Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
January 16, 2018, 06:43:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Who should be the next US President?
Bob Barr
John McCain
Ralph Nader
Barack Obama

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 690
  Print  
Author Topic: Campaign Trail  (Read 43653 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2007, 05:40:46 AM »

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats promised that with their majority in the Senate and House, the new Congress would be the most open and honest in history.

But just one month into the era of the Democratic majority, critics charge, Congressional leadership has taken steps to hide earmarks from public scrutiny.

For 12 years during the Republican congressional majority, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) tracked "pork" or earmark spending. In February, this federal agency discontinued the practice.

The move was made so quietly that many members of Congress were reportedly taken unaware. "CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals," whispered a private in-agency Feb. 22 directive from CRS director Daniel Mulhollan.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sees the hand of the Democratic majority behind the halt in earmark tracking.

This IS not going to help liberals in the next elections.

What is your source for these statements?  Worldnutdaily?
Logged
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2316


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2007, 06:18:32 AM »

Quote
(Perot did it for clinton, remember?)
A myth, of course.

Quote
You mean the USSC court did not steal the elction for bush? (They followed federal election law) And Florida law was upheld---much to your chagrin.
Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.  And the last time I read the plurality opinion it was based not on a reinterpretation of Florida law but a newly minted, single use only Constitutional right.
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
ngc321
Guest

« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2007, 07:52:31 AM »

Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.

This was a case involving a federal election. And Florida law dictated a recount when the results were of a certain difference---which was done. The results were final according to Florida law. Period. Liberals didn't like the results so they led the US down a sewer for several months trying to change the results. They claimed ballots were too difficult to understand, that intimidations were used to prevent people from voting, that votes were improperly counted, and a whole host of other ridiculous usual claims by liberals whenever they lose. The USSC properly showed that the liberals could not just ask for another recount in only 3 counties...a concept liberals have trouble understanding. Go do some homework!

Nader garnering several thousand votes in Florida had nothing to do with algore's loss, did it? algore being unable to win his own home state had nothing to do with his loss, did it? Liberals are still crying over this and it IS always rather amusing!! Well, keep on crying until you have a river!
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2007, 09:07:16 AM »

Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.

This was a case involving a federal election. And Florida law dictated a recount when the results were of a certain difference---which was done. The results were final according to Florida law. Period. Liberals didn't like the results so they led the US down a sewer for several months trying to change the results. They claimed ballots were too difficult to understand, that intimidations were used to prevent people from voting, that votes were improperly counted, and a whole host of other ridiculous usual claims by liberals whenever they lose. The USSC properly showed that the liberals could not just ask for another recount in only 3 counties...a concept liberals have trouble understanding. Go do some homework!

Nader garnering several thousand votes in Florida had nothing to do with algore's loss, did it? algore being unable to win his own home state had nothing to do with his loss, did it? Liberals are still crying over this and it IS always rather amusing!! Well, keep on crying until you have a river!

I would agree that Nader was a spoiler in that election.  I also think that Al Gore was the winner and that George Bush was wrongly selected the winner by the SCOTUS, and what has happened since has been the greatest disaster in American History for our country.  I also fear that we might never recover because of the radical rightwing fascist neocons.
Logged
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2316


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2007, 01:47:01 PM »

Quote
This was a case involving a federal election.
Considering your recent citation of the electoral college I thought you understood the nature of the election better than that.

There were no federal regs or statutes at issue in the Florida recount.  None.  It doesn't matter that the persons being elected were ultimately going to be voting for a person to fill a federal office; the conduct of any election is a state concern, not a federal one, except to the extent there are federal laws that preempt the state ones - and there were none.

It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.  You, of course, have chosen to buy the repo spin on what the Florida Court did.  However, Gore's attempts at a recount were procedures authorized specifically by Florida's election laws.  The problem was that those substantive recount rights were not compatible with the procedural time limit requirements of the Florida election laws.  The Florida Supreme Court chose to honor the substantive rights over the procedural ones.  You may disagree based upon your desire to enshrine the Bush election with a patina of legitimacy, but it is a permissable and defensible interpretation of the law.

Which, of course, is why O'Connor didn't opt for an overturning of what the SCOF did.  Amusingly, Scalia, Scalia's second vote, and "that clown Renchburg" did want to directly overturn the SCOF.  Wnat to take a guess what those three justices's reaction would have been to a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of its own statute in ANY OTHER CONTEXT?  The phrase "bull fucking shit" comes to mind.
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
liquidsilver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2060


Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2007, 01:55:54 PM »

Amen
Logged

"I hate listening to peoples dreams. It's like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody's having sex, I just don't care."
ngc321
Guest

« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2007, 03:05:05 PM »

"I propose we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions . . . and that we insist on competitive bidding for the remaining contracts,” Clinton declared.

The New York Democrat criticized the Bush administration’s reliance on the private sector for a wide range of tasks, including security in Iraq, charging that federal outsourcing programs are plagued with waste and lack oversight. "All too often, this administration has handed out government contracts without even shopping around for the best price,” she said in her speech, which was posted on her Web site.

Yet I have not heard her complaining about Diane Feinstein and her awarding no-bid contracts to her husband! Nor have I heard liberals here condemn her!!!!

In hillaryspeak, the 500,000 would probably be the same as what her 'husband' sick-willie eliminated---500,000 from the military. Think not?

Here are the totals that sick-willie cut from the military---and liberals say we are stretched 'too thin' right now in Iraq. Here IS why...

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.


Logged
ngc321
Guest

« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2007, 03:07:32 PM »

It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.
Logged
liquidsilver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2060


Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2007, 03:12:42 PM »

It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.

It doesn't sound like you understand what Wisk wrote.
Logged

"I hate listening to peoples dreams. It's like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody's having sex, I just don't care."
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2316


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2007, 03:19:35 PM »

It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.
Great!  Name me one other case where a federal court has intervened in a state election law dispute because the ultimate office was federal.  Take your time.  Take a long time.  You won't find one.  No matter how much you rant and cry, that will not change.

It doesn't happen because elections, even for federal offices, are conducted under state laws.  STATE laws.  And except where results oriented judges decide to ignore federalism, that ends any federal court involvement.
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2316


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2007, 03:27:31 PM »

Or to put it another way, where a federal office is contested in a state election, the federal government protects the conduct of the election solely through its pre-emptive legislation, where it exists, and the Constitutional mandates, not through the supervision of state court interpretations of state statutes.  Everything else is the province of state legislatures, state elections boards, and state courts.   That's why the plurality created a single use only constitutional right to decide the case.

Another fun task: find any other case, in any context, where Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist approved a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of a state statute.  You won't find one, even where the federal and state laws are identical, or the state law is modeled on the federal, as in, for instance, state civil rights statutes.   
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2007, 04:31:25 PM »

Or to put it another way, where a federal office is contested in a state election, the federal government protects the conduct of the election solely through its pre-emptive legislation, where it exists, and the Constitutional mandates, not through the supervision of state court interpretations of state statutes.  Everything else is the province of state legislatures, state elections boards, and state courts.   That's why the plurality created a single use only constitutional right to decide the case.

Another fun task: find any other case, in any context, where Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist approved a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of a state statute.  You won't find one, even where the federal and state laws are identical, or the state law is modeled on the federal, as in, for instance, state civil rights statutes.   

Now there's a group of thugs if there ever was one:  Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist.  Of course the last one has now been replaced with two new ones, Roberts and Ailito.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2007, 07:17:05 PM »

No matter which court you blame, the indisputable fact is that voters in Florida were denied their constitutional right to help elect the president. And the main reason they were in dispute was because the people did not cast their votes as Jeb Bush had instructed them to.
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2007, 07:37:55 PM »

No matter which court you blame, the indisputable fact is that voters in Florida were denied their constitutional right to help elect the president. And the main reason they were in dispute was because the people did not cast their votes as Jeb Bush had instructed them to.

It was all part of the conspiracy to give the neocons the power they sought.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2007, 10:29:51 PM »

Now that they have the "power" what have they done with it? Promised to catch a terrorist, then went to war with a totally different country that had nothing to do with the crime committed by the first terrrorist. Taken away the rights of American Citizens to just cause before search and seizure. Given power to corporations to take away the human dignity of those unfortunate enough to work for them. Give the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and their cronies. Wage war against state and local school boards and their authority to direct public education. Sink the working middle class into poverty. Chisel away at the human rights of women. Where does it end?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 690
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!