You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...

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

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

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.

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.�

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.

to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost. There is a lot at stake here. I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.

This is my first post on the Politics board. I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R.

I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org.

First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home. I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about...

I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is. I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions. A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman. On and on and on.

I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel.

I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working. They just do not want to believe. And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking! It is ridiculous.

I will no longer try to help people see the truth. If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway. I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...

I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!! The America that other countries envy and want to be!

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.

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?

WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far? I watched it last night. Lots of commentaries that were a little boring. I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else. Loved the tribute to Kennedy. His health condition is tragic. He's done so much good while in the senate. Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person. She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised. She knows the struggles we Americans face every day. I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.

On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention. I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is. I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.

It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists. I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision. If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.

I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos. Last I heard, the complete opposite was true. Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?