Terrorist bank records

[DC_DEEP]

Thanks for clearing that up. Given varying levels of education, writing skill, etc. it's sometimes easy to be abjectly dismissive via this medium, to the exclusion of other's views. Perhaps we all should not lose sight of the fact that if there were no 'subjectivity' to the discourse at large, let alone ambiguity to the Constitution, Patriot Act, or any another other piece of legislation, we wouldn't need a legislative branch or a judicial branch. ...

Thanks, VeeP. One thing you will notice about my posts, if you hang our for a while, is that when I am making what I think is an important point, I will choose my words and my grammar, very very carefully. There was a reason I chose the word "ignorant" over the word "stupid." They really are not synonyms.

And I can usually tell the difference between a post where someone simply has less education, and one where someone has less intelligence. Again, intelligence and knowledge are not the same. If someone wants to challenge my posts, that's fine. But if they want to do it in an Ann Coulter style, or use Rush Limbaugh-type documentation to "back it up," they better damn well be prepared to get slammed. Because I will, and because they deserve it.

I really can't see how anyone can read any ambiguity into most any part of the Constitution. Granted, technology has added a bit of terminology and scope that just didn't exist in 1774. But I cannot for the life of me understand what is confusing about most of it. Shit, your average 5th grade student should be learning, and should be able to understand, what "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" means. I may be the exception to the rule, but I do not toss about words haphazardly. I try to be as concise as possible, and leave little room for misinterpretation of what I post. I don't always succeed, but I try.

 

[VeeP]

I'm not defending anyone's postion but my own, however others do deserve a chance to speak their mind, if that's what they think, no matter how shallow, ass-backward, what-have-you anyone else may think.

Correction: should read "....anyone else may think it is.". (I wouldn't want to be nabbed on a technicality by the posting police, after all).

Oh, and yes, I dropped a freakin' 'e' in executive earlier in my post as well, for those who are keeping score.

 

[VeeP]

Thanks, VeeP. One thing you will notice about my posts, if you hang our for a while, is that when I am making what I think is an important point, I will choose my words and my grammar, very very carefully. There was a reason I chose the word "ignorant" over the word "stupid." They really are not synonyms.

That was readily apparent to me, DCD, and is one reason I enjoy debating you, as I do very much the same. One thing this medium does do, over the spoken word, is tend to put one 'on the record'. That comes with good and bad, of course, and may also cause those who are less skilled, prepared, etc. in their arguments to shy away from posting. I hate to see that develop, as it did yesterday, no matter how off-track or misguided the person may be perceived to be. Heck, they may actually learn something by joining in, provided they're not made to feel 'stupid'. Some of us tend to live and breathe (doubtless to the point of it being unhealthy) this shit on a daily basis... others do not and get their information in a 'pixelated' fashion from the talking heads on the nightly news (love that analogy). At the end of the day we all still possess an opinion of some sort.

I really can't see how anyone can read any ambiguity into most any part of the Constitution. Granted, technology has added a bit of terminology and scope that just didn't exist in 1774.

I think it probably goes even deeper than that, unfortunately. Insightful though the founding fathers may have been, I don't think anyone 200+ years ago could have possibly forseen some of the muck in which we find ourselves mired today (the list of offenses being virtually endless).

But I cannot for the life of me understand what is confusing about most of it. Shit, your average 5th grade student should be learning, and should be able to understand, what "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" means.

"Should be learning" being the operative phrase there. But that's another topic in itself.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it, either. Trouble is, the 'powers that be' routinely twist and turn, slice and dice the original phraseology to fit their own political motives. And that's where the judicial branch is supposed to come in, which, I will admit, is also 'skewed' in a fashion the founding fathers almost certainly never envisioned. As such, a single party having everything 'sewed up' across the board is a very scary thing to me. But, as we learned today with the Gitmo ruling, just because the executive branch says something 'is so', doesn't mean it 'is so'. Right or wrong, I take some solace in the fact the process still appears to work.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...But, as we learned today with the Gitmo ruling, just because the executive branch says something 'is so', doesn't mean it 'is so'. Right or wrong, I take some solace in the fact the process still appears to work.

You know what's really scary about the Gitmo ruling, though, VeeP? I'm so disillusioned with the incestuous relationship of the executive, legislative, and judicial, right now, that my mind is vacillating between "damn, the supreme court did something right for a change" and "I wonder if this is yet another smokescreen or diversionary tactic..."

It's incredibly frustrating for me that, whenever a court (circuit or district court, on up to supreme court) hands down a decision that most closely heeds constitutional mandates, the neo-cons scream that it is "an activist judiciary." The supreme court, over the last several years, has done some pretty stupid things. Scalia is a prime example of what I call "abject stupidity." He may have a lot of knowledge, he may score very well on IQ tests, but how he can claim to understand constitutional law, and then write, or concur with, some of the opinions that he does... well, it just amazes me.

 

[dong20]

But, as we learned today with the Gitmo ruling, just because the executive branch says something 'is so', doesn't mean it 'is so'. Right or wrong, I take some solace in the fact the process still appears to work.

I does, and the judiciary in the UK still retains some degree of real independence despite the best efforts of the Lord Chancellors Dept (sorry DCA) over recent years to curtail it and overturned some Anti-Terrorism orders yesterday:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/28062006/325/anti-terrorism-orders-quashed.html

This on the back of warning to the Police about abuse of stop and search laws which allow them to stop and search someone with or without suspicion.

It's no surprise the Home Secretary intends to appeal. I recall a few years back when that lying slimeball Michael Howard was Home Secretary, he was repeatedly held in contempt by the Judiciary for trampling on some area of legislation or another. Sadly, yet unsurprisingly to get around it, the policy of subsequent administrations has not been to accept policies were illegal but to change the legislation so they no longer were.

I have no faith in our Government, I do still have some faith in the Judiciary, maybe that's a little naive but this and other rulings suggest not.

 

[VeeP]

Scalia is a prime example of what I call "abject stupidity." He may have a lot of knowledge, he may score very well on IQ tests, but how he can claim to understand constitutional law, and then write, or concur with, some of the opinions that he does... well, it just amazes me.

Although I admittedly have very little factual background on which to judge the guy (haven't studied his opinions, etc.), he's one that never has 'set' quite right with me. At that level, there's just something stinky about members of the judiciary comingling with members of the executive during the off-hours. I'm sure there's plenty of 'slap n' tickle' going on there.

[Side note: ETA, you'd be eating this up with a spoon... too bad you chose to be an ignoramous with me. :redface:].

 

[VeeP]

I have no faith in our Government, I do still have some faith in the Judiciary, maybe that's a little naive but this and other rulings suggest not.

I don't think you're at all alone there, dong. The judiciary seems to be the only branch that isn't seething with corruption... yet. Maybe if the other jokers were to wear robes and wigs instead of unitards and those funny hats with tentacles and bells, we'd be inclined to take them more seriously. :biggrin1:

 

[DC_DEEP]

Although I admittedly have very little factual background on which to judge the guy (haven't studied his opinions, etc.), he's one that never has 'set' quite right with me. At that level, there's just something stinky about members of the judiciary comingling with members of the executive during the off-hours. I'm sure there's plenty of 'slap n' tickle' going on there.

One of the biggest flaps with Scalia was when Cheney took him on a duck-hunting trip, to a very exclusive and expensive private hunting club in Louisiana (owned by one of cheney's Halliburton or Big Oil buds). This was just before or during a case before the supreme court, in which Cheney was involved with the defense side. Scalia flatly refused to recuse himself from the case, saying "we've been friends for a long time. This had nothing to do with the case before the court." He is also the one who, when it is politically convenient, claims that citizens have no constitutional right to privacy.

[Side note: ETA, you'd be eating this up with a spoon... too bad you chose to be an ignoramous with me. :redface:].

Please don't.