Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/17/06 2:57 pm:
well who would've guessed it ? A Jimmy Carter appointed liberal judge made that ruling ? I'll be ...

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/17/06 2:59 pm:
this judges rediculous decision will be reversed either at the appellate level or the Supreme Court .

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/17/06 3:27 pm:
Well, that's 1. :)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/17/06 7:47 pm:
MG,

>>>The "enemies" wouldn;t be so pissed off if it weren't for yahoos like Bush in charge and running amok.<<<

That is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. Unfortunately, it is one that is repeated so often.

Islamic terrorism has existed long before Bush came to office. He didn't cause it, and he didn't create the terrorists.

Let's examine a long list of terrorist incidents:

(For the record, George Bush was born on July 6, 1946.)

In the year 611 - Ali ibn Abi Talib assassinated by Kharijites

In 680 - Husayn ibn Ali martyred in Karbala after being kept hungry and thirsty for 3 days.

Were "yahoos like George Bush" responsible for these acts in the 7th century?

In 11th century, Syria & Iran - The Hasaniyyin, followers of Hasan-i Sabbah, formed a radical group that murdered important enemies. The group is more widely known by the derogatory name of Hashshashin, i.e. partakers of Hashish. Many say that their name is the source for the word 'assassin'.

Was GWB responsible for the terrorist acts of Muslims in the 11th century?

Let's look at events a little closer to our time-period.

1961 April 8: Omani terrorists blow up the passenger liner MV Dara, killing 238 people

1968 December 26: Two Palestinian gunmen travel from Beirut to Athens, and attack an El Al jet there, killing one person

What was GWB's part in these terrorist attacks in the 1960s? As I understand it, he was about 15 & 22 years old when these events occured, and had no connection of any kind to public office. But I'm sure that somehow, he was responsible for these attacks.

Let's look further, shall we?

May 8, 1970: Avivim school bus massacre by Palestinian PLO members, killing nine children, three adults and crippling 19.

September 5, 1972: Black September kidnaps and kills 11 Israeli Olympic athletes and one German policeman in the Munich Massacre.

March 1, 1973: Black September takes ten hostages (five of them diplomats) at the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, Sudan. Three western diplomats are killed in the Khartoum diplomatic assassinations.

December 17, 1973: Pan Am Flight 110: 30 passengers were killed when phosphorus bombs are thrown aboard the aircraft by Palestinian militants from the Fatah group as it prepares for departure. Abu Nidal is fingered as the mastermind.

April 11, 1974: Kiryat Shmona massacre at an apartment building by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine members, killing 18 people, 9 of whom were children

May 15, 1974: Ma'alot massacre at the Ma'alot High School in Northern Israel by Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine members: 26 of the hostages were killed, 66 wounded.

September 8, 1974: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner. Abu Nidal is fingered as the mastermind.

March 5, 1975: In the Savoy Operation PLO gunmen from Lebanon take dozens of hostages at the Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel eventually killing eight hostages and three IDF soldiers, and wounding 11 hostages.

June 26–July 4, 1976: Hijacking of Air France Flight 139 (Tel-Aviv-Paris); Operation Entebbe: 4 hostages, one IDF soldier and 45 Ugandian soldiers killed.

March 11, 1978: Coastal Road massacre: Fatah gunmen killed several tourists and hijack a bus near Haifa; 37 Israelis on the bus are killed.

During the 1970s, Bush was at Harvard earning his MBA (until 1975) and then working in the oil and gas industry (the rest of the decade). But I'm sure that, somehow, he was involved in the cause of these terrorist incidents.

Next decade:

April 30 1980: Iranian Embassy siege: Iraqi agents take over the Iranian Embassy in London, gaining hostages. After a number of days, one hostage was killed by the Iraqis, and the Special Air Service assaulted the building to rescue the remaining hostages. One hostage died during the assault.

July 27 1980: Members of the Abu Nidal Organization carried out a grenade attack on an Antwerp synagogue killing a child and wounding twenty others.

October 3 1980: Four congregants were killed and twelve others injured in a bomb attack on the rue Copernic synagogue in Paris, France. Responsibility was claimed by the National European Fascists (FNE), but the police investigation concluded that Palestinian terrorists were involved.

October 6 1981: Assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat by Islamic Jihad.

August 9 1982: Rue des Rosiers, Paris gunning and bombing of Goldenberg restaurant : 6 killed 22 wounded - Fatah and the Revolutionary Council take responsibility.

September 14, 1982: Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Bashir Gemayel and twenty-five others in a car explosion at the Kataeb headquarters.

April 18 1983: U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63.

February 23 1985: Paris Marks & Spencer shop, 1 bomb, 1 dead, 18 wounded, attributed to pro-Iranian Lebanese Hizbollah

June 14 1985: TWA Flight 847 hijacking.

October 7, 1985 – October 10: Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.

November 23, 1985: EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.

December 7, 1985: Paris, Galeries Lafayette and Printemps shops, two bombs, 51 injured, attributed to pro-Iranian Lebanese Hizbollah

February 3 1986: Paris, Claridge passage (Champs Élysées) 7 injured, another bombe failed to explode in the Eiffel tower, pro-Iranian (Fouad Ali Saleh group)

February 4 1986: Paris, Gibert book shop, 7 injured, Fouad Ali Saleh

April 2 1986: TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; four passengers (all of them American), including an infant, are killed. Abu Nidal goup and Arab Revolutionary Cells are responsible.

September 5 1986: Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan. Abu Nidal Organization.

December 25 1986: Iraqi Airways Flight 163 is hijacked. Islamic Jihad/Hizbollah is blamed.

December 21 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie. Libyan operatives Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah are blamed. Megrahi is convicted, Fhimah is acquitted in the case.

September 19 1989: Suitcase-bomb destroys UTA Flight UT-772 en route to Paris, killing all 171 passengers and crew. Lybian intelligence involved.

Let's see... during the 1980s, Bush was still working in the oil and gas industry, until 1986 when he started working for his father's Presidential campaign. Then in 1989, he became the managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. As far as I know, Bush had absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy at the time, and wasn't even an elected official at the time. But I'm sure that somehow he is to blame for all these attacks.

Continuing...

March 17 1992: Israeli Embassy bombing by "Islamic Jihad" in Buenos Aires, Argentina; 29 killed, 242 injured.

January 25 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.

February 26 1993: World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people.

July 18 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. Generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

July 26 1994: Israeli Embassy Attack in London and a Jewish charity are car-bombed, wounding 20. Attributed by Britain, Argentina, and Israel to Hezbollah.

December 11 1994: A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.

November 13 1995: Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

November 19 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

February 25 - March 4 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

February 24 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

November 17 1997: Luxor Massacre – Islamist gunmen attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 62 people, most of them European and Japanese vacationers.

January 3 1999: Gunmen open fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque, killing 16 people injuring 25.

In the 1990s, Bush was the managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team until 1994. He was elected governor of Texas in 1994 and then again in 1998. In 1999, he announced his candidacy for President and spent 1999 and 2000 working on that. Even as an elected governor, I don't think he had much say in foreign policy... especially under President Clinton. But again, I'm sure that all those terrorist attacks that took place before Bush was elected President are somehow the fault of "yahoos like Bush in charge and running amok."

But perhaps you can explain to me HOW he is responsible.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/17/06 7:50 pm:
>>>The precedent exists for slavery, too. Just because someone has done it before doesn't make it right.<<<

Another falacious argument. We ended slavery with Constitutional Amendments to that effect. But at the time that slavery was practiced in the USA, it was not illegal. See the Dredd Scott Decision for more information. The Supreme court upheld owning slaves as a right of American people. It wasn't until slavery was made illegal through a constitutional amendment that it became illegal.

So if you are telling me that we should make a Constitutional Amendment that disallows Bush's wiretap programs, that's fine and good, and I'll debate that point another time. But the point is that RIGHT NOW, it is 100% legal, and Judge Diggs-Taylor's decision was wrong. Her job is to INTERPRET the Constitution, not make changes in it that suit her personal opinions. She failed in that job.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/17/06 8:09 pm:
Elliot,

It is funny how Conservatives readily accuse Liberal judicial appointees of being activists, while at the same time statistically Conservative appointees make active rather than interpretations. So, the noise only comes when the judges are not active in their favour, but silence follows when a ruling is not in their favour, such as this one. This is called selective vision, which is another typical Conservative trait.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/17/06 10:05 pm:
ex,

You're sounding a little pessimistic today. You should know me better than that by now, I do want constitutional judges. But as you know, the constitution sure is open for interpretation so both of us better watch out when asking for constitutional judges. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to say 'most' are right-wing.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/18/06 8:34 am:
Ex and Micro

the question is not if the NSA taps are constitutional ;they are .
The question is if the FISA Court is an unconstitutional ursurpation of Executive powers . That is the only issue that the courts have to consider .

What amuses me is that at the end of the 1990s the civil libertarians were complaining that FISA was unconstitutional ,especially after Clintoon signed Executive Order 12949 ... Oh how they whined about how Aldrige Ames rights were being violated ! Now they champion it .

The Constitution, doesn't exist solely to constrain the executive. It confers powers on the executive as well as limiting them. If those powers are abridged by another branch of the government...oh let's say the Congress by passing FISA as an example ; the Constitution is being violated ...and not by the president.

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/18/06 9:00 am:
You argument is less than specious. We have a system to determine the constitutionality of a law. If FISA were unconstitutional, it could be challenged in court. In absence of this ruling, it stands as constitutional, and as far as I have seen, no challenge has been made arguing otherwise. This law has been on the books for quite some time.

Besides, simply calling something illegal doesn't make it so. People go to court day in and out claiming injustice. And while the court systems have never really approached Justice, it is the system we have accepted, and we live with it...just like this so-called Democracy, which is just as flawed, if not more so.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/18/06 9:03 am:
Micro
The 24 in Briton will probably be determined in time to be a bunch of college students with chemistry sets. Most had no visa, no tickets, no explosives...need I go on.

This is no more credible than the guys they caught a bit back "planning" to blow up the Sears tower in Chicago.

I can only assume that you have not followed the details of this case and prefer to live with preconceived notions. This was a cell of at least 50 with command and control and financing decisions being made in Pakistan .Two of the suspects recently traveled to Pakistan and later received money wired from there.

Two of the suspects left "martyrdom tapes" which suggests that the plot was nearer to finalized than you are implying . In fact they were prepared to make a 'test run' and were perusing the net for flight schedules .

Rashid Rauf was one of the key plotters . He was arrested in Pakistan .He was interrogated by a 'high-level intelligence team' . He broke down in three days and provided a lot of useful information that was shared with British intelligence.

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/18/06 9:25 am:
Not to be a complete skeptic, but that 1 or 2 did this does not necessarily suggest that the other had this intent or knowledge. Anybody could create a martyrdom tape today. So? I don't think any essence of timing can be implied by thatthough anyone is free to ascribe whatever meaning they want on something, as you see; it doesn't make it correct.

Also, you are placing faith in the messenger...the mass media outlets, which has not in the past decade or so been a very reliable conduit for information.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/18/06 11:05 am:
Micro,

>>>It is funny how Conservatives readily accuse Liberal judicial appointees of being activists, while at the same time statistically Conservative appointees make active rather than interpretations.<<<

Can you name one? I can name about ten well-known cases of liberal judicial activism.

1) Roe v. Wade: the courts found a mythical 'right to privacy' that is NOT enumerated in the Constitution, and based the entire decision regarding abortion on that newfound right.

2) Roeper v. Simmons: the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision to abolish juvenile executions, basing that ruling not on US law, but rather on international law and the fact that a "consensus of states" have abolished juvenile executions. (The fact that a "consensus of states" were against legalizing abortion didn't seem to effect the decision in Roe v. Wade, however.)

3) Lawrence v. Texas: the Supreme Court again uses the mythical "right to privacy" to determine that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. This decision overturned a decision in a similar case 7 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick.

4) Kelo v. New London: The Supreme Court decides that eminent domain can be used to allow a city to transfer private property to other private concerns without the consent of the owners if the result will be an increase in the tax revenues of the community. This overturned two centuries of precedent that said that eminent domain can only be used to transfer private property to the government for public use, such as for building highways, railroads, etc. Now, as a result of this decision, your home can be taken away from you at any time by a private person or business if someone can convince the city you live in that their use of your property will create higher taxes than you currently pay.

5) Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America: The US District Court ruled that it is "unconstitutional" for public lands to be leased by the Boy Scouts of America from the government because that would indicate that the government "endorses religious belief". That case voided a lease that the Boy Scouts of America had with the local government in California for $1 per year for a camp ground. The lease had been in effect since 1957. The court noted that nobody was actually interested in using the land besides the Boy Scouts, and that the Plaintiffs had not actually proven a case of religious descrimination against the Boy Scouts, but that didn't matter to the court. They voided the lease anyway.

6) Locke v. Davey: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology." A top student with dual majors in Theology and Business Management was barred from receiving scholarship money because he was studying Theology. The court decided that the scholarship didn't even have to pay for the business portion of the student's studies, because he was studying Theology. The Court held that Washongton State had a "substantial state interest" in not funding "devotional degrees." I'm still trying to figure out what that "substantial interest" is.

Here's an interesting one:

7) O’Connor v. Washburn University: O'Connor sued Washington University for putting up a statue called "Holier Than Thou" that he claimed was offensive to Catholics. It included a plaque that derided Catholicism. The 10th District Court of Appeals determined that despite the obviously anti-Catholic message of the statue, nobody would seriously believe that Washburn University is advocating an anti-Catholic stance or is actually anti-Catholic. The interesting point is this: If that is the case, then by applying the same standard, all of the decisions that disallow saying the Pledge Of Allegiance in schools or disallow statues of the Ten Commandments in public places should be overturned since nobody could seriously believe that the government is advocating those religious opinions. And yet, that is NOT the case. It seems to me that the court is chery picking which cases they are upholding and which they are overturning based on their own personal opinions, rather than any standard of jurisprudence.

Meanwhile, on the other side of religious freedom:

8) Mellen and Knick v. the Superintendent of the Virginia Military Academy: The 2nd District Court decided that saying a prayer before meals is an abrogation of religious freedom. Never mind that the students who filed the suit knew before they went to the school that a prayer was said before meals, and that they had the choice to go to any other school in the world: the court found that they were being "coerced" to say a prayer against their wills. Not only that, but the court ignored the fact that the cadets had graduated and no longer needed the court to address their concerns. In fact, this court specifically noted that under these circumstances they would normally send the case back to trial court with orders to dismiss it. But we’re talking about prayer here, and the court decides to go to extraordinary lengths to combat the evil of prayer.

So what that tells us is that publicly bashing religion is constitutionally protected, but publicly practicing religion is not, and is in fact un constitutional.

9) Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusets declared, despite 5,000 years of precedent, that the traditional definition of "marriage" is “arbitrary and irrational.” They decided that the Massachusets laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman are therefore unconstitutional. The court then said the following:

“[We acknowledge that] many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. [We] reaffirm that the State may not interfere with these convictions.”

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/18/06 2:34 pm:
You obviously have more available time on your hands then I do. Well-known and proportion are separate issues.

Here is a citation, though: (http://www.slate.com/id/2144202/)

Though you'll rarely hear them admit it, today's movement conservatives do embrace muscular courts that "supervise American life," often in the very same cases in which liberals want courts to take a hands-off approach. The most fervent Roberts and Alito supporters would use the power of judicial review to wipe out or weaken land-use regulations, campaign-finance reform, affirmative action, and gun control. Perhaps more significant, they cheered—and hope that the additions of Alito and Roberts re-invigorate—the Rehnquist Court's recently slowed assault on Congress' legislative authority. Generating the highest-ever annual rate of invalidating federal legislation, the "hands-off" Rehnquist Court scotched laws safeguarding workers, seniors, people with disabilities, school children, and religious minorities and established standards threatening to scuttle even more, including important environmental achievements.

Among other things, these rulings provide that when deciding cases in which state government officials stand accused of violating a federal antidiscrimination law (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act), courts must strike the law down unless they determine that it is a "congruent and proportional" response to a demonstrable history of state-sponsored discrimination. Another landmark conservative favorite brushed aside a "mountain of data"—four years of fact-finding, studies from task forces in 21 states, and eight different congressional reports—to condemn as unconstitutional the "method of reasoning" Congress employed to enact legislation that would have protected women against violence. Talk about supervising American life.

And that's just what your run-of-the-mill movement conservative supports: Those on the right wing's fringes look to use the Constitution to undo scores of state and federal laws protecting workers, consumers, and public health. Just like the Supreme Court did in the early 20th century, when it infamously wiped out all manner of social welfare legislation, including laws prohibiting child labor, setting a minimum wage, and regulating maximum work hours. New books by pundits Mark Smith and Andrew Napolitano advocate this cause with swagger.

The truth, then, is that despite all their fulminating about judicial activism, conservatives today firmly believe that courts must step in to oversee, correct, or invalidate the actions of government officials. They simply disagree with liberals on when to do it.

I won't even mention the Terri Schiavo case. Oops! I guess I did. ;)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/18/06 3:24 pm:
Well, since you brought it up, let's indeed talk about the terry Schiavo case: in that case, the court decided that any man has the right to take the life of his wife, legally, regardless of whether he can prove that she wanted to die or not. The judges in the case ignored precedent set in other cases of having to prove that she would have wanted to die, ignored Congressional orders for a judicial review (Congress gets to decide on the jurisdiction of the lower courts under the Constitution, so by ignoring Congress, the court was violating the Constitution), and somehow came to the conclusion that starving someone to death is humane (this is the same court that has decided that execution by lethal injection is cruel and inhuman punishment). I think its a perfect case of liberal judicial activism. All that consevatives wanted in that case was for the courts to follow legal precedent from prior case law and follow their constitutional responsibilities. They failed to do so. It certainly wasn't conservative judicial activism, since the judge was clearly deciding based on the LIBERAL point of view in that case. Good try, though.

>>>The most fervent Roberts and Alito supporters would use the power of judicial review to wipe out or weaken land-use regulations, campaign-finance reform, affirmative action, and gun control.<<<

Yes, we want a court that is going to support the First, Second and Fourth Amendments as they were written. We want to make sure that if eminent domain is being used, it is for a true public use, not so that some private developer can get rich off of my land. We want to make sure that people have the right to say whatever they want about a candidate in whatever venue they wish, even if it is within 30 days of election time (the McCain-Feingold Bill denies us that right, and is therefore unconstitutional). We want the courts to uphold the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms rather than making decisions based on their personal dislike for guns.

None of that is judicial activism, it is a desire to return to the original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN. That is the exact OPPOSITE of judicial activism. Yes, it would wipe out several landmark decisions, but that is only because those decisions were not based on the Constitution and legal precedent, but rather on activist thinking. Judicial Activism is when judges create NEW law based on either broad and specious interpretations of the Constitution, or else based on something other than the Constitution (like international law). Judicial Originalism which is what I support, is when judges make decisions based solely on the original meaning of the Constitution and legal precedents that are based on those original interpretations of the Constitution. Alito and Roberts, along with Scalia and Thomas, are originalists (as was Renquist). Kennedy, Souter, Ginzberg and Breyer are activists. (Stevens is just senile. He's 86 year old.)

So when Slate calls Roberts and Alito "activists", it just shows that they don't understand the issue or the meaning of the words "judicial activism".

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 08/18/06 3:33 pm:

Hello:

So, if a decision by a liberal judge doesn't have to be obeyed, why should I obey those right wing nut case judges you love?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/18/06 4:34 pm:
Excon,

Nobody is saying it doesn't have to be obeyed, just that the decision was wrong and should be appealed, and a stay of judgement should be filed until the appeal is heard.

Elliot