Judicial Violence
-
Chris Losinger wrote: somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it you made my point, thanks. Chris Losinger wrote: they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. Chris Losinger wrote: judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. then Terri will not have been murdered died in vain. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: you made my point, thanks really? you really think that's what happened ? you think the guys who wrote that law are so fucking stupid that they just couldn't write the law so that they'd get the result they (want you to think they) wanted ? a bunch of Congressmen and their staffs just couldn't find a way to get down on paper what they really meant - and you trust them more than you trust judges ? or maybe, they did get the result they wanted: they got The Base all frantic and frenzied. remember, Tom DeLay (Hero Of The Stupid), called Shiavo a gift from God that would allow the Republicans to highlight their awful plight. see how she's working for them? ghouls. Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. tell it to da judge Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Chris Losinger wrote: somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it you made my point, thanks. Chris Losinger wrote: they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. Chris Losinger wrote: judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. then Terri will not have been murdered died in vain. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: is everyone that starves to death murdered? well, it can't be everyone[^] Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? What? F**k the poor, you frigging hippy. Poor people aren't really people anyway. They're like the outdoor pets you bathe infrequently, have marginal attachment to, and when they encounter a giant bear and don't come home for dinner anymore, you shrug and start humming, "Born freeeeee... freeee as the wind blows.... freeee as the grass grows...." For a real world example, just ask New York how upset they were when Giuliani had all the homeless people killed and turned into hot dog meat.
-
jasontg wrote: is everyone that starves to death murdered? well, it can't be everyone[^] Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
I don't know what your problem is Chris. Just listen to all this good news! From the article: By one count, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. The country's sewer systems are in disarray. 80% of the country has access to water! If his wife is fortunate enough to find a can of Isomil, the nutritional supplement that doctors recommend, she pays $7 for it. "But the lady in the next bed said she just paid $10," said Suad Ahmed A victory for the free market! "The people are astonished," said Khalil M. Mehdi, who directs the Nutrition Research Institute at the Health Ministry. Astonished at the peace and happiness that has entered their lives now that Saddam is gone! Horray for everything!
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? It is the ones who had a husband with a common law wife and two children and a million dollar plus settlement (medical malpractice) and a set of parents and siblings who were willing to care for her, yet chose to murder her by dening food and water because "she" wouldn't want to live that way. of course he only remembered her wish fours years later an then only after the settlement. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: You're full of sh*t Losinger. No Stan, YOU are the one who's full of shit. You'll settle down as soon as you get your good nice saintly republicunt judges in place. See, you're not worried about judicial activism (or any other abuse of power). I guarantee if it was republicans doing the exact same things you see the democrats doing, we would not hear you whining about it. To prove that, I'm going to predict that in response to this, you'll write something along the lines of "well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things". You're just like a 4 year old. Mommy!!!!! I hit Danny and he hit me back! WAHHH!!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things... :omg: Wait a minute... damn, you're good... Actually, the truth is that a blind man can see that the courts are out of control. The Courts are currently doing what the left cannot get done democratically. They represent the only way the left has of forcing its will upon those of us who do not agree with it. If things were reveresed, if Scalia was, in fact, implementing a conservative political agenda via the courts as the democrats won election after election, I doubt that you would be all that sanguine about it. The courts were never intended to be an extra-democratic political body, they are merely there to ensure that the law reflects the constitutional will of the people, not to set themselves up as a force to defeat the will of the people. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. says who? twice, under oath, her husband stated she did not. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
jasontg wrote: Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? It is the ones who had a husband with a common law wife and two children and a million dollar plus settlement (medical malpractice) and a set of parents and siblings who were willing to care for her, yet chose to murder her by dening food and water because "she" wouldn't want to live that way. of course he only remembered her wish fours years later an then only after the settlement. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: a common law wife Please note[^], the State of Florida does not recognize such a thing. please stop spreading false information. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
jasontg wrote: Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? It is the ones who had a husband with a common law wife and two children and a million dollar plus settlement (medical malpractice) and a set of parents and siblings who were willing to care for her, yet chose to murder her by dening food and water because "she" wouldn't want to live that way. of course he only remembered her wish fours years later an then only after the settlement. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
This was generally covered in a previous discussion, I believe. The rebuttal started at about here : http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1070292&forumid=2605#xx1070292xx[^] Slightly different context, but if you follow the thread, it does cover the high points. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
-
Chris Losinger wrote: And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. When I was reading that I was thinking more about Middle Eastern terrorists and their use of violence. Of course, talking about violent cause-and-effect in regards to "judicial activism" means that we should consider limiting the influence of the judges, but talking about violent cause-and-effect in regards to international terrorists means that you are "soft on terrorism". Not that I'm arguing for some Chomskyesque "it's all the West's fault" idea here, just pointing out the double standard Republicans would like to use. Maybe democrats should start accusing Cornyn of being soft on judge killers. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^] It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed.
indeed... and by using the "builds up and builds up" analogy, he in effect excuses anyone who would harm judges. after all, who could blame steam for bursting a pipe, after too much pressure had built up ? no, we wouldn't blame the steam; we'd blame those who increased the pressure on the steam. the steamis blameless - but we need to be careful what we do with it, or someone could get hurt. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: a common law wife Please note[^], the State of Florida does not recognize such a thing. please stop spreading false information. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: Mike Gaskey wrote: a common law wife Please note[^], the State of Florida does not recognize such a thing. please stop spreading false information. excuse me. he has two bastards by his mistress. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
WTF?
And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence.
umm, idjit (Cornyn, not Mike)? the recent cases of violence against judges were completely a-political. Cornyn is talking out his ass here, for the benefit of all the arm-chair vigilantes out there in Wingnutville. he's saying "Hey, nice judiciary you got there. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it," just like his fellow Radical Texan, Tom DeLay said last week. now, should any asshat with a Ryder truck try to blow up a Federal courthouse, will Cornyn and DeLay regret their remarks ? will Coulter moan that they didn't go to the NYT ? most likely, they're paving the way for W's latest round of radical judicial nominees, by making it seem like there's an urgent need to replace people who follow the law with people who will follow the gospel of Radical Republicanism. tell me, why should "The Rule Of Law" only apply when Republicans like the outcome ? Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
I agree that there may be some motivation for that and it look like lots more filibusters in the future. But I think it is a good point that there are very few ways for the public to remove a judge who may be not following the rule of law. An example from the home town is the case (no pun intended) of transporting liquor. A local guy got fined because he had a completely closed case of beer that he had put within arms reach, in the cab of his light truck. Beer Story[^] It is almost never prosecuted and it if you actually look at the text of the law it is clear that they are making a very narrow interpretation it. (5) No person shall possess liquor in a motor vehicle unless the liquor is in a bottle, can or carton and the bottle, can or carton is in luggage, in a container or in a package which is placed in the vehicle where a person occupying the seat normally occupied by the driver cannot have access to it and provided that no person opens the package or vessel or consumes the liquor while carrying or conveying it. R.S., c. 260, s. 54; 2001, c. 4, ss. 22, 29. To my unlaw-skilled eye this reads like it is OK to transport liquor in a vehicle as long as it is not opened. This would make more sense, if it is interpreted otherwise, it is a gross violation of rights as it convicts you before the fact in guessing that you are going to drink while driving. This is was an eye opener for me in that the judiciary and laws can be selectively applied any way they like, based on prevailing political forces.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Mike Gaskey wrote: a common law wife Please note[^], the State of Florida does not recognize such a thing. please stop spreading false information. excuse me. he has two bastards by his mistress. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
I agree that there may be some motivation for that and it look like lots more filibusters in the future. But I think it is a good point that there are very few ways for the public to remove a judge who may be not following the rule of law. An example from the home town is the case (no pun intended) of transporting liquor. A local guy got fined because he had a completely closed case of beer that he had put within arms reach, in the cab of his light truck. Beer Story[^] It is almost never prosecuted and it if you actually look at the text of the law it is clear that they are making a very narrow interpretation it. (5) No person shall possess liquor in a motor vehicle unless the liquor is in a bottle, can or carton and the bottle, can or carton is in luggage, in a container or in a package which is placed in the vehicle where a person occupying the seat normally occupied by the driver cannot have access to it and provided that no person opens the package or vessel or consumes the liquor while carrying or conveying it. R.S., c. 260, s. 54; 2001, c. 4, ss. 22, 29. To my unlaw-skilled eye this reads like it is OK to transport liquor in a vehicle as long as it is not opened. This would make more sense, if it is interpreted otherwise, it is a gross violation of rights as it convicts you before the fact in guessing that you are going to drink while driving. This is was an eye opener for me in that the judiciary and laws can be selectively applied any way they like, based on prevailing political forces.
Oh my goodness! You're just realizing that NOW?? Try to be a victim of a judge in family court (US). I witnessed man after man assumed to be a horrible father while the female judge commiserated with each mother, most of whom made wild accusations against the father with no offer of proof. In my husband's situation, he had proof that the mother was going against their divorce stipulation by denying visitation, using the child as a pawn to "get back at him" and other heinous things. Instead of enforcing the legal divorce stipulation all parties had signed, the judge said, "well if she (the mother) did suchNsuch, I'm sure she had good reason." But in reality, no, there wasn't "good reason" and he had the proof to show it. But no one wanted to hear it. No one wanted to believe that a mother was *gasp* capable of lying. So the judge instead of enforcing the legalities, just made personal biased decisions on the situation at hand. People are so quick to belive the who "dead beat father" thing, but none will believe that a female is capable fo using the child as a pawn. I am female, but I embarrassed by the biased court system towards females (mothers). Violence is most certainly NOT the answer, but man oh man, I can certainly understand frustration about a system that is not fairly implemented. Sigh. :rose:
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: excuse me. he has two bastards by his mistress. What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Would you do it to their faces? Love, Fisticuffs
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
:laugh: Which one of you guys was whining the other day when somebody called you a "neo-con" ("but liberals are *obviously* using it as a perjorative!"). Bunch of hypocrit cry babies. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
:laugh: Which one of you guys was whining the other day when somebody called you a "neo-con" ("but liberals are *obviously* using it as a perjorative!"). Bunch of hypocrit cry babies. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
I`m SO there wrote: when somebody called you a "neo-con" sorry sport, I'm a conservative and proud of it. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.