I guess you're smarter than the supreme court....

• Who Indeed? - Mrs. Bridger
  • I stated 8 years ago that Bush' foreign "Policies" - Would get us in trouble with the rest of the world
    • Clinton started rendition!!!!!!!! HELLO!!! - Trigger Happy
      • Clinton did not ignore the Geneva Convention - Mrs. Bridger
        • No....Clinton got in trouble - Short stack
          • of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect... - Mrs. Bridger
            • Lying under oath is just that. - Trigger Happy
        • Maybe that is why 911happened? hmmm - sm
          • Maybe George should have read - Mrs. Bridger
            • GIve em' he!! Mrs. B!!! - orangeorange
            • Yeah, and maybe Obama will FIND his birth - certificate someday -wont hold my breath.nm
              • I guess you're smarter than the supreme court.... - Mrs. Bridger
              • Forget the topic I did...LOL. nm - Just the big bad
              • Yep, that'll happen when pigs balance the budget...... - MsMt
                • But pigs are balancing the budget - madmt
                • Don't worry...(sm) - Just the big bad
                  • Unfortunately, most of that manure is still left... - Zville MT
                    • ...from the Bush Barnyard, but don't worry, - We'll Clean it up as soon as we can
  • Here ya go! - Trigger Happy
  • Who are they to judge? - Zville MT
    • They couldn't get WMDs straight - what makes you so sure the exterminated were "terrorists? - Mrs. Bridger
      • What makes you so sure they WEREN'T terrorists? - nm
      • I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral. - Zville MT
  • Uh...I do believe that - Trigger Happy
  • You should move to China and take your cut and paste skills - with you!!
    • No tank you - sofa king wee todd id - Mrs. Bridger
    • LOL - nm
    • Thank you for your intelligent, logical remark...par for the course - Mrs. Bridger

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

July 2008

In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.

credibility in the Bush/Gore recount. 

Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.

Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time.  Same with Scalia and Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86.  This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone.  Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment.  If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations. 

In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much.  They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.

Not that even THAT would matter much.  Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.

He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war.  Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.

May 26, 2009, 8:15 am
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee
By Jeff Zeleny

Ron Jordan Natoli Studio/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, via Associated Press

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

Conservative groups reacted with sharp criticism on Tuesday morning. “Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.

Mr. Obama telephoned Judge Sotomayor at 9 p.m. on Monday, officials said, advising her that she was his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Later Monday night, Mr. Obama called the three other finalists — Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan — to inform them that he had selected Judge Sotomayor.

White House officials worked into the night to prepare for the announcement, without knowing who it would be.

Judge Sotomayor has sat for the last 11 years on the federal appeals bench in Manhattan. As the top federal appeals court in the nation’s commercial center, the court is known in particular for its expertise in corporate and securities law. For six years before that, she was a federal district judge in New York.

In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

Born in the Bronx on June 23, 1954, she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8. Her father, a factory worker, died a year later. Her mother, a nurse at a methadone clinic, raised her daughter and a younger son on a modest salary.

Judge Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and and attended Yale Law School, where she was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. She spent five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office before entering private practice.

But she longed to return to public service, she said, inspired by the “Perry Mason” series she watched as a child. In 1992, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended the politically centrist lawyer to President George H. W. Bush, making good on a longstanding promise to appoint a Hispanic judge in New York.

On the Circuit Court, she has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. Some of her most notable decisions came in child custody and complex business cases. Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.

She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia.

The case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court and is now before the Supreme Court.

I stated in a previos post a few days ago that BO birth certificate case would not be heard by the Supreme Court.   As many of you have said the judges and the Supreme Court are suppressing evidence as to the real situation that many of you do have extemsive, and true facts about.  Clearly from your in depth knowledge about this situation, a cover up is occurring, not only by the Federal courts, but by the Supreme Court as will.

As in my previous post I strongly suggest that with the real evidence that you posses, that you most simplyt take action now, and save this country, not only ultimately disallowing Obama to be president, but to ultimately perform the ultimate patriotic duty for yourselves, as well as performing the highest civic duty that you likely will ever do in your lifetimes.

There is another current legal case in the works regarding this serious situation. Thus far the costs for persuing this matter are over $30,000 dollars. This can be found by doing a Google search, donations are badly needed,  and if you people will make substantial donations regarding this, the higher the likelihood that the case will be placed in the hands of a federal judge.

The other possibility here is to start as a group, a collective case, pool your resourses to hire an attorney who speecialises in these matters, pay the retainer fees, the attorney's hourly fees regarding the case, and get the case filed in the Federal courts. The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here. Even the appeal process that is likely to occur is not out of your range as MTs, as it really only costs about double the amount of money to do so, as  again  the total expenses regarding filing an appeal would likely only be about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars,, and the beauty of the system is that if you are ultimately successful in winning the case, and you likely would be with the real facts at your disposal, the court costs are covered, and you would become true national hero's!!!!!

I don't understand that with the true information that you posses, why you are not persuing this instead of writing about on message boards.

With the true facts that you posses it is quite likely that you will ultimately win the case, would have completed the highest of civic duties, and will be held in the highest of esteem for finally exposing a person who has committed a terrible fraud, not only to the election process, but also to the federal judicial system, and ultimately going as far as perpetrating that fraud up to and inc;luding the Supreme Court.

I laud you in advance for having the fortitude for persuing this, and look forward to saluting you as well all of of the other American people, for performing the highest civic and patriotic duty that one ever could. It's people like you, that never give up, and get to the bottom of such an important situation. You are the true American heroes.

Now, if we can just all survive until January 20, 2008, without another war or false flag attack on our nation, there may be some hope for the future.  Until then, Bush is still President and still a very dangerous man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html

The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.

Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.

Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.

However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.

Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.

LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.

According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”

“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”

give him credit for.

I'm not in favor of the bail-outs starting with Wall Street.  That didn't accomplish much in the way of helping the economy.  I really think the auto workers will continue to be laid off because no one will be above to afford new vehicles.  I MIGHT consider supporting a loan if I saw proof that the execs were indeed going to work for $1 a year...with NO bonuses or other underhanded payments, proof that they  had sold their luxurious jets and most of all that they WOULD USE ONLY PARTS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED IN THE U.S. AND THAT NO NEW PLANTS WOULD BE BUILT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING THE PRODUCTS BACK HERE TO BE SOLD.  This exporting mess is what started this whole melt down IMHO.

From his speech today:  He also said if the demonstrations didn't stop there might be chaos and bloodshed, and that rival candidates calling for protests would be blamed.  See link for full details.

This is going to get really, really bad.

By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment.  The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay.  I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there.  I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income.  (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him).  The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%.  Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from.  Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid. 

Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support.  Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system. 

He did get it paid up about 2 years ago.  Took him over 10 years to do so.  He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.

I struggled for years with my kids on my own.  We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs.  There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job.  But I made it.  She can too.  I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is.  I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there.  The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children.  It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point. 

Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days.  They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table.  Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care.  I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations.  I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.

Best of luck to you and your daughter.

and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs.  Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it. 

It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter.  Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband?  Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents?  Or was it more than a little of both? 

Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!

From NBC’s Pete Williams

When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."

Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.

The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.

Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.