> > Larry wrote:
> > You mean that they should ignore case law and other decisions.
>
> The framers allowed for amendments to the Constitution. I thought
> that point would be implicit - my mistake. More information on how
> that works is here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.
or> g/wiki/United_States_
>"were probably affected"
>
>Well there you have it. Lets change nation security procedures.
>
>On 1/19/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Probably affect since the government refused to release any information about
the program to the judges so they could be the judge of who was affec
On 1/19/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
> Actually several of the people who did bring suit were probably affected
> by the surveillance - various academics and journalists for instance with
> contacts with members of various Islamicist parties for instance.
>
> So there is demo
> Larry wrote:
> You mean that they should ignore case law and other decisions.
The framers allowed for amendments to the Constitution. I thought
that point would be implicit - my mistake. More information on how
that works is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Articl
"were probably affected"
Well there you have it. Lets change nation security procedures.
On 1/19/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Because only terrorists were targeted by these laws?
> >
> >Because, by definition, if you were targeted by these laws, you are a
> >terrorist?
> >
> >Gre
Your argument is backwards, it was the Democrats that fought those
Republican laws.
On 1/19/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean that they should ignore case law and other decisions. Also by
> extension toss out most legal decisions since 1790 or so, prohibit women's
> vote or t
>Because only terrorists were targeted by these laws?
>
>Because, by definition, if you were targeted by these laws, you are a
>terrorist?
>
>Great logic there...
isn't that typical of him however.
Actually several of the people who did bring suit were probably affected by the
surveillance - var
>> cHat wrote:
>> Judges should interpret the laws as written without allowing political
>> or personal feelings to affect the interpretation.
>>
>
>I always puzzle about what that means, specifically the word "interpret".
>
>A good judge should be vetted for his/her academic understanding of
>the
Because only terrorists were targeted by these laws?
Because, by definition, if you were targeted by these laws, you are a
terrorist?
Great logic there...
On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, to bring this case before a Judge you must prove your rights
> are being violated. S
Actually, to bring this case before a Judge you must prove your rights
are being violated. Since nobody, except for the terrorists, had their
rights violated, the case should be thrown out.
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > The main point you missed here is Gonza
> Sam wrote:
> The main point you missed here is Gonzalez is saying is that these
> justices are supposed to decide the constitutionality of a law, not
> change National Security policy because they don't agree with it.
A policy is a prescribed set of actions which are, presumably,
supported by la
I think it was Justice Stevens that said he based some of his
decisions on current European laws.
The main point you missed here is Gonzalez is saying is that these
justices are supposed to decide the constitutionality of a law, not
change National Security policy because they don't agree with it.
> cHat wrote:
> Judges should interpret the laws as written without allowing political
> or personal feelings to affect the interpretation.
>
I always puzzle about what that means, specifically the word "interpret".
A good judge should be vetted for his/her academic understanding of
the intent of
On 1/19/07, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Personally I think it should be read more like this:
> Judges should interpret the laws as written without allowing political
> or personal feelings to affect the interpretation.
>
You are exactly right.
The judges should never "submit
> It'd be like saying "judges should be able to rule on the second
> amendment, but on the 3rd and 5th they should defer to congress".
> That's another way of saying that the judicial branch shouldn't exist.
Personally I think it should be read more like this:
Judges should interpret the laws as w
> cHat wrote:
> And what does this have to do directly with Bush OR about passing
> judgement on Law as a whole?
>
> Yes it's about a member of the Bush administration and yes he made
> statements that state that the judicial branch should defer to the
> will of the other two branches of government
On 1/18/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are
> unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy,
> ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.
And what does this have to do directly with Bu
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are
unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy,
ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges
generally should defer to the will of
18 matches
Mail list logo
