READER COMMENTS ON
"EXCLUSIVE: Complete Transcript of Last Week's House Judiciary Democratic Hearings on Warrantless NSA Wiretapping of American Citizens"
(43 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
George Walker Bullshit
said on 1/23/2006 @ 12:41 pm PT...
Jack Abramoff! Your name is mud!!!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/23/2006 @ 1:52 pm PT...
Alberto Gonzales is the equivalent of a first-year law student, except for the fact that a first-year law student doesn't have a boss yet to whom he has pledged undying loyalty.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 2:01 pm PT...
The Senate is going to hold a cover up ... er I mean hearing on the issue.
Both parties will be allowed to participate in doing nothing ... and the neoCon shills will try to blame the minority for the problem ... and will try to exonerate the majority party.
Blame the victim is official neoCon policy now.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 2:46 pm PT...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 3:01 pm PT...
I have been thinking, ohmigod...how I wish I didn't think so much...about all the spying. Seems those that see through the Big Lie are the ones targeted, but does that not also include members of Congress. Where is the outrage....probably in the cloak closet where the deals are made.
The bush regime must have so much dirt on everyone in Our House that they are afraid to speak out, less they go out like Duke, sputtering and crying on camera for us all to see. Abramoff must be really happy as he has a lot of them by the neck, but bushco is certainly happier than jack...they have the goods.
I think everyone in Congress should fess up to us now, so bushco doesn't get the first/final word. I am beginning to understand now, the lack of spine, the dems are accused of. They are so complicit in the Culture of Corruption and to take a stand would be their undoing. They must certainly have known they were ripe for blackmail, thus the hesitancy to speak up. (I also include staff loyal to lobbyists and not the person they work for, that delight in their power and influence...not always in their Congress persons interest). The motto on Capital Hill should be TRUST NO ONE, least of all the Staff.
Where can a conversation take place, a safe and secure place in D.C. I would guess there does not exist one, except in the WH and of course cheney's undisclosed location. I wish someone would bug the family quarters and someday, in the future, we could all listen in as 'w' berates his wife, emotionally and mentally abusing her and throwing his temper tantrums while downing his scotch and water.
I guess I needn't worry about the NSA wasting their time on me, they have so many bigger fish to fry. I can't wait for all the books to be written. The Truth is out there. Revenge is best served on a cold platter. I would imagine a great many 'targets' of this regime, are planning just that. This regime should be afraid, very afraid...the future is being written and it does not fare well for bushco and their handlers. M4
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 3:43 pm PT...
That's so weak.
Through my interpretation of the law, it's legal for me to name tomorrow "Happy, Free Drinks, Banks Give Me Money, No Worky Day!
I'm going to take tomorrow off, drink lots, and collect money. I made my expert team of ass-kissing lawers find a legal path that suites my WARPED mind. Trust me, this is a good policy! Nobody needs to check it out. It's perfectly legal!!!!!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 4:53 pm PT...
Use logic. If Bush wiretapped thousands of people, doesn't that mean there are thousands of terrorists in the U.S.? And then doesn't that mean Bush isn't keeping them out, OR arresting them?
Else...(just like a computer program)...therefore, he's wiretapping non-terrorists and lying!!!
His statement is "Lose-Lose".
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 5:00 pm PT...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 5:01 pm PT...
I guess non-Republicans have to sit at the "little table", like the kids sit at Thanksgiving dinner. After all, the Republicans aren't accountable to anyone, including American citizens. They are just doing whatever they want. That's how you act when you found a way to steal elections (electronic voting machines), and you aren't accountable to the voters.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 5:28 pm PT...
Today I had an interesting conversation with a computer programmer friend of mine. He told me something which made me less worried about NSA spying.
He said the software that runs Internet servers is already completely vulnerable to non-Americans. They can probably tap into anything and everything on the internet to spy on us TODAY.
It isn't phone conversations yet. But, isn't there a trend towards moving all data, voice and image communications to cable and the Internet? How long will it be before the NSA and other interested powers only need to "tap" the Internet for the full spectrum of communications?
Or, as Waring Hudsucker (from the movie The Hudsucker Proxy) once said, "The future is now."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 5:44 pm PT...
Yep, lets all lie, cheat, and steal....it's okay for the power elite and time we all started practicing their moral values. We will be them em, not aginst em. M4
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 7:00 pm PT...
Don't mean to be a bummer here, but the fact that the vast majority of businesspersons, capitalists, have been lying, cheating and stealing for a very long time, and squeezing the workers SO hard they begin to resent paying for social safety nets worse than they resent getting out of bed to serve stealing and cheating liars, IS WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS PASS TO BEGIN WITH.
Go over to: http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/
There's a short on there called, "Ha Ha Ha America" that will blow your mind. Lying, cheating and stealing are the resort of capitalism squeezed by the inability to grow. It found a place left on earth to grow. It can probably keep doing it by continuing to move to impoverished places, impoverishing many more places as it goes. The thrust is to have a global oligarchy, supported by the relative economic security of shifting populations.
Even those of us who have not lied, cheated or stolen, and not begrudged the taxes for safety nets and infrastructure, still have to count ourselves among those who did, DO, because they are our countrymen, our fellow humans, and we have not stopped them. Joining them is not going to stop them. Who can follow the natural progression of capitalism when it has reached the limits of its workability? We've always thought that we would suffer a depression, and perhaps move to a different economic system, but did it occur to us that the few left with ALL the nickles might create the apocalypse in the irrational attempt to further this system for themselves?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 8:13 pm PT...
No offense, but at this point the entire thing is moot. Capitalism failed not long ago.
The NeoCons want to completely RUIN this government, that is the point, and everything in it
We need to permanently stop them forever, arrest them, and thwart their plan as neccesary..
Capitalism will probably not be back for a while and it doesn't matter. We need to focus any and all attention there is on the voting machines, rip up the scam once and for all, and close down the shop.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 8:17 pm PT...
Fascism is alive and well in America .
For the record here is the defintion of Fascsim ;
Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies , excercising regimentation of industry , commerce and finance , RIGID CENSORSHIP and forcible suppresion of opposition .
Fascist Republicans are killing Democracy -
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 9:00 pm PT...
Doug, none taken. It may have failed as a workable enough economic model for us, but it's working fine and dandy for China right now, working fine for Halliburton right now. My POINT is that capitalism has passed the point where it is working for our nation, and that it's gotten to the point where it will let us starve and die in kleptocratic invasions rather than amend itself somehow to provide something workable for the sustenance of our people.
I join you in your determination that the voting machines are the number one threat to us, but have to add that Alito's confirmation, and any failure to impeach and convict *, et al. are quickly becoming AS dire emergencies. If Alito is confirmed, there won't be any way to stop rigged elections, and maybe no more elections, since this "unitary executive" thing seems to confirm that the President IS the law. On its face it is unconstitutional, yet Supreme Court Justices favor it.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2006 @ 11:35 pm PT...
Do not take and buy the hype on Alito, please just look through the hype
He has answered the executive power question forcefully, and truthfully and he is NOT this insanely evil man that the liberal 'agenda' wants to paint him as. He is in actuality one of the most important components to ending everything.....but I can't explain to you why.
Email me if you ever have a question.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 1:22 am PT...
And, boy, am I slow, or what? I never realized that giving my email address on here meant that anyone could email me. I sure hope I haven't been bashing potential friends as spammers all this time. I need a teenager to lead me into the third millennium. Sheesh. Thanks for the clue, Doug.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 1:55 am PT...
I am SO glad you are promoting and providing this NSA hearing transcript! I know of no other place that has it. Thank you!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 2:17 am PT...
I am telling you that truthfully he isn't what you think he is at all, and anyway regardless of what you think of him read carefully how he answered the question (and this is on unitary executive)
"As I understand the concept, it is the concept that the president is the head of the executive branch. The Constitution says that the president is given the executive power.
And the idea of the unitary executive is that the president should be able to control the executive branch, however big it is or however small it is, whether it's as small as it was when George Washington was president or whether it's big as it is today or even bigger.
It has to do with control of whatever the executive is doing. It doesn't have to do with the scope of executive power. It does not have to do with whether the executive power that the president is given includes a lot of unnamed powers or what's often called inherent powers.
So it's the difference between scope and control. And as I understand the idea of the unitary executive, it goes just to the question of control; it doesn't go to the question of scope." (Transcript of hearing Tuesday, January 10, 2006)"
Record of Samuel Alito
That's all I say. Regardless of what you choose read all the facts and understand how he answered questions.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 3:07 am PT...
Like a good wing nut, you espouse admiration for the mere fact that Alito answered the question regarding the unitary executive theory while glossing over the glaring novelty of this theory. That such a novel and self-serving theory finds itself in the mouths of those who so self righteously describe themselves as "strict constructionists" is reason enough to question that theories dubiety. That the answer from Alito you cite itself contains an obvious refutation of that theory which it then tries to obfuscate exposes the cynical and dastardly motivations of the theocratic counter-revolutionaries which populate the Republican Party. It is clear in his response that Alito believes - contrary to established precedent and to the Constitution - that vast domains of executive power should properly exist beyond the control or oversight of Congress. Whether he understands the issue as one of scope versus control is irrelevant and obfuscatory. Under the United States Constitution, the President does not in any sense make law. The types of administrative law to which Alito is referring can and should be submitted to thorough review by the other two branches in order to ensure that the executive does not make laws contrary to the laws of the congress nor the spirit of our constitution. That is our system. Further, I would submit that anyone who advances a position so obviously contrary to the established law and our system of checks and balances is unworthy of public service, as their intention can only be to undermine our principles of liberty, justice, and equality and to threaten the Constitution and our democracy itself.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 3:48 am PT...
Thank you, Big Johnny. I, for the life of me, can't figure out what's up with Doug, how he could be so passionate about the integrity of the vote, and so thick about the problem with Alito, and so freaked about the dastardly retribution the administration might bring down on our heads if we corner them. I feel compassion because these people have been knocking the wind out of us every other day for too long, but it's also vexing because the politics of fear seems to be working on him.
I've been trying to figure out what he meant by "He is in actuality one of the most important components to ending everything..." in #16. Do we let Alito get confirmed and then bring down everyone who voted for him with the revelation that he is a child molester? Has he been a liberal mole, feigning hard right attitudes all this time to save us from the Four Horsemen when he makes the SCOTUS? Is Doug so afraid of the "nuclear option" ruining the voting machine debacle's resolution that he's slipped a cog on the Alito question? Has Alito sworn in secret to dethrown *, that some golden-haired son of the cabal might take over, nuke the "Axis of Evil" off the globe, "ending everything"?
Doug! You are not making a lick of sense!
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 4:37 am PT...
He believes in leaving the unitary executive in place as is.
That does NOT mean anything you are saying it means.
That means, that if a president has executive power that is granted upon him- then that power shall and should not ever exceed the constitution period. Or its mandate, that is the purpose of the entire theory. And thats why the "law is so clear as stated" here that its a question of scope and not anything else.
In short, there is nothing wrong with Alito's view of executive. If the president breaks the law, he'll convict him. And he sees no president's authority extending beyond what is confined in the constitution, it simply depends on the specific case.
There's a ridiculous obsufucation and smear going on with this, it should just be left alone, I can promise you it isn't what you say.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 5:52 am PT...
He believes in "signing statements" that, say, pass laws against torture except if the president wants people tortured. He believes the president can arrogate to himself the right to imprison people, any people, including U.S. citizens, without charges, without counsel, without notification to ANYONE, and torture them, and kill them, if he deems it for "national security". HOW, Doug, can this be a good thing? IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!?! He's a proud member of a society that cheers Karl Rove, knowing he's a traitor. He condones the shooting of an unarmed child for running from a cop. He sits on cases in which he has a financial interest and then acts first as if he didn't know, and then as if his judgely mind would never decide it with bias, and then as if, strictly speaking, he was not required to recuse himself. He claims he would never have lied on a job application, AND that he has no knowledge or memory of the Bigots' Club he bragged about to land that job. This guy who has this "superb" understanding of the intricacies of Constitutional Law, can't admit lying or bigotry, so he opts for a sudden burst of ignorance and forgetfulness. He lets himself be counselled by the people propounding these LAME defenses of the president's felonies, WHEN these felonies will very likely come before him on the SCOTUS if he is confirmed, but he can't answer serious questions because these matters might come before him. He lets a spate of colleagues whose decisions would regularly be in his lap on the SCOTUS come to sing his praises for confirmation. A man of probity good enough for this office WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THAT NO MATTER HOW BADLY HE WANTED THE HELP. If it is left alone, Doug, at the ROCK BOTTOM MINIMUM, he will make this a worse place to live, but we have every reason to believe it will turn out worse even than that. The Republicans could pass a bill to have Diebold voting machines across the nation, * would surely sign it, and Alito's "impeccable" judicial acumen would, beyond a reasonable doubt, cast the deciding vote to uphold it. Game. Set. Match. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 5:55 am PT...
I too, have agreed with everything you've said about other issues, especially those concerning voting. But I think you're off base with this one too.
First, Alito is a Bush appointee. He was nominated without bipartisan discussion, and Bush knew the nomination would be controversial. Yes, he has no obligation to "feel out" the Democrats before he makes a nomination, but his attitude is not one of consensus by consensus, its one of consensus by force. As usual.
Second, there is strong evidence based on past opinions that Roe v Wade is, in fact, in jeopardy. If that was not the case, we would not have a few moderate pro-choice Republican Senators really giving this one a second look.
Third, based on past rulings, it is clear that Alito rules in favor of existing power. Period.
Fourth, what you are asking everyone to do in letting this one slide is take a HUGE risk on not only the balance of the Supreme Court, which is already off-kilter in favor of the wingnuts, but to assume that Alito is telling the truth in his evasiveness. Evasiveness in the hearings was picked up by everyone, and it doesn't settle well. If his responses were indeed his opinion of candid, he simply is leaving too much up to chance.
Democrats are right to unify against Alito. If they voted to confirm based on your assessment, and you are wrong - how bad is that going to be for civil liberties and presidential power? Unless, your answer is "then let the revolution begin". Maybe it is.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 6:06 am PT...
You said "I am beginning to understand now, the lack of spine, the dems are accused of."
The neoCon talking points want us all to believe that these problems are the fault of those in congress who have no power. Read what Brad said in the header of this post:
"The hearing, chaired by ranking House Judiciary Committee minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), was held in the basement of the Rayburn building last Friday after the Republican leadership once again (as they did for hearings on the "Downing Street Documents" last year) refused the Democrats a formal hearing room to conduct the congressional oversight forum. That, despite the House having been in recess on Friday and the official hearing rooms otherwise vacant."
The dems don't even have the power to use normal meeting rooms.
Because as some of you have not noticed, the republicans are in power and they make the decisions you complain of and then blame the powerless.
Read my post #3 ... and prove that the democrats have the power or stop blaming them. It is like beating the homeless street people, and is very wrong.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 6:20 am PT...
God! I meant to come here to laud Congressman Conyers. What happened?
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 6:21 am PT...
What he said is wrong. The Unitary Theory is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the wisdom of the forefathers and foremothers who handed down the constitution.
The reason is that neither the Judiciary, the Congress, nor the Executive branches are designed to be "unitary". They were all three designed with checks and balances from the other two branches.
Unitary to the neoCons simply means "free to do whatever", such as spy on Americans.
For example, the congress can cut funds to the other two branches and the courts can declare acts of congress unconstitutional. The congress can set up and remove courts (federal district and circuit courts of appeal), can impeach judges or the president. The president can appoint judges but the senate must agree.
Only the Executive branch can grant pardons ... unless the congress has impeached someone - then the president can't pardon. It goes on and on.
But the bottom line is that the "unitary" concept appears to be sound but it surely is not.
And Alito is fascist leaning and plays the game, is coached by senate members, and will help bring spying on Americans into an institution.
With Alito on the bench you will be spied upon by neoCon "unitary" presidents. Count on it.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 10:24 am PT...
Alito and his federalist society background are going to drive the court towards fascism. It may not effect Bush, he might be gone soon for all we know, but we'll see the crawl towards corporatism in the next few decades.
As for Doug, who seems to think that the court that voted Bush into office 5-4 is going to convict him, he had this to say about spam mail:
"Do not open the damn things they are neocon viruses.....And trust me, these neocons are out of control."
That's all I have to say.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 10:25 am PT...
#12 A99, I was being factious in my comment #11, I know this has been going on for years...lol. I wrote it in haste and then tried to stop the post, but to no avail. Oh well, got on the board anyway. I can't view video very well (am on dial up) but used to have Sundance on cable, until the powers that be decided to delete it from their line up. I love those documentaries and perhaps it will come my way. Good post btw.
#27 Dredd, we are on the same page. I posted on another thread my thoughts about the basement. When this first occured with the DSM I emailed sennsenbrenner and gave him my mind. I certainly applaud those speaking up, regardless of party, Conyers is a hero who has my greatest respect but he is in the minority. My point with the post was about the large majority (both parties) guilty of graft and just what bushco is holding over their heads. I think Gore's statement about Congress being more about money and less about legislating (paraphrasing) is probably quite true.
We do need people willing to speak out, regardless of past actions. I think there may be a few in the GOP that have a bit of conscience, may turn if the right circumstances present themselves. I don't think even they were prepared for bushco. Just got caught up in the power trip and have forgotten where they came from, certainly don't grasp what they have signed up for, and need to wrest themselves from the control the Neocons have asserted. The Neo's hijacked the party, plain and simple. I don't believe the average blow joe knows that.
Meanwhile we must pin our hopes on the democratic minority and hope that more of them speak out. I see this happening little by little and this is encouraging. I just hope that they don't get discouraged because they know they were the victims of bush's spy program.
Last I need to discuss the debate going on about Alito. I have always looked to Doug to provide much insight and information. I do not understand what he is saying right now, but he seems to have information that he is not willing to share on this board. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I agree with other posters here, that Alito is a bad apple, but will not judge his support by Doug until I know, what Doug knows. M4
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 11:18 am PT...
Whoops, reading my post I think I got the blow joe thing backwards, I think the correct term is joe blow...duh. Oh well, hope you got my drift, fairly sure some troll will respond....CLINTON DID IT.
BTW, just found out that M4 is a gun....go figure. My husband says I have no street smarts, perhaps that is why I come off as so naive...am in my head too much. Well guess I will continue to use it, too late to change and I just felt anyone addressing me would be more comfortable not having to spell out my chosen name for this blog...trust me, it was not a 'hidden' message' lol. M4
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 12:53 pm PT...
Bullshit. Alito is the heart of the matter here. All the open source voting machines in the world won't save the republic when we've got a court packed with federalist society fascists.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 12:59 pm PT...
I watched every minute of those hearings. He did no such thing as answer the "unitary executive" questions forcefully, or truthfully. He has lectured on the subject. He was down-playing it for the hearings, for the cameras. I'm not looking at ANY hype. I'm looking at Alito, at his record, at his MONUMENTAL dishonesty in front of the judiciary committee and the world. He is as avid a believer in an unconstitutionally empowered executive as Scalia and Thomas. Roberts has already thrown in with them. THERE WILL BE NO CHECK ON THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, ASSUMING WE EVER GET ANOTHER, WITH THAT MAN ON THE COURT WITH THEM.
You act as if attention to keeping Alito off that court will ruin the chances of curing the electile dysfunction. It in fact will do more to insure the cure. The court was ALREADY biased enough to take the Bush vs. Gore case, WHICH IT HAD NO BUSINESS TOUCHING, making a non-SCOTUS ruling, to APPOINT a president over the will of the people, AND the laws of Florida. Pull yourself together.
He's NOT an insanely evil man, he's merely a lifelong subscriber to the paternalistic establishment-that-can-never-do-evil mode of ego gratification. A heroin addict will sooner do without their fix than a man like that will do without his ego trips. IT IS WHAT HERDED MY ANCESTORS DOWN THE TRAIL OF TEARS.
I'd like to know how you think stopping Alito will harm our ability to get voting integrity back.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 2:37 pm PT...
"He believes in "signing statements" that, say, pass laws against torture except if the president wants people tortured. "
He means no such thing, what he is talking about is constitutional powers. I didn't say you have to agree with him Agent, and I did NOT say he won't change the balance.
He WILL change the balance of the court. As an independent you should know this! And by the way, I'm a strict CONSTITUTIONALIST and having read through all the arguments I know this man is qualified to do the job.
You may not like the fact he is an independent thinker, who by the way has no real loyalty to Bush or anyone else. And I have proof of that I have seen myself. I have even pointed this out to Senator Feingold and Feingold agrees that he won't take the 'unitary executive' theory or anything else overboard.
He does not define the unitary executive. He does not PRETEND to even define it! He only knows about it in scholar classes, of how it must work and how any president or officer can not exceed their own already assigned powers written in the bill of rights. The CONSTITUTION does. This man has studied all the laws for years. I did not say to not vote against him, as I encouraged everyone too. But no matter what he needs to get in. And you'll understand later WHY, as he is the worst enemy to the neocons on this earth.....one man's enemy is another man's protector.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 2:50 pm PT...
Doug, you've been throwing around this "I have proof of this but I can't show you" and "You'll understand everything later but I can't explain why" stuff for awhile... either put up or shut up, eh?
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 4:18 pm PT...
Doug, I am an independent thinker, but I unerringly vote for what promises to protect and enhance the lives of the little guys, and the workers. I'm not even letting my pro-choice conviction stand in the way of my assessment of the man, and would even agree he is qualified if he weren't so obviously dishonest. I'm trying to understand your position, your "strict constitutionalist" ideal, but I have to agree with bvac, here. You offered to answer me if I emailed you about your proof that Alito will be good for the SCOTUS, put an end to all this, and emails are not any more secure than posting on a blog. So, you really should make your case, or stop freaking us out.
If he is the worst enemy of the neocons, WHY is Ann Coulter slobbering all over herself for his appointment? Why are neocon sentators slobbering all over themselves for him? I most certainly noticed the marked disdain on his face, standing next to * while formally announcing his appointment, but it really wasn't any different from the nose-in-the-air air of disdain I noted in every single picture of him before the hearings, and assumed again the moment he got up from his seat, every time, at those hearings.
Strict constructionism could very easily strip us of rights we have long enjoyed on the basis of their not having been mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, only implied to all reasonable Americans. You are living in a time where absolute maniacs are in power, who all want this strict interpretation of the Constitution badly. YOU DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE WORLD OF THEIR STRICT CONSTRUCTIONS.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 7:59 pm PT...
Why does not everyone flood phone calls upon the offices of Democratic senators and insist that they invoke the filibuster? That's obviously the only way this confirmation can be blocked. Will the history of this sorry episode be written that it was the meekness of Democrats who could have blocked this but chose to bluster about their opposition instead of using the one available weapon that could conceivably stop this in the ninth inning with two outs? Help!
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 1/24/2006 @ 8:13 pm PT...
Mike Z: Everybody IS calling for a filibuster, every day.
'The famous soprano Charlotte Church has recently slammed US president George W Bush by calling him "tw*t". She revealed that when she met George W Bush he asked her what state Wales was in. She called him Sulky and said, I thought, "You twat." When I've met President Clinton and other world leaders, as you do, they've all made me feel like they wanted to have a chat. But Bush was like a sulking child, he looked like he couldn't be bothered."'
Our "unilateral" executive. In third grade, the dumbest girl in our class was laughed off her chair when she answered that Africa was a town in California. Look who the Supremes selected president.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2006 @ 10:09 am PT...
You said "president or officer can not exceed their own already assigned powers written in the bill of rights" which is not accurate.
The presidential powers are articulated in Article II of the US Constitution. The congressional powers are articulated in Article I, and the Judiciary powers are articulated in Article III.
The "Bill of Rights" (First 10 Amendments) are a restraint and the law that governs all three branches in those articles. No branch of government can violate the law in the bill of rights.
The Bill of Rights, at Amendment IV, says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (link here, emphasis added)
When the president spies on Americans, searching thru millions of electronic phone, email, and other data (electronic eavesdropping is a "search") without a warrant, as the Fourth Amendment clearly sets forth, it violates the right of the people not to be searched without a warrant.
Even if you think God is talking to you as the president does, that special information is of no consequence. There is no information from anywhere that is going to change what the Fourth Amendment says and means.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2006 @ 5:28 pm PT...
As I've said repeatedly if you want to know why email me. But Alito is for the seperation of constitutional powers, he despies the neocons (and coulter is just another opportunist)and, he is against any executive power.
He will be on the court, and everything that you read about him is just plain & simple hype. He's independent and much moreso than the others.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 1/31/2006 @ 5:29 pm PT...
Capitalism is not the problem here!
read adam smith. This is'nt capitalism. it s fafacism..we have been so manipulated and snowed thru the years, that we can't even agree on our definitions.
i, for one, am ready to secede.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
David C. Manchester
said on 2/8/2006 @ 3:26 pm PT...
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
David C. Manchester
said on 2/8/2006 @ 3:28 pm PT...
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2006 @ 11:45 am PT...
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.