NationStates Jolt Archive

Of interest for an inquiring public. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/4/19239/09090)

It's like watching a train wreck.

20 views and no responses, eh?

Well here's some more. (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=240%20)

Wow...are we going to start calling muggings domestic terrorism too? Sheesh.

Wow, what a dork. What a fucking bastard.

I don't see what is wrong with trying to define causes to crime. I believe that a public perception that judges are not held accountable would be a very big problem, and it could possibly lead to retaliatory violence.

I would prefer that there not be over-reactionary responses to comments like this. It is easy to see why nothing gets done in the government, when you can get calls for resignation for a comment this benign.

I don't see what is wrong with trying to define causes to crime. I believe that a public perception that judges are not held accountable would be a very big problem, and it could possibly lead to retaliatory violence.

I would prefer that there not be over-reactionary responses to comments like this. It is easy to see why nothing gets done in the government, when you can get calls for resignation for a comment this benign.
Exactly. Yes, let's get all pissed of over what someone says, and have an expensive inquiry, and spend lots of money on anti-whatever-they-said campaigns, and in short, make it a much bigger issue than it needs to be.

The comment is kind of silly, since I doubt the people attacking judges are really cognizant of politics, but so what...since when does stupidity keep you from keeping your position in politics anyway? :D

I don't see what is wrong with trying to define causes to crime. I believe that a public perception that judges are not held accountable would be a very big problem, and it could possibly lead to retaliatory violence.

I would prefer that there not be over-reactionary responses to comments like this. It is easy to see why nothing gets done in the government, when you can get calls for resignation for a comment this benign.

This is just Democrats trying to use their self-righteousness to regain some sort of control. They're fighting an uphill battle now and they don't like it. While I don't think that this is the cause for all of these. I cede the point. I mean really. How frustrating is it to watch judges use foreign law to dictate what is right and wrong in our country. And it's just to justify the opinions they've already made up because they're obvioulsy not going to use the laws that contradict the country they're trying to create. Come on judges, let's leave the law writing to the legislative branch. Anyone remember where judges come from by the way? ;)

In such cases there's a moral obligation on judges to follow the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter.

If you didn't want your judges to have the power to make such decisions, then you should never have given it to them in the first place.

I do however think that this senator is making a valid comment, albeit in a very unpolitical manner.

God forbid someone should make what is likely to be a valid social comment when it is seen to be "un-patriotic".

But hey, that's america for you.

This is just Democrats trying to use their self-righteousness to regain some sort of control. They're fighting an uphill battle now and they don't like it. While I don't think that this is the cause for all of these. I cede the point. I mean really. How frustrating is it to watch judges use foreign law to dictate what is right and wrong in our country. And it's just to justify the opinions they've already made up because they're obvioulsy not going to use the laws that contradict the country they're trying to create. Come on judges, let's leave the law writing to the legislative branch. Anyone remember where judges come from by the way? ;)

As much as this story irritates me, I do find it enjoyably ironic that a Republican Senator from Texas is being accused of being a terrorism apologist.

Both sides are nothing but a bunch of poll-watching, knee-jerk opportunists.

This is just Democrats trying to use their self-righteousness to regain some sort of control. They're fighting an uphill battle now and they don't like it. While I don't think that this is the cause for all of these. I cede the point. I mean really. How frustrating is it to watch judges use foreign law to dictate what is right and wrong in our country. And it's just to justify the opinions they've already made up because they're obvioulsy not going to use the laws that contradict the country they're trying to create. Come on judges, let's leave the law writing to the legislative branch. Anyone remember where judges come from by the way? ;)

Teh United States Constitution (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OMG! The Constitution states that treaties to which we are signatory are binding law! Teh Constitution charges judges with enforcing treaties with furriners!!!111!!! :eek:

Why can't the GOP just leave the judicial branch alone? Why are they trying to erode away the checks and balances. They are drunk on power.

This is just Democrats trying to use their self-righteousness to regain some sort of control. They're fighting an uphill battle now and they don't like it. While I don't think that this is the cause for all of these. I cede the point. I mean really. How frustrating is it to watch judges use foreign law to dictate what is right and wrong in our country. And it's just to justify the opinions they've already made up because they're obvioulsy not going to use the laws that contradict the country they're trying to create. Come on judges, let's leave the law writing to the legislative branch. Anyone remember where judges come from by the way? ;)
Quoted more or less at random.

So the question (and why I won't neccisarily call the senator an apologist, but I'll get to that later) becomes, was it republicans trying to use their self-righteousness when they called anyone who looked at causes for terrorism 'appologists?' The duality can't be lost on you-you have to be ignoring it.

Which is actually why I won't call him an apologist. He is trying to look to a root cause, however-he is reaching a great deal. A rapist who shoots a judge and goes on the lamb isn't doing it because of some precieved 'run-away' judiciary.

The only reason the judiciary seems 'runaway' is because it is doing its job, that is providing a check to the balance of power. That balance is going off kilter and the judicial branch is doing what it is supposed to do. If you have an agenda, how to you do an end run around such a check? Demonize that branch and hope no one remembers thier civics class. Thing is, and I hope dearly this is the case, they have cried wolf one too many times. The strategy is to create as much white noise as possible-always painting it as an outrage (OUTRAGE I say!). All that needs to get through is that the people should be outraged. Works, works well. But eventually that nub gets numb.

And here I think it will.

As an interesting side note, how often can the republicans chastise people for 'playing the victim' and yet play the victim themselves before everyone just starts pointing and laughing?

In such cases there's a moral obligation on judges to follow the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter.

If you didn't want your judges to have the power to make such decisions, then you should never have given it to them in the first place.

I do however think that this senator is making a valid comment, albeit in a very unpolitical manner.

God forbid someone should make what is likely to be a valid social comment when it is seen to be "un-patriotic".

But hey, that's america for you.
no hes NOT making a valid comment, while there have been a spate of judges or their families being attacked and killed none of them were out of frustration at activist judges. they were all men who had a personal grudge against the way their court cases were handled. men who had legitimately lost in court. they werent making a social comment, they were men who just didnt like ending up on the wrong side of things.

Why can't the GOP just leave the judicial branch alone? Why are they trying to erode away the checks and balances. They are drunk on power.

Have you ever met a hard-line Republican? Therein you'll find out why they want to erode the checks and balances.

Here's a clue: They're full of themselves.

in fact, considering the fevered pitch of emotion surrounding the schiavo case with all those people travelling hundreds of miles hoping to save her life, they were VERY well behaved. no matter how frustrated they were, they did no resort to violence.

the MEDIA however was another story. quite a few conservative media guys advocated lawlessness. the people most closely affected were not interested in that. things went against them but they never sank to that level.

If that was terrorist apologism or a threat against judges then I am a real estate agent with a bridge in New York and an Ocean Front condo in Arazona to sell you. Take your pick.

Um, first of all it's from Kos, who ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Secondly the have only been 3, possibly four major judge involved incidents. Two of which are in no way related to anything remotely like domestic terrorism. One involved a drunk hobo type who went nuts for some reason or other. The other involved very, very, very shitty police officers. Im talking about the incident in alabama? that involved the deputy and the rapist. First of all, whose bright idea was it to put a five foot nothing female deputy in the same lockdown room with a 6 foot plus rapist. Then there was apparently supposed to be a guy watching the camera feed to the room. For some reason he was taking a long break. So the guy overpowers the deputy, ties her up, and takes her keys. Then he wanders around in the courthouse until he finds her locker. He then takes the gun out of the locker, walks into the courtroom and shoots the judge, some other people, and for some reason the court reporter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic terrorism, since there was no real driving purpose behind either incident.

Um, first of all it's from Kos, who ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Secondly the have only been 3, possibly four major judge involved incidents. Two of which are in no way related to anything remotely like domestic terrorism. One involved a drunk hobo type who went nuts for some reason or other. The other involved very, very, very shitty police officers. Im talking about the incident in alabama? that involved the deputy and the rapist. First of all, whose bright idea was it to put a five foot nothing female deputy in the same lockdown room with a 6 foot plus rapist. Then there was apparently supposed to be a guy watching the camera feed to the room. For some reason he was taking a long break. So the guy overpowers the deputy, ties her up, and takes her keys. Then he wanders around in the courthouse until he finds her locker. He then takes the gun out of the locker, walks into the courtroom and shoots the judge, some other people, and for some reason the court reporter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic terrorism, since there was no real driving purpose behind either incident.
Alright, aside from a passing blow at the source (which all it really did was quote the good senator) doesn't what you wrote more or less prove the Kos' point, or more importantly completely disable the senators point?

To wit-the attacks on the judges have nothing to do with activist or political judges? That the senator was, in fact, reaching.

Have you ever met a hard-line Republican? Therein you'll find out why they want to erode the checks and balances.

Here's a clue: They're full of themselves.

i do believe that thats utter bullshit. i'm very much a liberal, but one of my mothers friends is the wife to the now-deceased head of the import-export bank under dubya's first term. yes, he was a hardcore republican, but he was a kind, loving person with a big heart. in fact, his wife worked under several democratic administrations, including JFK's.

Have you ever met a hard-line Republican? Therein you'll find out why they want to erode the checks and balances.

Here's a clue: They're full of themselves.

So are hard-line Democrats. Especially the liberal intellectual ones.

Have you ever met a hard-line Republican? Therein you'll find out why they want to erode the checks and balances.
Here's a clue: They're full of themselves.

I know what you mean. One of the reasons I started to break with the Republican party during the 2002 Senate elections was their increasing overconfidence and the feeling that they had the proverbial "mandate of Heaven" (not proverbial for some I'd imagine) to embark on an increasingly radical agenda.

So are hard-line Democrats. Especially the liberal intellectual ones.

There are problems on both sides, I will admit. However, it is the Republicans who are in power, for the time being and so they are the focus of my concern.

There are problems on both sides, I will admit. However, it is the Republicans who are in power, for the time being and so they are the focus of my concern.

That is ok, I can see that.

I tend to look at it as there be one side in power, they just like to give each other labels so that people have an "evil" opposition to fight against. The real good politicians get so self-righteous towards the "other side" that it is almost laughable.

I tend to look at it as there be one side in power, they just like to give each other labels so that people have an "evil" opposition to fight against. The real good politicians get so self-righteous towards the "other side" that it is almost laughable.

Yes, the labels during the 2004 election were especially laugable. Hell, they even degenerated to personal attacks like "horseface" (Kerry) and "Chimp" (Bush)

It establishes a pattern; it reveals a plan of attack. Judges are activists, they're legislating from the bench, they have a liberal bias, the Democrats are trying to keep the Republicans from changing that, and judges should rule on the side of the Republican cause or face retribution.

It's interesting that this fellow is out of Texas, too. That state is a winner, I tell ya.

Anyway. The second link I provide, in the second post, is a much more comprehensive source; and I think the quote alone speaks for itself, Armed Bookworms. Disregard the rest of the site, but this guy is an idiot for what he said alone.

I don't see what is wrong with trying to define causes to crime. I believe that a public perception that judges are not held accountable would be a very big problem, and it could possibly lead to retaliatory violence.

I would prefer that there not be over-reactionary responses to comments like this. It is easy to see why nothing gets done in the government, when you can get calls for resignation for a comment this benign.

I agree whole heartedly.

Teh United States Constitution (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm)



OMG! The Constitution states that treaties to which we are signatory are binding law! Teh Constitution charges judges with enforcing treaties with furriners!!!111!!! :eek:

OMG!!!!!!!

He said foreign laws not treaties :eek:

Have you ever met a hard-line Republican? Therein you'll find out why they want to erode the checks and balances.

Here's a clue: They're full of themselves.

Ever met a hardline democrat? They are the same way. Next!

OMG!!!!!!!

He said foreign laws not treaties :eek:

Considering that many treaties to which we are signatory, the Geneva Convention, for example, establish "international law," my point still stands.

Considering that many treaties to which we are signatory, the Geneva Convention, for example, establish "international law," my point still stands.

Actually no it does not stand.

Treaties are different than laws. He said that the supreme court is using foreign laws not international laws. There is a big difference between the two.

Therefor, your point does not stand.

Wow...are we going to start calling muggings domestic terrorism too? Sheesh.

Wasn't it DeLay who called not showing up for a vote in the state senate "legislative terrorism?"

The way that Senator Cornyn was talking about it he was trying to imply that there was some sort of political motivation behind killing these judges. If there had been, it would have been domestic terrorism. These were just people trying to avenge themselves on their judges.

There might be an argument for calling the Senator's implication that judges had better watch the political implications of their verdicts a form of terrorism, but since he was just talking about things he had nothing to do with it would probably be more justly classified as him being an asshole.

Actually no it does not stand.

Treaties are different than laws. He said that the supreme court is using foreign laws not international laws. There is a big difference between the two.

Therefor, your point does not stand.

There is only one case I can think of where this distinction matters--the case where the SCOTUS ruled the execution of minors unconstitutional because of "international standards" or some such thing. The problem is, what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" changes over time, and it was extremely clear that, by the "free world's" standards, the standards of the freedom-loving nations that we Americans arrogantly claim to represent/pwn, execution of minors was considered extremely barbaric. Of course, it's not like the UN would ever issue a resolution condemning this, thus codifying it into some sort of international law, because some idiot gave us veto power in the UN :rolleyes:

Most of the people that I know who disagreed with this decision are pretty much UN haters who make no distinction between international and foreign law, which is why I made my original point. Which is why I would have preferred to have the person to whom I originally replied respond to me; it might have been really funny (if my experience is any indication). :D Oh well.

There is only one case I can think of where this distinction matters--the case where the SCOTUS ruled the execution of minors unconstitutional because of "international standards" or some such thing. The problem is, what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" changes over time, and it was extremely clear that, by the "free world's" standards, the standards of the freedom-loving nations that we Americans arrogantly claim to represent/pwn, execution of minors was considered extremely barbaric. Of course, it's not like the UN would ever issue a resolution condemning this, thus codifying it into some sort of international law, because some idiot gave us veto power in the UN :rolleyes:

*yawns*

I suggest you take a political science class. Maybe then you will have an understanding about the difference between Treaties, Foreign Laws (Laws of OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!), and International Law! No Foreign law has any control over the United States. Treaties and International Law do.

Most of the people that I know who disagreed with this decision are pretty much UN haters who make no distinction between international and foreign law, which is why I made my original point. Which is why I would have preferred to have the person to whom I originally replied respond to me; it might have been really funny (if my experience is any indication). :D Oh well.

There is a big distinction and if you ever had a global politics class, you would understand this! Your experience isn't any indication of how smart!

in fact, considering the fevered pitch of emotion surrounding the schiavo case with all those people travelling hundreds of miles hoping to save her life, they were VERY well behaved. no matter how frustrated they were, they did no resort to violence.

forgive me, but i'm not about to give out cookies and good behavior points just because people choose to not break the law. in my book, you don't get rewards for keeping control and abiding by the rules of conduct that all people are expected to follow.