BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>>>>>>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>>>>>>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>
>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>
>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>>>
>>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to correct
>>> errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned
>>> in violation of the Constitution."
>>>
>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
>>> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>>>
>>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not the
>> U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue, the Federal
>> courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>
>
>
> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
> have jurisdiction.

Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, I believe
this to be good. The case under discussion belonged in the state court system,
and that was the jist of the decision.

 

[Sid9]

David Hartung wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative
>>>>>>>> thoughts they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress
>>>>>>>> was considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>
>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>>>>
>>>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to
>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not
>>>> imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>
>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
>>>> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>>>>
>>>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not
>>> the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue,
>>> the Federal courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>> have jurisdiction.
>
> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited jurisdiction,
> I believe this to be good. The case under discussion belonged in the
> state court system, and that was the jist of the decision.

Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.

 

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:26:27 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No executive has that power...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>>>>
>>>> One example:
>>>>
>>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in
>>>> any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the
>>>> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
>>>>
>>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,
>>>> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the
>>>> executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
>>>
>>>
>>> Meaningless unless tested in court.
>>>
>>
>> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare
>> test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would
>> entrench their powerlessness.
>
>
>Not to swift an outcome!
>
>If it establishes a precedent
>the next (Democrat) president
>will have the same power.
>
>Sane Republican will think
>long and hard before they
>let this happen.

That only means that both Democrats and Republicans are going to be
reluctant to try to launch a court challenge against Bush's many
declarations of autonomy. When Bush is gone, his successor (Democrat
or Republican) is unlikely to have quite Bush's autocratic style and
so they can hope it just goes away.

If on the other hand, they establish in a court of law that the
President has, say, absolutely authority over matters of national
defense and national security, then they're stuck with that for at
least 40 years, and even subsequent Presidents who aren't inclined to
push the bounds of their authority the way Bush is will still make use
of the expanded authority they've been given because it is now withing
their bounds. A subsequent President who is inclined to push it even
further could entirely eliminate Congress as a political force and
turn the Bill of Rights into something that only holds force when the
President sees no reason to dispense with it.

 

[Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:26:27 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> No executive has that power...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>>>>>
>>>>> One example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in
>>>>> any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps
>>>>> the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in
>>>>> chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so
>>>>> the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in
>>>>> nature."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless unless tested in court.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare
>>> test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would
>>> entrench their powerlessness.
>>
>>
>> Not to swift an outcome!
>>
>> If it establishes a precedent
>> the next (Democrat) president
>> will have the same power.
>>
>> Sane Republican will think
>> long and hard before they
>> let this happen.
>
> That only means that both Democrats and Republicans are going to be
> reluctant to try to launch a court challenge against Bush's many
> declarations of autonomy. When Bush is gone, his successor (Democrat
> or Republican) is unlikely to have quite Bush's autocratic style and
> so they can hope it just goes away.
>
> If on the other hand, they establish in a court of law that the
> President has, say, absolutely authority over matters of national
> defense and national security, then they're stuck with that for at
> least 40 years, and even subsequent Presidents who aren't inclined to
> push the bounds of their authority the way Bush is will still make use
> of the expanded authority they've been given because it is now withing
> their bounds. A subsequent President who is inclined to push it even
> further could entirely eliminate Congress as a political force and
> turn the Bill of Rights into something that only holds force when the
> President sees no reason to dispense with it.

I would guess that sane jurists and
sane legislators will not let this happen.

Both Republican and Democrats (Americans)
might face a president that's loonier than bush,jr.

They wont let it happen.

Cooler heads will prevail

 

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:43:06 GMT, Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:


> Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
> the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have starved the war
> to death in no time flat

Of course they'd have to be willing to crash the entire federal
government to do it.

 

[A Veteran]

In article <mb5g83tatsa5knlq5rh9ftn2cnih59h9kt@4ax.com>,
David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:43:06 GMT, Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
> > the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have starved the war
> > to death in no time flat
>
> Of course they'd have to be willing to crash the entire federal
> government to do it.

Subpoenas Now, Impeachment Later?

Posted by Guest Blogger at 5:37 AM on June 28, 2007.

David Edward and Muriel Kane: A Georgetown law professor tells Keith
Olbermann that Bush has committed a "criminal offense" and the Congress'
subpoenas could be the first steps toward impeachment proceedings.


This post, written by David Edwards and Muriel Kane, originally appeared
on Raw Story

Keith Olbermann announced on Wednesday's Countdown that the White House
is refusing on grounds of executive privilege to honor Senate subpoenas
and release documents relating to its warrantless wiretapping. In
addition, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, has
sent a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) saying Cheney's office will not
comply with oversight by the National Archives because it is not "an
agency."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/55444/

--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:R2Shi.1851$3a.913@bignews9.bellsouth.net:

> David Hartung wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the
>>>>>>>>> justices they chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative
>>>>>>>>> justice on the Supreme Court. He chose Earl Warren.
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that criminally conservative judges
>>>>>>>>> like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts understood they
>>>>>>>>> needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts they
>>>>>>>>> had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress
>>>>>>>>> was considering limiting the number of appeals for
>>>>>>>>> convicted prisoners was asked what his position would
>>>>>>>>> be regarding a prisoner facing execution who, after
>>>>>>>>> exhausting his number of appeals, suddenly discovered
>>>>>>>>> completely exculpatory evidence. Scaila said he'd
>>>>>>>>> have no problem with the execution of an innocent man
>>>>>>>>> if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example
>>>>>>>> of liberal "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of
>>>>>>> innocent people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>>
>>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal
>>>>> habeas relief"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit
>>>>> to
>>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals
>>>>> are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual
>>>>> innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency
>>>>> under Texas law".
>>>>>
>>>>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of
>>>> Texas, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a
>>>> Constitutional issue, the Federal courts did not have
>>>> jurisdiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>>> have jurisdiction.
>>
>> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited
>> jurisdiction, I believe this to be good. The case under
>> discussion belonged in the state court system, and that was
>> the jist of the decision.
>
> Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.

Well, only if he's not in the "hot seat." OTOH, Achtung makes up
for his willingness to execute innocent people: he doesn't want
guilty people to go to prison if they're republicans. In his mind
that evens things out.

 

[David Hartung]

Sid9 wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative
>>>>>>>>> thoughts they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress
>>>>>>>>> was considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>>>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>>
>>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to
>>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not
>>>>> imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
>>>>> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>>>>>
>>>>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not
>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue,
>>>> the Federal courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>>> have jurisdiction.
>> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited jurisdiction,
>> I believe this to be good. The case under discussion belonged in the
>> state court system, and that was the jist of the decision.
>
> Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.

Ignoring the law of our land seems okay with you.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in
news:mb5g83tatsa5knlq5rh9ftn2cnih59h9kt@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:43:06 GMT, Blackwater <bw@barrk.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
>> over the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have
>> starved the war to death in no time flat
>
> Of course they'd have to be willing to crash the entire
> federal government to do it.

AND, I would believe the American public would support a shutdown.
(See: election 2006)

 

[David Johnston]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:43:45 -0700, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com>
wrote:

>In article <mb5g83tatsa5knlq5rh9ftn2cnih59h9kt@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:43:06 GMT, Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
>> > the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have starved the war
>> > to death in no time flat
>>
>> Of course they'd have to be willing to crash the entire federal
>> government to do it.
>
>Subpoenas Now, Impeachment Later?
>
>Posted by Guest Blogger at 5:37 AM on June 28, 2007.
>
>David Edward and Muriel Kane: A Georgetown law professor tells Keith
>Olbermann that Bush has committed a "criminal offense" and the Congress'
>subpoenas could be the first steps toward impeachment proceedings.

If they had enough votes to convict, which they don't.

 

[Sid9]

David Hartung wrote:
> Sid9 wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the
>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that
>>>>>>>>>> criminally conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now
>>>>>>>>>> Roberts understood they needed to hide the kind of
>>>>>>>>>> conservative thoughts they had. I believe it was Scaila who,
>>>>>>>>>> when Congress was considering limiting the number of appeals
>>>>>>>>>> for convicted prisoners was asked what his position would be
>>>>>>>>>> regarding a prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting
>>>>>>>>>> his number of appeals, suddenly discovered completely
>>>>>>>>>> exculpatory evidence. Scaila said he'd have no problem with
>>>>>>>>>> the execution of an innocent man if sentenced by a legal
>>>>>>>>>> jury.
>>>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of
>>>>>>>>> liberal "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas
>>>>>> relief" "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to
>>>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not
>>>>>> imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual
>>>>>> innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas
>>>>>> law". Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not
>>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue,
>>>>> the Federal courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>>>> have jurisdiction.
>>> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited
>>> jurisdiction, I believe this to be good. The case under discussion
>>> belonged in the state court system, and that was the jist of the
>>> decision.
>>
>> Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.
>
> Ignoring the law of our land seems okay with you.

You condone executing an innocent person if its OK with the law?
Are you a Christian?

 

[Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:43:45 -0700, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <mb5g83tatsa5knlq5rh9ftn2cnih59h9kt@4ax.com>,
>> David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:43:06 GMT, Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
>>>> the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have starved the war
>>>> to death in no time flat
>>>
>>> Of course they'd have to be willing to crash the entire federal
>>> government to do it.
>>
>> Subpoenas Now, Impeachment Later?
>>
>> Posted by Guest Blogger at 5:37 AM on June 28, 2007.
>>
>> David Edward and Muriel Kane: A Georgetown law professor tells Keith
>> Olbermann that Bush has committed a "criminal offense" and the
>> Congress' subpoenas could be the first steps toward impeachment
>> proceedings.
>
> If they had enough votes to convict, which they don't.


Depends.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:G9Zhi.4801$K9.1334
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

> David Hartung wrote:
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that
>>>>>>>>>>> criminally conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now
>>>>>>>>>>> Roberts understood they needed to hide the kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> conservative thoughts they had. I believe it was Scaila who,
>>>>>>>>>>> when Congress was considering limiting the number of appeals
>>>>>>>>>>> for convicted prisoners was asked what his position would be
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding a prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting
>>>>>>>>>>> his number of appeals, suddenly discovered completely
>>>>>>>>>>> exculpatory evidence. Scaila said he'd have no problem with
>>>>>>>>>>> the execution of an innocent man if sentenced by a legal
>>>>>>>>>>> jury.
>>>>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of
>>>>>>>>>> liberal "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>>>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas
>>>>>>> relief" "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to
>>>>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not
>>>>>>> imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual
>>>>>>> innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas
>>>>>>> law". Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>>>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not
>>>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue,
>>>>>> the Federal courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>>>>> have jurisdiction.
>>>> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited
>>>> jurisdiction, I believe this to be good. The case under discussion
>>>> belonged in the state court system, and that was the jist of the
>>>> decision.
>>>
>>> Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.
>>
>> Ignoring the law of our land seems okay with you.
>
> You condone executing an innocent person if its OK with the law?
> Are you a Christian?


Being a toady for all things Republican
comes first with some people.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:4cydnQkgGsOpzBXbnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Sid9 wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>>>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>>>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>>>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress
>>>>>>>>>> was considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>>>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>>>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>>>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>>>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>>>>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>>>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>>>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>>>>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>>>>>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to
>>>>>> correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not
>>>>>> imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
>>>>>> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>>>>> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not
>>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue,
>>>>> the Federal courts did not have jurisdiction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
>>>> have jurisdiction.
>>> Under our Constitution, the Federal courts have limited jurisdiction,
>>> I believe this to be good. The case under discussion belonged in the
>>> state court system, and that was the jist of the decision.
>>
>> Executing and innocent man seems to be OK with you.
>
> Ignoring the law of our land seems okay with you.


Unless that law can be bypassed with a "signing statement"
or dismissed as a "quaint anachronism"..........

 

[David Hartung]

Sid9 wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:

>> Ignoring the law of our land seems okay with you.
>
> You condone executing an innocent person if its OK with the law?
> Are you a Christian?

I suggest that you go back a re-read the thread. That you could draw the
conclusion you have does not speak well for your ability to comprehend what you
read.

 

[David Johnston]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:13:08 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>>
>> If they had enough votes to convict, which they don't.
>
>
>Depends.

Not on anything that has happened so far is or is likely to happen in
the remaining time.

 

[* US *]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:07:43 -0500, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:

>I suggest ...

I suggest that you explain why you're into killing innocent people.

 

[David Hartung]

US wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:07:43 -0500, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
>
>> I suggest ...
>
> I suggest that you explain why you're into killing innocent people.

I see that you have no interest in honest discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[* US *]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:07:43 -0500, David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:

>I suggest ...

I suggest that you explain why you're into killing innocent people.

Is it your religion?

 

[Blackwater]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:15:54 -0000, "liberalhere@yahoo.com"
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in
>news:a9kg83hoc9gvfa7cjl0q74incuhpk515dj@4ax.com:
>
>> "liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in
>>>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"
>>>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>blackwater sez:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
>>>>>over
>>>>> the BUDGET..."
>>>>>_____________________________________
>>>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what
>>>>>they do best..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees,
>>>I've clean run out'o fingers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around
>>>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,
>>>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling
>>>> vacancies, slashing health plans and generally freaking
>>>> out because the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals
>>>> are screaming bloody murder about assessments made
>>>> during the artificial price spike and demand serious tax
>>>> cuts.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further
>>>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east
>>>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,
>>>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO
>>>> anything ? No. Hell no.
>>>>
>>>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you
>>>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good
>>>> jobs. Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we
>>>> know full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny
>>>> fraction of the money they "earn".
>>>
>>>The answer here is: tax shield.
>>>
>>>Bet you can't see the point.
>>>
>>>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.
>>
>>
>> Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to
>> run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to
>> come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.
>>
>> Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very
>> selectively to build-up specific sectors of
>> business you suspect will return large amounts
>> of revenue later on. A variant would be something
>> like the way the Japanese government invests
>> money in certain technology companies, hoping
>> it will allow them to develop the next iPhone
>> and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays
>> off, sometimes it doesn't.
>
>Son of a gun...you are bright enough!!! Pity your emotional
>maturity is so limited that you think animal abuse is good if it
>"annoys" a liberal. Child abuse "annoys" me too...go rape a kid
>in your neighborhood in order to piss me off.

Interesting you'd suggest "rape" as the preferred
form of 'child abuse' ...

Got anything you want to tell us ... hmmm ?

>The reason we're in the economic situation we're in is precisely
>due to the tax shield effect....more specifically, tax rates are
>too low and economically useful deductions so few that companies
>find it profitable to outsource and screw their remaining
>employees. Higher expected value and all that.

"Tax rates are too low" ... and then you complain
about too few deductions ? Low taxes mean you don't
NEED lots of deductions.

It often IS more profitible to outsource - low wages,
no benifits, no unions, no EPA or OSHA, no insurance,
easier to hide/disguise profits and losses. This
situation is going to presist for a LONG time yet.
The problem is that while we might address one or
two of the things that make outsourcing worthwhile
I doubt we can muster the will to adress ALL of them.
That would mean an almost unregulated, untaxed laissez-
faire business environment with a near-slave labor force.
Congress probably wouldn't mind the 'slavery' but
unREGULATED, unTAXED ??? No, no, NO !

So, this leaves us with three options

1) Watch American industry get flushed down the toilet
into 3rd-world cesspools (Marxist types like this)

2) Turn America into the image of those 3rd-world
cesspools

3) Make it illegal or unprofitible to 'outsource'.

I'd prefer option #3. It will "strain" businesses, but
probably not destroy them.

>Reagan started this mess with his cut taxes and deduction
>argument. I doubt rethug voters can ever be smart enough to begin
>rejecting the so-called low taxes means more investment nonsense.

As soon as ye olde 'liberals' reject the insane notion
that high taxes are good for everyone.

>You do make the mistake of thinking tax cuts are only needed at
>the start of a new industry. Nope. Globalization/outsourcing
>means tax policy must always make outsourcing more expensive.

My recommendation, and I've seen it echoed elsewhere, is
to tax corporations the difference between what it costs
to use outsourced labor and what they'd have to pay a US
worker to do the same job. That way they can benifit from
outside EXPERTISE, but not profit financially by moving
out jobs or whole factories.

Any application of tax shields or govt investment must be
an ongoing thing. While "start up" time IS critical, and
where a lot of businesses fail, there may be times during
normal operation where a helping hand is needed (the Chrysler
bail-out was one example) or desireable. Of course when
you help one business or sector, the others complain. Few
are ashamed of taking "welfare" these days ...


>>>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some
>>>>>bombs their way to wake them up
>>>>
>>>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement
>>>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP
>>>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.
>>>
>>>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every
>>>rethug, obviously piss poor.
>>
>> The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch
>> of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they
>> COME from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and
>> you'll just be getting more of the same.
>>
>>>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't
>>>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.
>>>>
>>>> There's something about politics that takes the best
>>>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest
>>>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that
>>>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning
>>>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?
>>>
>>>Well gee, did a light dawn?
>>
>> Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long
>> did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you
>> haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are
>> somehow "better" ...
>
>Of course I do.

RUBE ALERT !!! RUBE ALERT !!!

Just keep makin' those donations and kissin' DNC butt.

>More greedy old perverts have gone to prison or
>resigned in disgrace in every rethug administration than
>democratic since Eisenhower.

With the govt so GOP-heavy, it is any suprise that
more Republicans get caught ? Stuff the place with
Dems and you'll see more Dems arrested - or maybe
you won't since the Media sees no evil when they
look at Dems.

>>>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of
>>>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta
>>>pay more for an honest one.
>>
>> Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ...
>> and even then "special interest" money can be slipped into
>> the pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a
>> brown paper bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the
>> wealthy interests will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully
>> politicians. One way or another, they'll reel them in and
>> make them serve.
>
>Hogwash, audits of officeholders' finances for every year in
>office and five years after leaving would go far to prevent
>bribery...

Ha, ha, ha, ha ... !

>as would ten year prison sentences for briber and
>bribee. Plus, if a bribee decides to wait out the five year post-
>office audits...put no statute of limitation on the crime.
>Accepting a bribe in public office should be only a lesser crime
>than treason.

NOTHING stops bribery - or bribery-equivalents. The potential
returns from bribery are SO great, for buyer and bought alike,
that they'll do it no matter WHAT the risks. Besides, since
the people taking the money ARE the law, only politicians
that annoy the big power brokers will be 'found out'.

>(Afterthought: an audit of the two years prior to running for
>office may be necessary too. May sound harsh, but look where we
>are and where we're going.)

Lots of ways to hide pay-offs.

Oh yea, who's going to WRITE these draconian regulations
you speak of ? Democrats ? HA ! Republicans ? HA ! Like
the big "campaign finance reform" law, it only got passed
after the important politicians had found ways to get
around it.

>> As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of
>> government imaginible - except for all the others. The
>> 'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent
>> to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope
>> with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the
>> corruption you can't fix and instead learn how to use the
>> existing system ?
>
>"Perhaps"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Nothing like long, long,
>long prison sentences to keep a wobbly politican on the straight
>and narrow.

Tell me about it, once you're made king and can write
any laws you please.

>And white collar business crime needs sentences at
>least equal to armed robbery. Enron proves white collar crime is
>neither amusing nor minor.

Won't happen.

>I've recommended that lobbyists only contact an officeholder in
>an official office and all such meeting be recorded and "YTubed"
>on a government website. Let the public see what lobbyists and
>officeholders discuss.
>
>But there is another issue you've ignored or missed. The problem
>we have today isn't the mere existence of corruption...it's how
>endemic it has been in the republican party and White House.

Don't forget those DNC whitehouses ...

>There is venality in a number of democrats...but only Jefferson
>seems to have risen to the GOP level. And, I think, only in some
>petty business deals having to do with African telecommunications
>businesses. Not national defense issues like Cunningham.

The military-industrial complex has been a big player
since Trumans day. It has a hold on administrations
both GOP and DNC. Favoring business "friends" is
nothing new, and practiced widely by both parties.

Take off the DNC-colored sunglasses and see reality
for once. Yes, it hurts ....

>>>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter
>>>> possibility for awhile ...