| Author | Message | ||
     Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1488 Registered: 3-2004 |
Nice reductio ad absurdum, Guy | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5146 Registered: 8-2003 |
Nixon's stupidity was reflected in his affirmative action policies. LBJ's true feeling and regard towards blacks must not be known to you, Innis. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1490 Registered: 3-2004 |
I am pleased, CJC, that you have inside knowledge of people's "true feelings and regard." Could you tell us perhaps what are GWB's "true feelings and regard" towards anybody? towards people who don't throw hundreds of thousands in political donations into his coffers? Dick Cheney's? I am sure that your immediate answer will involve something about Condoleeza Rice or some other less than effective appointee who makes the president look good just by standing around. Maybe you could try for a more thoughtful answer. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1490 Registered: 8-2004  |
Innis, really absurd. I am sure if you call Paris, France , Verizon will only charge you for a domestic call. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1491 Registered: 3-2004 |
No, Guy, you don't get it. I think that your mention of flights from NY to Paris as some sort of parallel to domestic spying is a stupid analogy. It's absurd because it has nothing to do with domestic wiretapping. But it was a nice try to sidetrack any discussion. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1491 Registered: 8-2004 |
Innis call it what you want , but the term Domestic Spying in this case is a lazy description. Your position is that this would be legal if approved by FISA. Do you know what the F stands for. What happened was the DISA court too busy.  | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5147 Registered: 8-2003 |
It's not a lazy description at all. It's purposeful. Soon as you tell the public the truth -- that the targets are terrorists on foreign soil -- they back the program. That's why Democrats have to frame the question that way. Innis -- my knowledge of what LBJ's true feeling towards blacks was based upon his well-known appreciation of N-jokes. But for liberals, public morality is all that's necessary. Privately, you can do whatever you want so long as you toe the party line. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1492 Registered: 3-2004 |
CJC, fine. "Privately, you can do whatever you want so long as you toe the party line." It appears that GWB has changed that a little bit. Now it seems you can have whatever job you want (Mike Brown, Julie Myers, Harriet Miers, et al.) as long as you toe the party line. Guy: "Domestic Spying" is as good as the several terms that GWB and Alberto Gonzales have coined to gloss over the operation. The FISA Court has a record of speedy processing and confidentiality, and, guess what, it will approve things retroactively if they meet the test. I guess GWB is moving so fast on every aspect of this war that no court can possibly keep up with his lightning speed. So, to hell with democracy. Who needs it when GWB is en route to becoming our very own Francisco Franco. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 465 Registered: 1-2004 |
Holy republican party, batman(i mean cjc)! That was a doozy! Those conservatives, just pure through and through  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 952 Registered: 2-2002 |
I think that the people who should decide what can or should be discussed at ANY funeral are those who knew the deceased the best. Rev. Joseph Lowery as co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, outspoken civil rights leader and protege of King is not only well suited but really duty-bound, (IMHO) to speak on behalf of Coretta King's life-long dedication to non-violence and specific opposition to the Iraq war. Her life was ABOUT political issues as related to justice and non-violence. What sense does it make to keep still about such issues at the precise time of honoring the scope of her life and her husbands legacy at the end of her life? IMHO, to NOT comment on the politics of the day would have been the greater dishonor. There is way too much advocacy for silence and condemnation of the "impertinence" of people freely, (does that still exist?) speaking from righteous outrage coming from this administration and their supporters, (and they should shut-up about it, -heh). PS: I was watching portions of the service and the huge crowd, (those would be the people there to honor King, not Bush), LOVED Lowry and Carter and Bill Clinton. Bush meanwhile got some polite golf-claps. Thanks for stopping by George, now you can go back to creating havoc and enabling corruption. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5148 Registered: 8-2003 |
crabby -- not 100% pure, but less stepped on than what you get out of the Democrat's mixed baggie. Not mention that we're right. FISA will approve things retroactively if you can have everything in order from the moment you come across a suspicious call within 72 hours and jump through all the bureaucratic hoops necessary. The Bush Administration is no stranger to FISA at all. They have and continue to go through them. When that's not fast enough or the info on a foreign call/connection within the US isn't as complete as FISA may need, Bush rightly blows through it as he is constitutionally able to do and in times of war I say required to do. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 794 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - thats laughable. I believe the approval percentage is far above 99% of all requests. Basically they approve everything. A rubber stamp. A sure thing. background here Its the oversight that the Bushies are trying to avoid. I wont guess as to why, but if you trust this administration then you have been asleep for the past 6 years. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1493 Registered: 3-2004 |
"Bureaucratic hoops" (quoth CJC)= another Republican throw-away term for "the democratic process." Maybe Bush is not Francisco Franco. Maybe he's Augusto Pinochet. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10584 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is interesting that Alberto's stonewalling yesterday incldued not being willing to confir that no pure domestic wiretaps are being used without a court order. I think there is a lot more to this than just intercepting Al Qaeda phone calls. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5150 Registered: 8-2003 |
Sorry Innis, but republicans are big fans of the democratic process. It's the vote that libs fear, and with good reason lately, which is why they need the courts to do their bidding. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3165 Registered: 3-2004 |
Oh, right, it's the Democrats who want to turn the clock back to the time before the the Magna Carta, a decision which at least took total control away from the monarchy in England and distributed it to a few members of the landed aristocracy. No, cjc, that would be the Republicans. Democrats want courts, justice, juries, the whole shebang. It's all spelled out in a bothersome little piece of paper called the Constitution. Where have you been? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5151 Registered: 8-2003 |
I know liberals want courts, tulip. My point was they fear the vote. Put Roe up for a vote. Put gay marriage up for a vote, instead of relying on 9 unelected lawyers to pass a law without getting the will of the people. Eminent domain and the Takings Clause has to be re-passed because of a squish decision by the Supreme Court allowing governments to seize property for private -- not public -- use. That would never pass if the people voted on it. That's why liberals need courts to pass their agenda, because it's too difficult to pass it legislatively or in an election. The Constitution gives the President the sole power to conduct war and foreign policy. Congress can declare it, fund it, not fund it, or exercise the War Powers Act. Did you know that? | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1495 Registered: 3-2004 |
Republicans have no fear of votes, CJC, since they can "arrange" good counts in Florida and in the Supreme Court. And then arrange the districts in Texas and fiddle with voter registration and ID in Ohio. I seem to remember that it was the Supreme Court doing the Republican Party's bidding in 2000. Or was that in another country? To be candid, after 5 years of this regime, the US does feel like another country---maybe a banana republic. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3166 Registered: 3-2004 |
I am sure slavery would not have been outlawed at one point in American history, nor Jim Crow laws, if the courts had not seized on the justice and injustice of it. Courts and the law are full-time analysts, or are supposed to be, of what is just and what is not. They are DELIBERATIVE bodies. They are not MONARCHS, nor do they depend upon the will of the majority, because sometimes, as in Nazi Germany, or the South before the Civil War, the majority can be tyrannical, in and of itself. Did you know that? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3167 Registered: 3-2004 |
The courts are not supposed to be representative of the will of the majority. They are supposed to be wise, despite Republican appointments, and they are supposed to be "ahead of the curve" on the intellectual decisions of the day. They are supposed to spend far more time on details of justice than the common folk. Unfortunately, that's not how Republicans see it. Witness right wing Supreme Court appointments...definitely not intellectuals in any way, at all. Oops, there goes the Constitution... and out goes democracy, our future and our source of pride with it. Thank you, cjc. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 708 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tulip - The Supreme Court outlawed slavery? What decision was that? The Anti-bellum South was a tyranny? Who was the tyrant? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3168 Registered: 3-2004 |
Oh, I didn't realize that the Constitution had been rewritten since the fourteenth amendment. And what was the Civil Rights Act? My imagination? Excuse me!!! And yes, it was a tyranny. When you have an entire economic system based on a few rich men owning people and their labor, that's tyranny, baby. Well, maybe in your definition, it's heaven, but for the rest of us, it's tyranny. You got a problem with that? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 709 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tulip - Are you high? It was the 13th amendment that outlawed slavery not the 14th. Also the supreme court does not make amendments to the constitution. A few men running a country is an oligarchy not a tyranny. Have you completed high school yet? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3169 Registered: 3-2004 |
"A few men running a country is an oligarchy..." I'll tell you what. You are high if you think the south was a "country," or maybe you are just southerner in disguise. Don't be on the accusative side like your administration. I was wrong about the amendment, but I am right in the fact that a law cannot become part of the Constitution, nor can amendment, without the court. I guess you're a lawyer from NOOO YORK SSSIITTYY. That's why you post on MOL all day!!! | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 710 Registered: 3-2005 |
"...a law cannot become part of the Constitution, nor can amendment, without the court" Wrong!!! I leared how the constitution is amended in the 8th grade. What grade are you in? | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1492 Registered: 8-2004 |
Tulip, amending the Constitution is up to the Legislative Branch. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 795 Registered: 10-2004 |
are you guys being deliberately obtuse? tulip seems to be saying that it is the court that ultimately holds whether a law is valid according to the constitution. I dont see where she said the courts wrote any amendment. They are certainly the final arbiters of whether it is valid. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3170 Registered: 3-2004 |
So what role would you like the courts to play, guy, dougw? You want to belittle my history training, or talk about how the government should run? (I know the answer to that.) You can't tell me By the way, oligarchy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive. Oligarchy is government by a group, tyranny is a much larger concept. When did you take English classes? A Quick Check of Race and the Courts in the US Macon B. Allen is the first black lawyer regularly admitted to the Bar of any State. Robert Morris becomes second black lawyer in America when he is admitted to practice in Massachusetts. Robert Morris files an action to desegregate the public schools of Boston (Roberts v. City of Boston). John Mercer Langston becomes first black known to have applied to (and be rejected by) an American law school. Langston would later study law privately and be admitted to practice in Ohio. In 1869, Langston would found and become the first dean of the Howard Law School. Robert Morris appointed first black magistrate (judge) by the Governor of Massachusetts Macon B. Allen appointed Justice of the Peace in Boston. John Swett Rock of Massachusetts becomes the first black lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Rock, a physician, gave up his medical practice in 1861 to study law. Civil Rights Bill of 1866 passed, overturning the decision in Dred Scott. Fourteenth Ammendment ratified. George Lewis Ruffin becomes the first black to graduate from Harvard Law School. Howard University becomes the nation's first black law school. . The proclamatio Civil War ends. Fifteenth Amendment ratified and Civil Rights Act of 1870 passed. Jonathan Jasper Wright elected as first black to sit on any state supreme court when he is elected Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Hiram Revels, a black lawyer admitted to practice in Indiana, becomes first black elected to the U.S. Senate, from Mississippi. George Lee elected first black Superior Court judge in the south when he was elected by the South Carolina legislature. Charlotte E. Ray became the first black woman to graduate from Howard Law School and the first black woman admitted to practice in the District of Columbia. Thomas Morris Chester is admitted to practice in Louisiana. Trained in England and admitted to practice in England, Chester the is first black American known to have been admitted in England. Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed. In Ex Parte Virginia and Strauder v. West Virginia, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of blacks not to be systematically excluded from juries because of race or color. Righting a huge, tyrannical wrong takes a long, long time, many courts, and many small steps of intelligence, even in America. . | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 711 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hoops - You think the supreme court are certainly the final arbiters of whether an amendment is vaild? This is not true. The process to amend the US Constition has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. Only the congress and the state legislatures have any say in the process. I thought this was commmon knowledge. Am I missing something? Also Tulip did say the constitution could only be amnended with the courts support, see my post 710 where I quote her. It is impossible to debate the role of the court with people who do not understand the very basics of the constitution. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3171 Registered: 3-2004 |
You accused me of saying the Supreme Court outlawed slavery. That's a perversion of what I wrote. I said the courts are arbiters, are deliberative bodies, appointed to analyze issues pertaining to justice. If you don't like that, you ought try to discover if your problem is ego-related. I think it is. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3172 Registered: 3-2004 |
dougw, Obviously, you like to pick apart arguments that threaten your perception of the world, so you don't have to face the big picture. The big picture is that if only liberals support the court system in our country, we are in big trouble. If you are saying that Republicans want to mimimize the role of the courts in our society, you are truly turning back civilization to the Neolithic. I guess that's to be expected from people who are out to protect themselves first, and advance the cause of civilization, second. By the way, even ancient tribal societies had courts, consisting of elders of the tribe who were considered to have excellent judgment, and were respected by all. They would sometimes arbitrate in ways not in keeping with the tribal views, but were respected nonetheless. I guess we have gone back to a time before tribal society, when decisions affecting the entire group were determined by brute force. Well, ugh to you, mr. dougw. PS. I am not high now, nor have I ever been, and I find your statements odious, rude and offensive. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 712 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tuilp I will take a step back. Here is my question: The 13th amendment outlawed slavery and was passed by congress on 1/31/1865 and proposed to the state legislatures for ratification. What Supreme Court cases that came before that date had an influence on making this happen? I would argue that the Dredd Scott case in 1857 showed that the court was not at all helping end slavery. (I also think it was not the place of the court to do so) | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3173 Registered: 3-2004 |
Right, the Supreme Court was really regressive before the Civil War. After the War (see my post in red and blue above) it was instrumental in reversing racial injustice. My POINT is that the COURTS (NOT just the Supreme Court) are a PLACE for a civilized society to deliberate about the course of a society. Great swarms of the voting public cannot do that in the same analytical environment, nor are they appointed to spend all their time doing that. Hopefully, judges are analytical in nature, intellectual in outlook, and deliberative in style. That's their job, not the role of the masses. Congress is elected to represent the masses on issues affecting our country. The Supreme Court is not there to make laws, but to interpret them. If they interpret them in a way that someone finds to be offensive, that ONE PERSON can, through their attorney, challenge their views. It's an entirely different function from the role of elected officials, so WE NEED IT. I certainly hope you don't advocate taking it away. We do not need less deliberation in this country. I believe recent events have shown we certainly need more deliberation before we make major decisions or take major steps as a nation. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 713 Registered: 3-2005 |
I am confused. I agree with most of what you just wrote but I do not understand what role you think the courts had in ending slavery. Earlier you wrote: "I am sure slavery would not have been outlawed at one point in American history, nor Jim Crow laws, if the courts had not seized on the justice and injustice of it." I completly agree that courts had a major role in ending Jim Crow laws. I do not understand your position on ending slavery. My position is that ending slavery was one of the great achievments of the legislative branch of government, or our democracy and one of the shining moments of the Republican Party and Lincoln (who pushed for the amendment's passage) | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3174 Registered: 3-2004 |
Who would want to take that away? My point is that slavery as an institution was entrenched. It was evil, cruel, contrary to rules of decency, but it indeed "helped" the economy of the South, or so those dependent upon the plantation economy thought. (Ultimately, social historians and economists could argue that over several decades, past Reconstruction, the economy of the South was forced into industrialization, which certainly didn't harm it in evolving past dependency upon slavery.) In sum, I believe the courts helped, given the above-listed decisions and others, in overturning civil rights violations. I will concede the courts may not have done much for overturning slavery per se. Not being able to vote, because you do not have the status of a citizen, can be considered to be an enslaving condition. Helping African Americans to obtain the right to vote cannot really, in the BIG PICTURE, be considered to be unimportant in furthering the cause of social justice in America. We still have problems with enfranchisement, for many people. It's a process. If you want to target slavery, I will give you that. I hope you will agree that the abolitionist movement had to have some adherents among jurists in the North before the war. If I had time to do the research, I think I could find it. I am sure there are six thousand dissertations on the subject. (In fact, my husband's great- great-grandfather was a Union General, before that an abolitionist, teacher and ultimately, a Pennsylvania Governor who had to go through a post-bellum battle with Copperheads in the Pennsylvania Legislature who sought to reverse many of the aspects of the Emancipation Proclamation. I would have to do some more research on this, but I do believe many cases came before the State Supreme Court relating to this process. His son was actually Solicitor General under Theodore Roosevelt. He argued cases of social justice, including native American land rights and treaty rights, issues involving monopolies, before the Supreme Court of the US. Soooo, pardon me for name-dropping, but I know rather first hand that the courts have addressed issues of fairness and disenfranchisement in general. Only Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, dougw. I'll give you that. _ | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 714 Registered: 3-2005 |
Abolitionist, General, Governor, Teacher - sounds like a great man. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3175 Registered: 3-2004 |
Indeed. I am proud to be married to his descendent. And, he was a Republican! Also, interestingly, but having nothing to do with anything, he escaped Southern Prisoner of War camps twice, both times outrunning and outsmarting the dogs and men who chased him through the southern swamps. I should write a book about him, actually. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5153 Registered: 8-2003 |
How many slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free, tulip? | ||
| Barbara Citizen Username: Blh Post Number: 609 Registered: 5-2001  |
Thread drift. Went to see the "Slavery in NY" exhibit at the NYHS this weekend. What we didn't learn in school. Quote: New York has preeminently been the capital of American liberty, the freest city of the nation - its largest, most diverse, its most economically ambitious, and its most open to the world. It was also, paradoxically, for more than two centuries, the capital of American slavery. As many as 20% of colonial New Yorkers were enslaved Africans. First Dutch and then English merchants built the city's local economy largely around supplying ships for the trade in slaves and in what slaves produced - sugar, tobacco, indigo, coffee, chocolate, and ultimately, cotton. New York ship captains and merchants bought and sold slaves along the coast of Africa and in the taverns of their own city. Almost every businessman in 18th-century New York had a stake, at one time or another, in the traffic in human beings. During the colonial period, 41% of the city's households had slaves, compared to 6% in Philadelphia and 2% in Boston. Only Charleston, South Carolina, rivaled New York in the extent to which slavery penetrated everyday life. " And we think slavery only happened in the south. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 643 Registered: 2-2004 |
Barbara, Please don't recite facts for these good liberals. They have one view and one view only. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, of all the towns I have ever lived, Maplewood was by far the most segregated town, yet you folks think you are diverse. Look around at the train platform next time and see what the percentages are. However, I enjoy your antiquated posts because I love the fact that southern conservatives dominate the political arena. We are setting the agenda and you "diverse" libs can't do a thing to stop it except whine because you all are bunch together in urban areas and don't have enough representation. Boo hoo. |
