Post #28,090
2/11/02 7:30:09 PM
|
I'm more concerned with what CKK will do
|
Post #28,092
2/11/02 7:59:31 PM
|
Ultimately so am I
My concern is that we have 2 sets of lawyers inclined to try to convince her of the same thing. I rather doubt that the lawyers are inclined to point out inconvenient things in the responses, and I doubt that she has as much time or energy to devote to filtering comments as she does.
Hence my desire to have the lawyers feel that there will be some public accountability in how they choose (not) to respond to public comments.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #28,103
2/12/02 3:53:34 AM
|
What accountability would that be?
(No sarcasm intended - Simply I can't imagine how 'pressure' develops over judicial performance - except via the blue-sky chance of, public arousal? via uncommon journalistic attention.)
We're supposed to leave the law details to 'impartial experts', certainly not ever to plebiscite ~~ mob rule. (A cute conundrum which militates against any near-formal 'judicial review', no?)
Still and always: YES! it IS galling to see mercantile sophistry and arrant dissembling - dilute even the chance of a focussed judicial attention [again]. I never get used to that.
Apparently though: 'we' do. Is it ennui? more of the creeping dumbth of the day? or national innate crookedness to the core?
Ashton
..so few occasions to be Proud to be Murican; and diminishing.
PS - could it also be that, judges are embarrassed to realize that your questions (for ex.) make them uncomfortable because - they see they don't quite understand their significance, but understand enough to realize that they Ought to, in order to judge wisely (enough)?
PPS - on Frontline tonight (PBS): Ashcroft's real agenda in Sept was to be 'Pornography', til 9/11 superseded. It will still be his next big push. M$ not even on his theological radar: it's OK for Christians to behave like slime in Caesar's world (and Gawd knows: they often do, Mon. thru Sat.)
(Please: I want my country back from the fucking Righteous hypocrites.)
|
Post #28,105
2/12/02 7:18:30 AM
|
You are right, only a blue sky chance at it really happening
But if you shine a good flashlight on the bottom-dwellers, they just might mistake it for the unfamiliar sight of the Sun...
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #28,201
2/13/02 12:21:01 AM
|
You want your country back?
Vote Anaximander for God-Emperor of the Divided States. I'm not about to run under my real name.
I can't claim to not be a hypocrite, but at least I'll change things. I promise to turn the Imperial Palace (which will be located at that formerly frumpy 1600 P. Ave. address) into a temple of debauchery, a stately pleasure-dome, well, almost as stately as Las Vegas would be if they held Mardi Gras there instead of New Orleans. But with less fabric on the dancing girls. And I'll probably be sneaking out the back door for disgustingly wholesome monogamous romance with my own wife - but if there are any witnesses, well there won't be.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #28,406
2/14/02 4:44:08 PM
|
I could consort with honest debauchery.
Will contribute to campaign, so long as you have available a cabinet opening for, Homeland Minister for the War on Language-Murder.
I apply for consideration for this vital post - it may be our last bulwark against the creeping-TLA, the heat-death of the Mercantile Mind and the insufferable ennui of Political bathos-speak.
Give Me Language or Give Me Dearth (of any mouth noises whatsoever).
Ashton
drawing up list of Ministerial supplies
|
Post #28,452
2/15/02 4:21:01 AM
|
Language murder?
Ashton, you're the most lingo-murderous person aside from Boxley on this forum. :=)
Most of the work of government does not need to be done. - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the government expanded, of course.
|
Post #28,430
2/14/02 10:21:51 PM
|
Hey, you're impinging on my campaign!
I'm running for Presidential office in 2008. (I'll be over 35, and thus capable of holding that office.)
My only campaign promise is to REALLY screw things up.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #28,438
2/14/02 11:52:26 PM
|
Well...
Given that politicians never keep their promises, I might just vote for you if you have a policy like that. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #28,106
2/12/02 8:11:05 AM
2/12/02 8:18:35 AM
|
Another possible explanation.
Hi Ben,
The DoJ lawyers are between a rock and a hard place. They got swamped with responses from the public supporting both sides. They don't have the personnel, budget nor time to write detailed responses to all of the (on-topic) comments. They have to do some filtering. Their comments to the press may have been too terse, but I think that's the bottom line.
What could they do differently?
Yes, the DoJ has an agreement they want ratified. But that doesn't mean that the DoJ lawyers are going to try to shirk their duties. Let's wait and see.
And ultimately, it depends on how CKK reads and responds to the comments.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #28,132
2/12/02 2:07:45 PM
|
What? (DoJ)
Yes, the DoJ has an agreement they want ratified. But that doesn't mean that the DoJ lawyers are going to try to shirk their duties. Let's wait and see. They've already shirked their duties with this lame, limp settlement. Most of the work of government does not need to be done.
|
