TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bad news for you liberals
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Bad news for you liberals

THIS I TOOK FROM THE A POST OF MINE IN ANOTHER THREAD

I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.

Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.

Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.

Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.

Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.

Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.

Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.

This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.

So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.

I think we should keep the discussion to the origional thread....which is..."Workers of the world wake up" because we dont want this discussion to go all over the place...now do we...(hint hint..denny_shibby)

The main problem is, the Democrats really aren't a liberal "party," per se.

It's all a joke.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin196.htm

I'm not going to read the whole damn articles, I have a life like I stated above. I did skim them and neither earmarked a spot that is the basis for your argument. Its funny that liberals wont even admit they are liberals anymore. Wow, hell will freeze over before conservatives no longer say they are conservatives. What do you guys prefer to be called progressives, hah. A liberal is a liberal, regardless what they prefer to be called. If you guys start calling yourselves progressives that term will go to shit too.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I'm not going to read the whole damn articles, I have a life like I stated above. I did skim them and neither earmarked a spot that is the basis for your argument. Its funny that liberals wont even admit they are liberals anymore. Wow, hell will freeze over before conservatives no longer say they are conservatives. What do you guys prefer to be called progressives, hah. A liberal is a liberal, regardless what they prefer to be called. If you guys start calling yourselves progressives that term will go to shit too.

Well, I guess that since I'm a proficient reader I must not have a life.

I shouldn't really claim to be a member of any single party since I was at one point registered as a Republican, then a Libertarian, but am now (by virtue of my state not recognizing the Lib. party) an independent. In all of the political quizzes/tests that I've taken I've scored pretty much dead center. If I HAD to choose a party which I feel is most closely aligned with my values, I would have to say either Libertarian or Constitutional. (our founding fathers were for the most part Libertarians, btw)

I really don't want, nor do I feel the need to pen myself within the boundaries of a synthetic affiliation based on how others would try to categorize my views.

I make it a point to put forth my best effort to look at all sides of the issues, and then I make my own decisions based on my own value system - a value system which apparently regards our country's Constitution and Bill of Rights in much higher esteem than does our currently governing, (seemingly traitorous, I would have to add) Neo-Conservative (Straussian, Trotskyist, Hegelian, Machiavellian) administration.

If that makes me a liberal, then so be it. I don't wear that title, I've simply been penned into it by the closed-minded, reactionary dolts that feel the need to create a label for anything and everything that they find incomprehensible. Many of my views regarding Capitalism and a free market society are more right-wing than the Socialist sympathizers and/or proponents who are currently being 'labeled' as Conservatives.

Anyway, I've said enough for now. I don't want you to have to skim over this post because of it's length.

Your a libertarian, me too, LOL. I thought when you meant that democrats are "progressives" not liberals. Yeah I have read the dict. thing on the word liberal and its pertaining to libertarianism. But what I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian. I would vote libertarian in future elections, but they simply wont win so you have to vote Republican, which under the direction of Bush has been coming towards Libertarians in a huge issue, Immigration(guest worker program).

Don't call me closed minded. Lets see here at all I listen, watch, and read. I watch CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox network, NWI, C-Span 1, C-Span 2, the BBC, and even socialist LINK TV. I listen to NPR, WPR(WI), CBC(when in Canada), and Conservative Talk Radio. I read the St. Paul Pioneer Press(slightly liberal for unknowing), local newspaper, Milwaukee Journal, NYTs, Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and Drudge. Now considering the huge volume of the different media I expose myself to, most of these don't occupy more than an hour week average, but if you add all them up they constitute a good portion of time. Not bad for a 17 year old huh. I wonder what all our socialist friends watch.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Your a libertarian, me too, LOL. I thought when you meant that democrats are "progressives" not liberals. Yeah I have read the dict. thing on the word liberal and its pertaining to libertarianism. But what I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian. I would vote libertarian in future elections, but they simply wont win so you have to vote Republican, which under the direction of Bush has been coming towards Libertarians in a huge issue, Immigration(guest worker program).

Libertarians don't care whether other people get married, have abortions, do drugs, have their feeding tubes removed, or live under a repressive dictatorship. Voting republican as a self-proclaimed libertarian either means that you are stupid, or that you are just using the label to disguise your selfishness.

Okay don't proclaim for the entire libertarian party. But i don't care if people do drugs. I don't care if people get prostitutes. The libertarian party is not an official anti war party either. Many are, but just about the same # of libertarians that are anti war are also pro war, they just are like me and support the Republican party because the libertarian party can't win. Actually it is my belief that something like 30 percent of Republicans are Libertarians. Most Republicans don't give a rats ass if you pull a feeding tube either assuming IT IS STATED IN A WILL. Just so you understand according to you guys position on the Schiavo case, if you and your wife are fighting and are thinking about divorce, all that has to happen is for you to go into a comma and your wife can go to a court and claim that you asked to not be fed if you are in a comma. Your wife could have absolutely no evidence and she would legally murder you, and be able to take all not half, all of your assets. WE OPERATE ON EVIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY SHE SAID, HE SAID ISN'T ENOUGH, EXCEPT IN THE SCHIAVO CASE apparantly. I am also pro choice from a legal standpoint. You see I'm not like liberals, when I see something is wrong I don't go around forcing my view via the government. So my and many others goal is to convince women to not get them. I would rather do that, then have women getting the abortions illegally with a fucking coat hanger in some ghetto. This is the way I see gay marriage. Marriage is a term that has roots from religion. You don't force religion to except a new definition of its damn term. Instead how about gays can go around and come up with there own damb ceremony and call it whatever the fuck they want, why is it that they have to force the religous community to except the marriage of the same sex. In terms of civil unions or whatever, I'm in support of those. Okay when it comes down to it, the government has provided certain priveledges and tax benefits to married people, and thats another reason why gays are pissed. Either A remove these priveledges and tax benefits from the married so there is no difference, or provide them to the gays, I personally prefer removing them. Heck you guys bitch constantly about the rich not getting taxed enough(they are getting taxed enough even to much, but sake of argument). What stops the 2 richest CEOs to just claim they are gay together so they can get a tax benefit promised under some civil union shit.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian.

Because the republican party has been infintesimaly more liberal than the democratic party has ever been in the past few years. Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and states' rights advocates my ass. I was a Republican in the 90's, I remember what value and principle meant when it came to the actual issues that defined republicans at the time. Sadly, they have become the most egregious examples of flip-flopping in this decade.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Most Republicans don't give a rats ass if you pull a feeding tube either assuming IT IS STATED IN A WILL. Just so you understand according to you guys position on the Schiavo case, if you and your wife are fighting and are thinking about divorce, all that has to happen is for you to go into a comma and your wife can go to a court and claim that you asked to not be fed if you are in a comma. Your wife could have absolutely no evidence and she would legally murder you, and be able to take all not half, all of your assets. WE OPERATE ON EVIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY SHE SAID, HE SAID ISN'T ENOUGH, EXCEPT IN THE SCHIAVO CASE apparantly.

So this is another example of the Republican party embracing states' rights??? Some 19 justices in state appeals court after appeals court heard the actual issue at hand and summmarily decided that, on the basis of all evidence depicting what Terri would have wanted was to have her feeding tube removed, is null and void based on the personal, unfounded opinions of the federal legislature??? This case has far transcended "he said, she said" simplicity. If you actually READ the court testimony as many of us have, you would come to the understanding that the STATE courts adequetately and sufficietntly examined the case and that the FEDERAL intrusion in a state issue was completely unwarranted. Or is this the neo republican party where state's rights only matter when it doesn't cross a republican agenda???

quote:

Marriage is a term that has roots from religion. You don't force religion to except a new definition of its damn term. Instead how about gays can go around and come up with there own damb ceremony and call it whatever the fuck they want, why is it that they have to force the religous community to except the marriage of the same sex. In terms of civil unions or whatever, I'm in support of those. Okay when it comes down to it, the government has provided certain priveledges and tax benefits to married people, and thats another reason why gays are pissed. Either A remove these priveledges and tax benefits from the married so there is no difference, or provide them to the gays, I personally prefer removing them. Heck you guys bitch constantly about the rich not getting taxed enough(they are getting taxed enough even to much, but sake of argument). What stops the 2 richest CEOs to just claim they are gay together so they can get a tax benefit promised under some civil union shit.

Bingo. Any good libertarian would rule that the state should have NOTHING to do with an institution that bears roots to religion. The state should grant equal rights to both civil unions and marriages alike.

Because the republican party has been infintesimaly more liberal than the democratic party has ever been in the past few years. Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and states' rights advocates my ass. I was a Republican in the 90's, I remember what value and principle meant when it came to the actual issues that defined republicans at the time. Sadly, they have become the most egregious examples of flip-flopping in this decade. BACK THIS UP

Read your damn constitution. Article three, the congress has the duty to reign in an out of control judiciary(not supreme court, any other).

Bingo. Any good libertarian would rule that the state should have NOTHING to do with an institution that bears roots to religion. The state should grant equal rights to both civil unions and marriages alike. SORRY DON'T GET WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT HERE, ELABORATE MORE

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Because the republican party has been infintesimaly more liberal than the democratic party has ever been in the past few years. Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and states' rights advocates my ass. I was a Republican in the 90's, I remember what value and principle meant when it came to the actual issues that defined republicans at the time. Sadly, they have become the most egregious examples of flip-flopping in this decade. BACK THIS UP

Which particular part would you like me to back up? I could write a treatise on each and every issue. It's been a long road that I've taken to shun the Republican party so please be more specific (and quote my arguments that you are directly addressing please).

quote:

Read your damn constitution. Article three, the congress has the duty to reign in an out of control judiciary(not supreme court, any other).

I've read my "damn" constitution. Have you read your "damn" constitution??? Because nothing from Article III details a responsiblity for the ligislature to reign in an "out of control" judiciary:

quote:

Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3. Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I fail to see the exact passage that dictates that the ligislature can write specific laws to affect a specific group of people should the legislature be out of control. Perhaps what you fail to realise is that the seperation of powers created a judiciary branch to interpret the constituion while the legilsature drafted laws to affect the general populace. Any other preconceived notion is ludicrous at best. As such, when the federal legislature "attempted" to draft legislation to affect the Terri Schiavo case, when the broader legislation got bogged down in details and arguments over the impact it would have on state laws governing living wills and medical directives, in effect ordering a federal remedy that could supplant state procedures, both houses began crafting legislation specifically for Terri Schiavo and no one else.

The fact that Terri Schiavo is rendered special jurisdiciton and consideration by the US congress and NO ONE ELSE should be enough to justify why this whole charade is a fucking stupid idea. But the fucking kicker of it all, is the wording fo the bill that eliminates all fair treatment of this ruling:

quote:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States." http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/cassel.schiavo/

The bill ITSELF aknowledges that it lacks any constitutional presedence with respects to the constituiton of the United States or State law.

For fucks sake, any respectable state's rights adovocate would argue that congress had NO right to intervene in this STATE issue. Are you telling me that you're a federalist at heart Denny? Please say it ain't so because that would just be one more nail into the coffin.

quote:

Bingo. Any good libertarian would rule that the state should have NOTHING to do with an institution that bears roots to religion. The state should grant equal rights to both civil unions and marriages alike. SORRY DON'T GET WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT HERE, ELABORATE MORE

Quite simple. The state shouldn't sanction marriages in any way whatsoever. If you define marriage along the lines of religion, the first amendment shoots it down.

Okay reign in or ordain and establish, same thing. You have to understand that the bill proposed by Republicans, was NOT specific to just Terri Schiavo. The liberals(that includes a couple of east coast "republicans") were willing to compromise by making it specific to just Terri, the house didn't want anything to do with that, they wanted the bill that would pertain to the entire country. Also they have the right to supeona Terri if they want to. And that judge tampered with(killed) a witness of the congress. That would violate the "good behavior" part of the constitution wouldn't it. The good behavior and ordain and establish come together to form that "out of control" statement. I will admit though out of control isn't specifically said so I do retract that. I apologize.

No I am not a federalist, I am a states rights person at heart. The truth is that I don't defend the republicans take on the Schiavo case as it pertains to their view on states rights, but I do defend their RIGHT to intervene as implied by those clauses. Personally I just think that the judge was fucking idiot, and nobody could point to any true non spectral(non heresy) evidence that she would want that feeding tube removed.

Hey seriously though, it worries me when I hear people who think that the Republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative, for limited government, and states rights.

First of all, take a look at what you get from the liberals. Limited government, they want to nationalize an eighth of our economy(healthcare). They then want to raise taxes growing the government against the private sector. Then they are going to hit this country with bullshit "Great Society" Failure spending than you could ever imagine, you have no idea how big deficits can get when you have a liberal presidency, congress, and judiciary.

The deficit as admitted by some raging liberal on other thread I have posted in today and last couple days, is small in comparison with other presidents. It is less than 30 percent of gdp that is pretty small, and it is currenty shrinking at a very fast rate. Just the same way that the deficit started shrinking in 86 after the Reagan tax cuts went into effect. Let me tell you something this last budget is the only budget in a century that actually holds government spending growth below the inflation rate.

Don't get mad at Bush for spending, have you ever heard of impoundment before. Look it up, its something that Nixon(shitty president, Kennedy was more conservative that he ever was) did before the Supreme Court made it illegal. Now I believe it would be an impeachable offense for Bush to try it again.

You see with me, I think that the government should just not recognize marriage anymore. They would then switch the recognition from spouse to stated legal guardian. Basically at any point during somebodies life they must select legal guardianship, at first its obviously parents, but when you get married you just tell the state that your spouse is your legal guardian granting right to visit you in hospital etc. If you are gay you choose your legal guardian as your partner. The state would no longer issue marriage certificates or anything they wouldn't even need to know your married. If you get married and you guys choose each other as legal guardians you would than draft up your own contract between eachother in the presence of any problems like divorce where you would end the idea of being eachothers guardians. Your contract could state that in the presence of end of guardianship(divorce) shit would be either split, maintain to the original owner, or then go to arbitration(probably the most choosen of the 3). Its an interesting idea. It would basically mean that we would have to overhaul so many legal systems in the country, but I think it is ideal. It also probably wouldn't happen though either. Marriage would then go back to religion as its practice and no longer the states practice. Personally I think you would like the idea also.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Don't call me closed minded. Lets see here at all I listen, watch, and read. I watch CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox network, NWI, C-Span 1, C-Span 2, the BBC, and even socialist LINK TV. I listen to NPR, WPR(WI), CBC(when in Canada), and Conservative Talk Radio. I read the St. Paul Pioneer Press(slightly liberal for unknowing), local newspaper, Milwaukee Journal, NYTs, Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and Drudge. Now considering the huge volume of the different media I expose myself to, most of these don't occupy more than an hour week average, but if you add all them up they constitute a good portion of time. Not bad for a 17 year old huh. I wonder what all our socialist friends watch.

I'm sure they don't read Drudge

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay reign in or ordain and establish, same thing.

Ummm no, that�s not the same thing at all. One implies the ability to establish an independent court, while the other indicates that that court isn�t really independent at all. As a matter of fact, a legislature that that nullifies, suspends, or reverses a judicial determination in a particular case violates the principle of the separation of powers that the founding fathers intended. Go read the Federalist Papers No. 81, the founding fathers essentially brag about how such a thing should be constitutionally impossible:

quote:

It is not true, in the second place, that the Parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular States, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration. Not the least difference can be pointed out in any view of the subject. http://www.foundingfathers.info/fed...apers/fed81.htm

Not to mention the bill violates a plethora of legal principles including Ex-Post Facto Law, Res Judicata,
Due Process under the Law, etc., etc., etc. But hell, the federal district court that congress tried so hard to hear the case laid down the best smack down:

quote:

A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of "activist judges." Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers� blueprint for the governance of a free people � our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (�the Act�) is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1 special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case... Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in "de novo" review of Mrs. Schiavo�s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously "raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings"; (3) shall not engage in "abstention in favor of State court proceedings"; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of "whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted." Pub. L. 109-3, � 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a "rule of decision"), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle. An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power "in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III." Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218, 115 S. Ct. 1447, 1452 (1995). By setting a particular standard of review in the district court, Section 2 of the Act purports to direct a federal court in an area traditionally left to the federal court to decide. See Fla. Progress Corp. v. Comm�r, 348 F.3d 954, 959 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the standard of review is for the court to determine). In fact, the establishment of a standard of review often dictates the rule of decision in a case, which is beyond Congress�s constitutional power. See United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 146 (1871) (noting that Congress may not prescribe a "rule of decision" for a particular case). In addition, "the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties." Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757, 116 S. Ct. 1737, 1743 (1996). By denying federal courts the ability to exercise abstention or inquire as to exhaustion or waiver under State law, the Act robs federal courts of judicial doctrines long-established for the conduct of prudential decisionmaking... The separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created "to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility." INS, 462 U.S. at 951, 103 S. Ct. at 2784. But when the fervor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow. See New York, 505 U.S. at 187, 112 S. Ct. at 2434. Accordingly, we must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo and her family and the recent events related to her plight which have troubled the consciences of many. Realizing this duty, I conclude that Pub. L. 109-3 is an unconstitutional infringement on core tenets underlying our constitutional system. Had Congress or the Florida legislature, in their legislative capacities, been able to constitutionally amend applicable law, we would have been constrained to apply that law. See Robertson v. Seattle Audobon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 441, 112 S. Ct. 1407, 1414 (1992). By opting to pass Pub. L. 109-3 instead, however, Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary. Such an Act cannot be countenanced. Moreover, we are bound by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine not to exercise any other jurisdictional bases to override a final state judgment. Should the citizens of Florida determine that its law should be changed, it should be done legislatively. Were the courts to change the law, as the ptitioners and Congress invite us to do, an "activist judge" criticism would be valid.

quote:

You have to understand that the bill proposed by Republicans, was NOT specific to just Terri Schiavo. The liberals(that includes a couple of east coast "republicans") were willing to compromise by making it specific to just Terri, the house didn't want anything to do with that, they wanted the bill that would pertain to the entire country.

Ohhhh brilliant!!! I can�t think of a better idea than to subjugate spousal rights and invite federal jurisdiction into EVERY single private and personal issue when it comes to a life threatening decisions for treatment. Your sick/dying wife tell you she didn�t want to be kept on a ventilator should her condition deteriorate? Did she put it in a legal document? No??? TOO BAD! It�s up to the federal courts! Did your husband get in a bad accident? All his internal organs are failing? You want to just simply withdraw artificial sustainment? Did he say he would want that in a legal document? No, he only told you and your family in person? Too bad!! Federal courts have the ultimate say so on his medical care!!! Well hey, I guess under that broad legislation, Tom Delay and his family wouldn�t have been able to withdraw medical treatment for his own father, because there was no indication of his father�s intentions were in a legal document of any kind:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/p...ebea672&ei=5070

Too bad for Delay and his family, but it looks like the ultimate say-so of his father�s fate would fall under the jursidiction of the federal courts! Not only would such a law be an egregious violation of spousal/family rights, but it would trample over numerous state family laws and laws pertaining to medical directives. For example, Texas' Advance Directives Act of 1999, a law that allows hospital administrators to cease artificial life support even against the will of a family member, a bill that George W. Bush signed into law as governor mind you, could be overturned in ANY case by federal courts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

So not only do you strip away family rights, but you trample over state jurisdiction. You know, for one who claims that you�re not a federalist, you sure have a funny way of showing it by giving the federal government unprecedented jurisdiction and intrusion into individual family matters and states� rights Denny.

quote:

Also they have the right to supeona Terri if they want to. And that judge tampered with(killed) a witness of the congress. That would violate the "good behavior" part of the constitution wouldn't it. The good behavior and ordain and establish come together to form that "out of control" statement. I will admit though out of control isn't specifically said so I do retract that. I apologize.

You have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Can the federal government supercede your constitutional rights by declaring you a witness of congress and artificially sustain you against your will indefinitely? State court after state court after appeals courts have ruled after some 15 years that what Terri would have wanted was to refuse medical treatment under the highest burden of proof used in civil cases. As such, the congressional gerrymandering in this instance did not trump individual civil liberties.

quote:

No I am not a federalist, I am a states rights person at heart. The truth is that I don't defend the republicans take on the Schiavo case as it pertains to their view on states rights, but I do defend their RIGHT to intervene as implied by those clauses. Personally I just think that the judge was fucking idiot, and nobody could point to any true non spectral(non heresy) evidence that she would want that feeding tube removed.

There were several people who heard first hand from her that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Read the trial transcript:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

I'll address your other argument this afternoon when I have some time.

Okay thanx to that ruling, the parents couldn't feed there own kid. They actually prevented the parents from feeding Terri. It would be different if she was being kept alive like Delays fathers circumstances, but she was alive and just being fucking fed. They stopped feeding her and if the parents started feeding her they would be thrown in jail. The bill they proposed wouldn't have been about all decisions. If the person is being kept alive via some machines and shit different story. The bill they proposed would disalow non will stating people to be prevented the basics because of their state of mind at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay thanx to that ruling, the parents couldn't feed there own kid. They actually prevented the parents from feeding Terri.

They didn't have lawful custody, therefore they did not have the say in the matter now did they?

The courts continually gave the husband custody, and they continually granted his wife's wish not to let her live in such a nonfunctioning vegetative state.

And the judges from both the state AND federal level, most whom were Republican appointed, continued to favor the husband. Nothing else need be said.

And the parents exemplified anything but rationality throughout this entire matter. You really should read the court cases. Occ posted some pretty revealing court texts in this forum. Please do a search.

And by my book - when they sold their address list of supporters to a pro-life spam mailing consulting group, whatever credibility they had with me was wiped out completely.

quote:

It would be different if she was being kept alive like Delays fathers circumstances, but she was alive and just being fucking fed.

How would it be different? Explain.

quote:

The bill they proposed wouldn't have been about all decisions.

And therein lies the problem with the bill itself, as Occ continues to explain to you but for some strange reason you fail to grasp it.

quote:

If the person is being kept alive via some machines and shit different story.

What is the ethical and logical difference between being kept alive via feeding tube (which may or may not be generated by a machine � honestly I don�t know) and being kept alive by some other mechanical means (via respirator, etc.) if in either case there is NO chance of survival without machinery/feeding tube, and the person�s brain is medically nonfunctional and in all cases, an absolute vegetable?

quote:

The bill they proposed would disalow non will stating people to be prevented the basics because of their state of mind at the time.

No, it did not, and you will have to specifically cite where exactly in their bill that it states as such. And think about this for a fucking moment � you actually want the people in our fucking Congress to decide which state of mind a person is in, superceding any and all wishes they had specifically given to their loved ones prior to that state?

You sure you�re a libertarian? This goes completely against any and all libertarian principles of any kind. Hell I�m a serious progressive and I can�t even imagine wanting my Congress to intervene in my business this way.

And as you said previously, this was one specific case cited, which is completely against a number of laws that Occ had outlined, but it is not a precedent so we cannot speculate any further than this one particular case (despite the fact that this occurs quite frequently, unfortunately).

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Hey seriously though, it worries me when I hear people who think that the Republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative, for limited government, and states rights.

You�re kidding me right? Bush has never used his veto power to veto a single spending bill. Never. On the contrary, he�s presided over the biggest growth in government spending since 1990:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...id=aiq1gJbXx4Lw

Limited government??? The government grew by more than 27% as discretionary spending expanded by 12.5%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

Spending has increased twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, and before you bring in 9/11, increased military spending, blah blah blah, that encompasses less than a half of all new spending. Non defense and non homeland security discretionary spending has increased 16%. With the medicare prescription drug benefit, about whose massive expense he deceived Congress, he has enacted the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson. Bush has increased spending on medical care for the poor by 46%. He has doubled education spending in four years; federal housing spending has gone up 86%. And you�re trying to tell me he�s a fiscal conservative for limited government??? Hell even the conservative think tanks have had enough.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm398.cfm

quote:

First of all, take a look at what you get from the liberals. Limited government, they want to nationalize an eighth of our economy(healthcare). They then want to raise taxes growing the government against the private sector. Then they are going to hit this country with bullshit "Great Society" Failure spending than you could ever imagine, you have no idea how big deficits can get when you have a liberal presidency, congress, and judiciary.

Fallacy: Red Herring. Your hypothetical predictions of what would happen with a �liberal presidency� has no bearing whatsoever on our evaluation of the fiscal conservatism of this presidency. We already know that taglines such as �liberal� or �conservative� have no bearing whatsoever on an administration�s actual fiscal conservatism as evidenced by this supposed �conservative� administration.

quote:

The deficit as admitted by some raging liberal on other thread I have posted in today and last couple days, is small in comparison with other presidents. It is less than 30 percent of gdp that is pretty small, and it is currenty shrinking at a very fast rate. Just the same way that the deficit started shrinking in 86 after the Reagan tax cuts went into effect. Let me tell you something this last budget is the only budget in a century that actually holds government spending growth below the inflation rate.

I�ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually meant 3% and not 30%. And actually the deficit stands at 3.3% of GDP not less than 3%. Furthermore, any economist would tell you that combined with the mounting current account deficit, the twin deficit brings us to more than 9% of GDP, such levels are unsustainable and a market correction is likely due in some fashion. As for government spending growth, I believe I just posted a bunch of sources disputing that. Unless you�re saying inflation is in the double digits.

http://www.economist.com/displaysto...21%23%40%238%0A

And let's talk about another point for a moment, if you will. You've stated that the parents would have been able to keep her alive. How do you define "life"? To me this girl died 15 years ago. Her cerebral cortex is nothing but liquid (spinal fluid), there�s no cognitive functionality of any kind, her EEG was shown to be completely flat over and over (no brain wave activity of any kind), and the only responses occurring were purely autonomic. She was reviewed closely by, what, 6 doctors and neurologists, a couple were even court appointed, and they all reached the same conclusion.

In contrast, any dissenters did not see her and personally diagnose her up front at all. Rather they merely made judgments via video clips (not even seeing the entire video feeds). The nurses being displayed all over Faux News and Hannity were not only shown to be not credible by the courts, but turned out to being coached by Hannity himself:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gos...5p-256914c.html

http://www.harryshearer.com/leshow/

So aside of the fact that all courts sided with the husband who testified along with 2 other witnesses that his wife did not want to live in such a state, why would we think it necessary to go against such wishes and keep someone in such a state when they have no cognitive brain functioning of any kind?

sorry what I meant to say was that at the height of the recession i believe it stood at a little less than 30 percent of gdp according to a newspaper article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press a year and a half ago. So yeah thanx for filling me in on the new figures, 9 percent deficit what the fuck you complaining about, and the deficit is shrinking.

Kerry proposed national healthcare sorry, but don't call my argument a red herring.

The last budget I was talking about is the budget just put before congress not long ago. That budget did keep government spending below inflation rate. Previous budgets, the President had other fish to fry, with a democrat senate. Gee all conservative government and we get a budget that is the first in a century to reduce government, and we had a 2/3 conservative government(Exe and House-con, liberal senate) and government grew. That is a testament to that previous liberal senate more than anything else. You know I am starting to think that maybe you are lying out of your ass when you said you used to be a republican, the idea that you actually think that democrats are going to spend less is far fetched. And you are from fucking Washington D.C. for crying outloud. Apparantly you were the only Republican in that town in the 90s.

Okay prescription drug benefit was to get health savings accounts. Doubled federal government education spending. The federal government doesn't even spend really anything on education, of course like the first federal plan for education is going to double edu spending.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Kerry proposed national healthcare sorry, but don't call my argument a red herring.

Your argument was completely a red herring because it had no bearing on reality.

quote:

The last budget I was talking about is the budget just put before congress not long ago. That budget did keep government spending below inflation rate.

Agreed, but it still continues to increase spending, AND it doesn't include some vital info such as:

1. Bush's war cost in Iraq and Afghanistan

2. Bush's trillion dollar Social Security privatization scheme

3. The cost of lost revenue from Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

4. Bush's proposal to curb the minimum tax ($44 billion)

So the fact that it was UNDER inflation is a bit off the mark now, isn't it?

But it did include some fun and exciting cuts to programs that I outlined here, which of course primarily affects the elderly, the minority, the disabled, and the children:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=bush+budget

And I do love how he was supposedly �trimming the fat� on certain gov�t programs that supposedly weren�t working, but yet continued to fund programs like abstinence-only education that have shown to be failures by themselves.

quote:

Previous budgets, the President had other fish to fry, with a democrat senate.

Ahh, it's always the Democrats fault, ain't it? Jesus - they were only in power in the Senate for not even 2 years. This is a pretty poor excuse.

quote:

Gee all conservative government and we get a budget that is the first in a century to reduce government, and we had a 2/3 conservative government(Exe and House-con, liberal senate) and government grew. That is a testament to that previous liberal senate more than anything else.

Why is this more of a testament to the liberal senate? Why does this have more weight than what each of the last 3 Republican President's budget PROPOSALS have been? Are you stating that these 3 Republican President proposals would have effectively shrunk the government spending?

Evidence, please.

quote:

You know I am starting to think that maybe you are lying out of your ass when you said you used to be a republican, the idea that you actually think that democrats are going to spend less is far fetched. And you are from fucking Washington D.C. for crying outloud. Apparantly you were the only Republican in that town in the 90s.

You know, you came on this board firing shots across many folks here with a shitload of labelling, generalizations, and have yet to support any of your arguments with evidence. The fact that you state something like this to Occrider really shows just how much of a complete ass you are really coming across to everyone here. It also shows just how fucking little you know Occ or anyone else here either.

We disagree a lot with each other here, but the one thing I do hold with the vast majority of folks I disagree with here is a certain amount of respect on their opinions. You haven't even fucking come close to earning mine or anyone else's here with your fucking attitude, and making statements like this about Occ certainly doesn't help you in any way.

Get a fucking grip, get a fucking point, support your points, and lay off the stupid generalizations and overreaching conclusions on liberals or any particular individuals here.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.