Judicial Violence
-
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.
-
Anonymous wrote: Gee, because it's not a nice thing to say? ya, let us continue with the political correct crap. that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. 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.
-
Anonymous wrote: Gee, because it's not a nice thing to say? ya, let us continue with the political correct crap. that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. 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: that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. Interesting moralizing from a guy who says he would call little kids 'bastards' to their faces just to prove a point he made on the internet. Oddly empty moralizing coming from a guy who believes so strongly that what happened in Florida was murder and evil but did absolutely nothing to stop it. Useless posturing coming from someone who lectures for hours and hours and hours about the schiavo case but has never met any of them or actually seen the evidence provided to the courts. You go, girlfriend! - F
-
K(arl) wrote: For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. Not when it is proscribed by law. K(arl) wrote: How can a human interpretation be objective? By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law. recent Supreme Court decisions that reference "world opinion" are a case in point. We're governed by laws, not opinions and certainly not those of the "world". K(arl) wrote: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. Not true. quote your sources. in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. Checks and balances are the base, in the case of judges there is no balance as they have, in some meansure, been interpreting law instead of applying it. In many cases they are creating new law, which is not their perogative, and have been doing it since the 60s. Current discussions conducted by law makers towards reining in the judiciary are in fact the checks and balances in operation. K(arl) wrote: we believe I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US and we're governed by Constituitions, state and federal, plus laws enacted under the control of those constituitions. As stated earlier, judges have been ignoring the law and creating their own - unlawfully I might add. Mike K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: Not when it is proscribed by law Unless it's a mandatory sentence (something not far for a violation of human rights IMO), the judge decides or not to apply this legal murder. It's his/her decision. Mike Gaskey wrote: By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law I'm sure you're not stupid enough to fail to understand legal texts can be interpreted, right? Mike Gaskey wrote: We're governed by laws Is there no law to condemn threats made against judges? Mike Gaskey wrote: in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. I haven't followed the case close enough, but AKAIK, many courts statued on the case. If I understand correctly, the "special law" made by Republicans wasn't an order made to judges, or if it is, then you don't need neither judges nor a judicial branch. I even doubt this special law respect the spirit and the letter of your constitution. A law which is unconstitutional is void. Mike Gaskey wrote: in the case of judges there is no balance Is there no appeal courts? What is the Supreme court for? Mike Gaskey wrote: I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US Oh? I thought you were in favor or exporting democracy, using violence if necessary. Aren't you turning your coat?
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
-
K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. But it is the judiciary itself that is the most profound threat to the seperation of powers in the US. Given the power that the federal courts have grabbed over the last two centuries, the U.S. no longer even needs elected representatives, the courts are already thumbing their noses at the will of the people, and implementing what ever laws and regulations they think appropriate. They have nothing to fear from the elected representatives who are afraid to confront them and exercise the true powers they have under the constitution to control the courts. The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it. Nothing could be better for this country than that. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it * Does that need a simple majority vote to do so? * Is there no "council" whose role is to supervize how the judicial branch work? * who is the "guarantor" of the independence of the judicial branch? The US President?
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed