Post #3,507
8/1/01 6:02:19 PM
|
National Lawyers Guild May Move to Impeach the Rehnquist 5
From [link|http://www.nlg.org/|http://www.nlg.org/]
Following the dramatic and to many traumatic events surrounding the Florida vote recount in the 2000 Presidential Campaign, the National Lawyers Guild is currently investigating the possibility of an Impeachment Campaign against the five supreme justices who nullified the recount and in effect guaranteed George W. Bush the position of President of the United States. This campaign will be raised to a vote by Guild members at this year's annual Convention in Tucson Arizona, October 10th -15th...
|
Post #3,519
8/1/01 6:50:34 PM
|
Love. It.
|
Post #3,625
8/2/01 1:38:58 PM
|
Thanks, Mike. I needed some good news today....
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #3,630
8/2/01 2:02:21 PM
|
More: Top Ten Reasons to Vote for Katherine Harris
From www.toostupidtobepresident.com
Top 11 Reasons to Support Katherine Harris' Congressional Bid
11. No matter where you live, you can vote for her... twice.
10. Campaign contributions are tax deductible, hush money isn't.
9. Jeb Bush has threatened to kill one prisoner a day until she is elected.
8. High-profile campaign will boost value of cosmetics stock you bought during Tammy Faye Bakker's 15 minutes of fame.
7. She's running against Elian's aunt for the nomination.
6. Catchy campaign slogan, "The only poll that matters is the Harris poll."
5. 680 American Servicemen can't be wrong.
4. Serving in the House of Representatives will diminish her power over our lives.
3. In a decision yet to be released, Harris v. Insert Name of Democratic Nominee Here, the Supreme Court has already decided she will win by a 5-4 margin.
2. Female members of the House are less likely to become romantically involved with interns... especially if they are already involved with the President and/or his brother.
1. It's the only way to be sure your vote will be counted.
|
Post #3,639
8/2/01 3:46:36 PM
|
one more
the only woman uglier than Janet Reno
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,770
8/3/01 3:40:58 PM
|
Excellent.
|
Post #3,791
8/3/01 9:10:13 PM
|
But naughty of you both. Z'everyone gotta look like Sheena?
|
Post #3,799
8/3/01 11:10:04 PM
|
Kiss me I like to be kissed when I am fscked over!
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,803
8/4/01 12:02:02 AM
|
Whad'ja eat last, dollface?
|
Post #3,731
8/3/01 11:44:58 AM
|
Isn't this like cannabilism?
Lawyers eating their own... I LIKE it!!! Can I ask you a serious question? Who gives a shit? The election is history, man... get over it. Us 20% who elect 100% of the presidents think the supreme court made the right call...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #3,772
8/3/01 3:49:01 PM
|
Moving On.
Your argument to "just move on" is reminiscient of the initial response from your right-wing predecessors who argued that Nixon should be left alone because "everybody does it", and is equally myopic.
Todd Gitlin, a professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New York University, sums it up when he writes:
"Casting a blind eye on the past is not new, least of all in America, where optimism wins elections...But when the country risks forgetting deficiencies in the democratic process, there should be no statute of limitations on remembering."
|
Post #3,774
8/3/01 4:12:35 PM
|
The fact of who occupies the White Hous is a minor detail
compared to the problems with the decision that cheated him out of a clean victory.
The Renquist 5 sold out the Court and the Constitution and the concept of judicial restraint for a single act of kingmaking. Do you seriously think that if the roles were reversed they would have selected Gore?
And no, I really don't think Gore would have been a much better president. As I said - the matter of who occupies the White House is a minor detail. The rape of the electoral process and the usurpation of authority matter far more than that.
If Bush is better than Gore would have been, then the court only made the wrong call twice: first when it took the case, second when they stopped the count. The third call, which candidate they picked, is a 50/50.
How we select leaders is extremely important. Who actualy gets selected far less so.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #3,816
8/4/01 10:32:39 AM
|
Now You Know
How pro-lifers feel about Roe v Wade. By the nature of their role, they only adjudicate appeals, the Supremes offend one of the parties every time they reach a finding or decline a case. It's not rape, it's their job.
|
Post #3,824
8/4/01 4:52:57 PM
|
That won't explain This event, at all.
They *selected a president*. And did so in violation of (the 5's) oft-stated Vast Principles\ufffd re states' rights and other bulwarks of their mindset. A non-sequitur in their previous march towards Repo uniformity everywhere.
Nope - simply suggesting that Someone will be offended, no matter what they do: won't whitewash this atrocity.
As to Right-to-Life and other doggerel slogans one could mention: there *IS* no solution to a slogan which advocates:
A) Citizenship (ergo 'Rights') for zygotes OVER human host!
B) Death penalty for actual adult citizens.
Slogan is an oxymoron, ergo: could never be resolved, except via cant. (Which is the usual result in Murican banal non-debate via sound-byte and straw warm-puppies or The Cheeeldrun = ~ same)
Nice try, though..
|
Post #4,095
8/7/01 5:20:59 PM
|
Not at all
Bush v. Gore was a direct attack on the structure of the republic. Roe v. Wade is (if you disagree) a flesh wound. BvG is a poison dart aimed at the heart.
How partisan do you have to be to look at this perversion of the very structure of the republic, particularly when committed by people who have claimed to be committed to judicial restraint - a position that holds that maintaining the structure is more important than any particular issue - and say "well, at least the right guy won"? The Judicial branch hijacked the Executive. In RvW, they (maybe) encroached on the Legislative, here, they took over the Executive.
There is a perpetual tension in the Supreme Court between the idea of justice in this case and the idea of letting things be decided by the correct process. Between activists who want to make this one come out right, and conservatives (in the judicial sense) who want to preserve the process.
In this case, those who had committed to preserving the process dumped it, created a one-shot right based on a weird and unworkable idea of equal protection, voided the election because it violated that newly invented right, declared that there wasn't time to grant that right in this case and that this case would not set precedent so it won't be applied in any future case, and then voted a straight party ticket.
Had activist justices made a similar decision, it would still have been wrong, but it would have gone down easier. This is like Joe McCarthy selling military secrets to the Communists.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
