Besides that being only your claim as to what allegedly happened in supposed cases for which you provide no source or evidence, what law are you alleging the judge 'reinterpreted' to suit his fancy?
n
The NY DC were very pro-business, big business. Carter appointed two or three judges, the rests are Reagan, Bush, Nixon or earlier. In this case, they are leaning toward bigger business, Texaco. In fact, the SC said Texaco cannot be exempted from full bond, just because they can afford to file in NY DC, AC against TX court. Most little guys can't afford to do that.
Right leaning judges lean more in the direction of bigger businesses.
But it's such a classic and import case. Justice is blind and ageless.
You're only a leftist if you want ME to pay for your life liberty and pursuit of happiness. You don't want that do you?
G=B2
One suspects a newsgroup frequented by engineers has a fair amount of high wage earners, hence they are contributing to the public trough way more than those old tea baggers.
By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President George Bush. The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue. The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in the election process. Clearly showing their right wing bias and willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.
The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I see Texas execute one. Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and the Constitution.
The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed to finish it; though the military knew where to find the rest of the Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the job. He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion dollars in VA benefits.
The second gave us the Tea Baggers. They are paid for by the Koch brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different views.
Larry
gmail, indeed! Electronics content please? Tom
When the newspaper chains (Knight-Ridder was one) recounted the votes the way Gore wanted, Bush won Florida anyway. (Although Gore still won the popular vote across the country.)
Judicial overreach. The right-wingers took a decision applicable to a closely-held corporation, where the opinions of the corporation and the shareholders were one, and applied it to giant corporations with hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of shareholders, like IBM and GM.
eWhen the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have won anyways. And we would have enjoyed several months of being led by President Denny Hastert. (third in the line of succession). Because Clinton was limited to two terms by the Constitution. (Could Gore have been named acting President during the interim? Interesting question.)
The Teabaggers were a spontaneous movement, although surely the Kochs were glad to see them emerge. Karl Denninger and his ilk are no more destructive of civil discourse than the Occupy movement.
snipped-for-privacy@east.AltBinaries.com...> By far and away = the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
Exactly what kind of electronics content did you expect from a thread titled "Serious question for leftists"?
Except that there had been a serious and persistent effort to get people likely to vote Democrat off the electoral rolls. Jeb Bush had subverted the electoral process, and got away with it.
tThey are a lot more irrational than the Occupy movement. There's a whole lot of evidence that level of inequality in income and wealth in the US is high enough to damage US society - anybody with more inequality than Denmark does worse than Denmark on a whole range of measures, and the US has a lot more inequality than Denmark and most other advanced industrial countries - and to that extent the Occupy movement is entirely rational.
The Teabaggers wouldn't recognise evidence if it bit them.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Not according to
It appears more likely that Gore, and not Bush, would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't halted recount efforts.
. Supreme
Your wikipedia cites the Knight-Ridder study I mentioned. By the "intent of the voter" standard urged by Gore, Bush wins Florida. Only by the standard Gore rejected -- a complete clean punch through the ballot -- does Gore win:
Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes. Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by
884 votes. Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes. Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.t s d
ore
Florida wasn't obeying its own election laws, as they allowed Gore to file protest long after their own deadline.
Gore couldn't protest in a timely manner because he was busy trying to bias the results, enforcing recounts only in districts he thought helpful, while suppressing non-helpful districts.
None of it mattered anyhow. In contested cases the decision is made constitutionally in U.S. House of Representatives. They were Republicans. Who do you think *they* would've chosen?
tWhat nonsense. This from a President who accuses doctors of unnecessarily cutting off feet, for the money.
At bottom, Obama and his democrats want to run people's lives down to the minutest detail, to impose their own morals and dictates--ones which they themselves don't follow--on an unwilling populace. Free people don't like that.
And, their dictates are idiotic, such as all this stimulus nonsense they keep insisting on long after its total, complete, and abject failure has been abundantly demonstrated.
Last year they spent $3.6T on $2.3T revenues. That's $1.57 in spending for every dollar taken in. And, they want to spend more.
If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Silly Rabbit wrote in news:jvvfen$5h4$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
even the liberal Florida newspapers now admit that Bush legitimately won the 2000 election.
Wiki is run by leftists. and anyone can edit a Wiki article.
-- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
I can't say about your area, but here in Colorado the Teabaggers are the anarchists who never filled taxes and wanted to abolish the IRS.
Today they are saving the country.
OK, I am not happy with the IRS either, but how did a bunch of hooligans become Americas savior ??
The 'bunch of hooligans' is OWS. They can't bath, let alone save America.
So, its easier to change the subject then it is to answer a simple question ?
What were the Teabaggers like in your area, before they became Americas savior ?
Did you even know they existed before they hit the world stage ??
"Liberal Florida newspapers" sounds like an oxymoron. In any event, they are wrong - Jeb Bush stole it for Dubbya.
Pretty much everybody is a leftist from Jim Yanik's radical right point of view - few people share his extreme right-wing delusions, and it worries him that so few other people know the truth about the world.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
e s e
Remarkable - the smell from the unwashed Occupy Wall Street mob is penetrating enough to be smelled in Florida, by a guy who bulk-buys his incontinence underwear?
Sadly, Michael A Terrell is the kind of right-wing nitwit who hasn't got enough sense to realise that quite a lot right-wing propaganda is amateurish and depressingly implausible - it sells well to right-wing nitwits, who aren't into critical thinking, but it does make them look ridiculous when they expose their gullibility to informed criticism.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Check out Karl Roves' skills at persuading people that black is white. The Koch brother's money pays for a lot of that kind of persuasion.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ent
e.
in
=A0As
nd
led
emore
The illegal practices go back rather further - Jeb Bush spent a lot of money purging the Florida electoral rolls of "suspected felons" (most of whom weren't felons, and most of them Democrat voters). This was a fraudulent abuse of power, and it's depressing, but scarcely surprising, that he wasn't charged and imprisoned for it.
Perhaps. US elections wouldn't rate a honestly administered in most civilised countries, and politicians work within the mechanisms availabel.
They would - of course - have based their decision of truth and logic, just like Republicans always do ...
ent
When did Obama claim that the Koch brothers had bought and paid for the tEa Party movement? And when did he claim that doctor amputated feet unnecessarily, for the operating fee involved?
Cite your sources - it's always entertaining to see how you manage to misinterpret perfectly respectable comments to fit your silly ideas.
Twaddle. They love the war on drugs which is exactly that kind of interference in people's choice of recreational substances.
You get excited about Obama closing down a loop-hole that had allowed Catholic organisation to get their health insurance cheap, and suddenly he's trying "to run people's lives down to the minutest detail" which is one more bizarre misinterpretation of what's going on.
"Failure"? The immediate aftermath of the sub-prime mortgage crisis was 1.5% decline in GDP over a single quarter - which if sustained, as it was from 1929 to 1933, would have produced a re-run of the Great Depression. The Keynesian stimulus that was applied at the time prevented any further decline in GDP and in fact managed to generate some growth.
Granting the damage done to the US economy - and, at second hand - to the economy of the rest of world, by the bursting of the US house price bubble, blown up by a bunch of bottom-feeding idiots in the US banking industry, who fed the bubble by making ninja loans to people who were never going to pay them back, just preventing a re-run of the Great Depression was a significant achievement.
If the Obama administration had been silly enough to listen to James Arthur's moronic economic advice, you'd have had a second Great Depression of spectacular proportions.
Correctly.
The US has lost it, and the Occupy movement has put it's finger on the problem. The Tea Baggers are just one more depressing symptom of what's wrong with the USA, where the rich don't hesitate to exploit every mechanism that lets them get richer at the expense of everybody else.
So Mitt Romney's running for president rather than sitting in jail for ripping off widows and orphans.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.