain next time.

So if you're convicted and state appellate courts uphold the conviction, guess what? End of the line, folks. Try to be gay in a different state in your next life.

An exaggerated example? Of course. But the CRA, as written, would in fact make the above _possible_ by completely locking federal courts and their precedents out of states' decisions, along with a wide range of lesser actions "in the name of God." Might as well write off certain states as miniature Christian fiefdoms and be done with it.

If Brownback & Co. have problems with the courts' handling of religious issues (the Ten Commandments issue in particular, as the Roy Moore circus was what spawned the prior version of this bill), there are reasonable ways of addressing this concern. This bill isn't one of them; rather, it's a Pat Robertson theocratic wet dream waiting to happen.

I'm not _generally_ given to outrageous hyperbole, or known for posting "Tom DeLay wants to forcibly install radio antennas in liberal's heads to bombard them with the 700 Club and Hannity 24-7" conspiracy theories. This bill, however, sets off every fucking alarm bell in my head and then some. My one comfort is that it's SO obviously a "We want theocracy" statement that it'll never reach the floor, much less draw votes from reasonably moderate Republicans and pass.

Right?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 95

Posts: 1364/2683
EXP: 8619303
For next: 49335

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on 6.4.05 0906.25
Reposted on: 6.4.12 0907.23
    Originally posted by too-old-now
    Dr. Dirt, I agree that the way to end extremism is to shed light on it. When you say "people aren't as conservative as they think", my only response is that many people in this country just don't think anyway.




And that it what is so appealing about the far right and left. Both see the world in black and white. This way of viewing all situations eliminates the need for thought and allows for arrogance and moral superiority. The shades of gray that constitute reality produce uncertainty and doubt. It appears the more complex the world becomes and the more information at our disposal, the less we want to cope with it.

And being from Kansas, Brownback scares the hell out of me.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 4582/4700
EXP: 21130781
For next: 100545

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1083 days
Last activity: 880 days
#11 Posted on 6.4.05 1023.02
Reposted on: 6.4.12 1023.26
    Originally posted by vsp
    3) Section 301 locks out all prior federal court precedents, including Lawrence vs. Texas, making them non-binding.
But that's not the case. Section 301 only locks out precedents whose jurisdiction has been removed from federal court. Now I admit that the provision has the potential for harm, but it is not the all encompassing removal you say it is.

    Originally posted by vsp
    4) Section 302 declares that any federal judge who dares to quibble with the above can be impeached, removed and replaced with a different judge who won't complain next time.
Technically, the above is correct regardless of the existance of 302 because doing so with the remainding section would be violating federal law, and thus opens the judge to impeachment.

    Originally posted by vsp
    So if you're convicted and state appellate courts uphold the conviction, guess what? End of the line, folks.
But again, that's not the case because the Supremes may have jurisdiction on Constitutional grounds.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1945/2042
EXP: 6182778
For next: 210021

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2847 days
Last activity: 61 days
#12 Posted on 6.4.05 1034.12
Reposted on: 6.4.12 1034.53
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      3) Section 301 locks out all prior federal court precedents, including Lawrence vs. Texas, making them non-binding.
    But that's not the case. Section 301 only locks out precedents whose jurisdiction has been removed from federal court. Now I admit that the provision has the potential for harm, but it is not the all encompassing removal you say it is.


Let me rephrase this, then. Section 301 locks out all prior federal court precedents that have anything to do with God being the sovereign source of law, etc., not ALL legal precedents.

Does this not include cases like Lawrence vs. Texas, where laws based on religious morality were overturned on legal grounds? I think you'd be surprised at how often lawyers would try to apply the CRA to precedents, claiming violations of religious freedom had taken place.

    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      So if you're convicted and state appellate courts uphold the conviction, guess what? End of the line, folks.
    But again, that's not the case because the Supremes may have jurisdiction on Constitutional grounds.


That's not the intent of the bill at all. They're trying to claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to specifically exempt religion-themed laws from Supreme Court scrutiny, INCLUDING their Constitutionality or lack thereof. No amendment would be necessarily from their POV to do so, because they'd be citing Constitutional authority to reduce the Supremes/feds' jurisdiction over Constitutional interpretation.

Would it hold up? Probably not, but it's a potential Constitutional clusterfuck of massive proportions if it's ever tested.

(edited by vsp on 6.4.05 1136)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 4583/4700
EXP: 21130781
For next: 100545

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1083 days
Last activity: 880 days
#13 Posted on 6.4.05 1059.02
Reposted on: 6.4.12 1101.12
    Originally posted by vsp
    Does this not include cases like Lawrence vs. Texas, where laws based on religious morality were overturned on legal grounds? I think you'd be surprised at how often lawyers would try to apply the CRA to precedents, claiming violations of religious freedom had taken place.
To be truthful, I don't know. I don't think that is the intent of the law, but I see your point.

    Originally posted by vsp
    That's not the intent of the bill at all. They're trying to claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to specifically exempt religion-themed laws from Supreme Court scrutiny, INCLUDING their Constitutionality or lack thereof. No amendment would be necessarily from their POV to do so, because they'd be citing Constitutional authority to reduce the Supremes/feds' jurisdiction over Constitutional interpretation.
But they are not reducing power over cases involving the Constitution. Just narrowing the scope of non-Constitutional law the feds have under their jursidiction. A law excluding the courts from having jurisdiction over Constitutional issues would be, well, unconstitutional.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: The Marathon of Hope started 25 years ago today
Next thread: Adscam (and a question for Canadian W's that may involve breaking the law)
Previous thread: Last Rites given to Pope John Paul II
(307 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - More ammo for the Tom Delay hatersRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.197 seconds.