Politics As Usual

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Since I came late, what exactly does the statute bar?

It's still early, but GOP congressmen will start focusing next week on Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) “jurisdiction stripping” bill, which would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Who is telling you that the records were destroyed on '96? Oh, right, the White House. After saying for months that they had investigated and shown the world everything relevant, which most people would assume includes looking at, you know, all the files. Again, you guys are supposed to be good at this stuff. Why do we only find out about the files being destroyed when somebody files a lawsuit to see them? Why do we only find out about the Florida felon list's omissions when somebody files a lawsuit to allow a copy to be made?

I propose that Bush's records weren't destroyed in '96. I propose that records were destroyed in '96, but Bush's wasn't one of them. I propose that this is a cover story for their more recent disappearance. I propose that I go sit in the park and mumble about the CIA stealing my brainwaves.

And on the subject of Florida, how did y'all determine that only .1% or whatever of those people had Hispanic names? If you only counted people with names that ended in vowels, it sounds like you would only hit Italians and the Polish.

If you eyeballed people and held a color chart up to their skin (you know, to get rid of black people from the list), you'd be ruling in or out many, many black-hispanics, a group that is particularly well-represented in an state like FLA.

Anyhoo, any idea how they figured out the list was *only* .1% hispanic names? This sounds like a leftist media planted story if I ever heard one.

And it other news, an estimated one-thousand violent street-murders this year didn't happen because women have the right to choose!

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can we just rid of the ones we want to get rid of?

Yeah, sure, but it's a short putt from the N.D. Cal. to the S.F. Superior. Hint: the removal statute gives defendants a right to remove claims, and it's usually the plaintiff moving for remand, right? Patricians are grateful for the federal court system. If you really want to fuck over people's right to redress greivances, you're going to need to take a two-level approach.

Anyone else find it funny that they want to push marriage cases to state courts, but move class actions to federal? A class action on behalf of gay married people; that's a head-scratcher.

[Say_hello_for_me]

The Washington Post had an interesting article about Virginia's right to pack heat openly!

Can I just say, I'm entirely in favor of law-abiding people being allowed to carry guns and all, but can we at least make it a permitted process - just to make sure they are law abiding? And, also, would it be to much to ask people to carry concealed? The article has a few incidents of groups walking into establishments or walking their dog with pieces strapped to their hips.

Its just so, so, so suburban.

It would be oh so much better if there was just a permitted conceal-carry process in DC.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is quite different from what Hersh is apparently claiming i.e. the Americans did it.

I didn't read that excerpt that way -- but all I read is what was on the Board.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why isn't the same sector of the public that screams for the public release of this [purportedly disgusting] material also not lambasting the media for their self-censorship of (1) the 9/11 WTC footage, (2) the Fallujah burnings and (3) the numerous beheading videos?

Sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted to get to this before. You should not read my post as necessarily urging the public release of this material. I'm not sure that trying to keep it locked away is necessarily wrong.

As much as I want Bush gone (and increasing public disgust with Iraq would help that) -- I don't want our image in the world to suffer even more, or to further damage the rebuilding effort in Iraq. I might have made the same decision.

As for the WTC footage, "if it were up to me, I'd show it every day." All of the items listed could/should be available on late-night news programming.

Other posters have identified what I think are legitimate reasons why its EVEN more important to spread public awareness of the details of abuses committed by folks working for us than by folks we're already trying to kill.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I was just musing that there might be some due process right to SCOTUS review of federal question cases decided in state courts.

The great unknown left open by ex parte McCardle, which could avoid the question because there were other methods of seeking a habeas writ than the one deprived him when Congress repealed jurisdiction over such petitions. What if they had taken away all avenues? All writs act? A challenge to the statute as unconstitutionally depriving the courts of jurisdiction in a non-neutral fashion? perhaps. scholars kill trees over this.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


Anyone else find it funny that they want to push marriage cases to state courts, but move class actions to federal?

Particularly in light of the fact that it was a state court that created the problem. (and a federal court that ruled that the Mass. ruling did not deprive citizens of a republican (little R) form of government.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's still early, but GOP congressmen will start focusing next week on Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) “jurisdiction stripping” bill, which would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage.

I can't see a court, and certainly the Supreme Court, agreeing with the proposition that Congress may pass a statute that says a statute is not reviewable by the courts. Talk about eliminating the third branch.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm getting the feeling that we're talking past each other.

I don't think so.

You seem to be focusing on the fact that both sides of the political aisle have beefs about what they think should or should not be constitutional. I agree that in that respect, this is not a one-sided problem.

No, I'm focussing on the fact that both have beefs about what the law should be. Agreed this is not a one-sided problem.

My problem is more with the tactics that the GOP is considering -- that if they're unsuccessful in legislating this prohibition, and if they can't pass an amendment enacting this prohibition, that somehow removing the question from the federal courts is somehow legitimate. Instead of getting the outcome they want with the game as it currently stands, or changing the rules (as they're permitted to do) so that they'll get the outcome the want on the substance, they're essentually deciding to take the ball home, so that the game never gets played.

And my point is that tactics exist on both sides. E.g., the DEMs don't want certain judges, so they block a full vote.

My point with abortion was that the DEMs were unsuccessful in legislating it in certain states. So they took it to the courts and, low and behold, the court decided this right was fundemental. It's the same thing as what you are accusing the GOP of doing - gaming the system to get the desired outcome.*

*I am not suggesting that there are not certain rights that the court should find, especially those where majority is tormenting the minority.

etft -- t.s.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Club's not a litigator, and is therefore having a little difficulty in imagining the potential drawbacks of allowing elected state court judges to rule on matters of federal constitutional law.

Living in S.F., you'd think he's be a strong proponent of having such matters heard exclusively by men and women appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Club --- if this passes, I'll meet you in Department 302. We have a lot of wealth redistribution to catch up on.

To be clear, I do not support this move, I was just musing that I can understand the motives for it.

Department 302? Is that a court room or something? I don't like those. The judge is always so mean, especially when he says to you, "the defendant will rise to hear the jury's verdict."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I can't see a court, and certainly the Supreme Court, agreeing with the proposition that Congress may pass a statute that says a statute is not reviewable by the courts. Talk about eliminating the third branch.

Maybe they won't have to agree. {Spree: brightest minds of the GOP think their way out of this particular wet paper bag.}

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe they won't have to agree. {Spree: brightest minds of the GOP think their way out of this particular wet paper bag.}

What a moron.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe they won't have to agree. {Spree: brightest minds of the GOP think their way out of this particular wet paper bag.}

:eek2:

I would really hate to be the counsel on the committee that has to say to his member, with a straight face, that the law is constitutional and consistent with our system of checks and balances. A statute that allows Congress to overrule a judicial decision? It didn't even work with the executive. cough, Chadha, cough.

What's next--every bill comes along with jurisdiction-stripping language tacked on to prevent its challenge in court?

[hint, atticus, that's rhetorical, please don't find such a proposal on google[

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
:eek2:

I would really hate to be the counsel on the committee that has to say to his member, with a straight face, that the law is constitutional and consistent with our system of checks and balances. A statute that allows Congress to overrule a judicial decision? It didn't even work with the executive. cough, Chadha, cough.

What's next--every bill comes along with jurisdiction-stripping language tacked on to prevent its challenge in court?

[hint, atticus, that's rhetorical, please don't find such a proposal on google[

no need to google. Call Gephardt's staff. He figured a way to overeturn SCt. decisions with an executive order. I think its take a writ of hocus pocus, or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, sure, but it's a short putt from the N.D. Cal. to the S.F. Superior. Hint: the removal statute gives defendants a right to remove claims, and it's usually the plaintiff moving for remand, right? Patricians are grateful for the federal court system. If you really want to fuck over people's right to redress greivances, you're going to need to take a two-level approach.

Anyone else find it funny that they want to push marriage cases to state courts, but move class actions to federal? A class action on behalf of gay married people; that's a head-scratcher.

Step 1- Judicial economy act of 2005.
All Federal Courts within what is now the state of California*, and the 9th circuit court of appeals are hereby disbanded.

Venue- venue is proper for any individual resident of the state of California, in any district where the headquarters of a corporation sued, or threatened with suit, by said individual, is located.

Step 2- jurisdiction wil be a problem, and its sort of constitutional, but I've been working on an argument "when you sue a company you are going after its bank, which is in its HQ state. how is that guy not availing himself of the HQ state?"

*with the Central district you could argue its existence is unconstitutional just based upon its local rules.