Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please tell me where in this article that statement is attributed to the terrorist. It's not long -- just read carefully and move your lips, and you'll get through it.

Well, even the Pentagon needs a source for that, and the only apparent evidence from the article is from the "detainee." Do you see another source of evidence, or can you just imagine some other place where the info came from?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
When are the liberals ever going to get it?

From the Economist:

The reluctant reformers

The Economist always speaks in terms of the failings of the leaders. I would like to see them focus more on the failings of the electorate. One of the curses of democracy is accountability, but no one ever holds the voters of France and England and Germany accountable.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that I sue club because he's using a charcoal grill and making my patio all smoky. I sue under the California common law of nuisance, but I lose. Aggreived, and unwilling to give up, I go to Senator Boxer, who pulls some strings and gets Congress to pass a law saying that the judgment in my particular suit -- and that suit only -- is null and void, and that I can get a de novo trial in federal court.

Unless you've got some preemption going somewhere in that mess, it's going to simply be a rerun, right? I don't think they're limited by any specific law so much as by the principle of, don't make a fool of yourself and expect re-election. (Would that Congress had read this post earlier, eh?)

[bilmore]

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The difference is that my case -- and Schiavo's -- doesn't involve only abstract principles of law -- e.g., all gay marriages in Massachusetts -- but rather the application of law to one particular set of facts. And it's not like a Congressional determination to pre-empt state law before there's an adjudication -- it's an after-the-fact response to a judicial decision that one doesn't like. Boxer wouldn't do the same thing for club, after all.

This is sounding like a Fed. Courts hypo (boy, the profs. just had an exam handed to them, no?)

Calder v. Bull? Ex post facto doesn't apply to civil cases/private rights--that's one of the problems, since Congress is trying to change the result after it's happened.

Ex parte McCardle? In reverse, since they're granting jurisdiction to change a result, rather than withdrawing it to prevent a result. but the can do that.

It seems to run against a number of principles, but not directly.

What if you thought the state courts had gotten the case wrong in the first place? Would your views be different?

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by bilmore
This was a hotly contested case, insofar as determining her "wishes" goes. Her parents obviously don't accept her husband's testimony. I think this is understandable. I doubt I would still think that in the presence of a DPOA.

There's a lot of comfort derived by people here in the following of the checklists. I think it's a nice easy way to not think of the underlying subject. Why not simply hand her over to her parents and walk away?

The testimony on her wishes didn't seem very clear to me either. On the other hand, RT is right when she says, "what she would have wanted" has already been looked at over and over. I think this case is unusual b/c if the wife so clearly told hubby what she wanted, hubby did not stop her treatments (and was advocating for them) even when the medical evidence was clear she was in the state she is in now. Everyone including the parents got used to caring for her and treating her and the wife certainly got used to being fed and watered (at least her body that is). The decision was made to keep feeding and watering her and some (including me) don't think its wise or right to change course at a certain point. I think the husband believes in what he is doing but let too much time go by (yes, I'm aware that's he's been fighting to stop treatment for a while; I'm talking about before that). One poster on here (the donut eater who finds me annoying**) said "her wishes as to how she wants the end of her life to be aren't really pertinent while there is reasonable hope of recovery." Fine, but the point is that her supposed wishes weren't taken into account even when THERE WAS NO reasonable hope of recovery.

**I am not assuming there is only one poster on here who enjoys donuts and finds me annoying too.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Calling a Pentagon official a "terrorist" is unamerican, Hank. Love this country or leave it, pal. Go back to Windsor.



Please tell me where in this article that statement is attributed to the terrorist. It's not long -- just read carefully and move your lips, and you'll get through it.

It may be because Hank and I have the same twisted kind of mind, but it seemed obvious to me that the source for the pentagon statement was a detainee at Gitmo. Obviously, the veracity of the source is questionable. The pentagon was not saying the report was necessarily true. They were just saying that a terrorist had alleged these facts. General Franks stated that there were conflicting reports but nothing definitive. It sounds like to me that this terrorists statement about Osama was one of the conflicting reports that Franks was referring to. However, if Tommy Franks says that the US had no reason to believe that we had Osama in our grasp, I think you would trust that statement unless there was some definitive evidence to the contrary. Statements from a Gitmo detainee does not seem like definitive evidence to me. In addition, it does not refer to a time frame. This guy may have led Osama out of Tora Bora well in advance of the American forces arrival.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, even the Pentagon needs a source for that, and the only apparent evidence from the article is from the "detainee." Do you see another source of evidence, or can you just imagine some other place where the info came from?

Bitch, please. They could have a wide variety of other sources. Human intel, documents, confession, sigint, etc. Whatever it is, they buy it enough to represent it as the truth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It seems to run against a number of principles, but not directly.

That was where I was coming out.

What if you thought the state courts had gotten the case wrong in the first place? Would your views be different?

Not so much. I'm the process guy. Bilmore's the one who thinks it's all about the result.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bitch, please. They could have a wide variety of other sources. Human intel, documents, confession, sigint, etc. Whatever it is, they buy it enough to represent it as the truth.

What makes you think that they represented it as the truth? I don't think the article implies that, and even if it did, we would need to see the text of the Pentagon document. Have you seen the text of the pentagon document?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think that they represented it as the truth? I don't think the article implies that, and even if it did, we would need to see the text of the Pentagon document. Have you seen the text of the pentagon document?

The AP article attributes the statement to the Pentagon. It does not suggest -- as you and Hank helpfully have -- that the Pentagon merely was reciting the self-serving statements of a captured terrorist. I appreciate your efforts to defend Franks' credibility, but it is pretty clear that OBL was at Tora Bora, that we let him get away -- surely not by design, but by effect -- and that people like Franks and Bush lied about it during the campaign.

And the lies worked. So you Republicans can be glad about that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not so much. I'm the process guy. Bilmore's the one who thinks it's all about the result.

BTW, has Terri's law entirely blown up in Congress's face? (assuming a denial of cert.) They don't get the intended result, it happens really quickly that they don't, they passed an asinine law with no benefit, and are stuck explaining why they didn't do more. Good work, fellas.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bitch, please. They could have a wide variety of other sources. Human intel, documents, confession, sigint, etc. Whatever it is, they buy it enough to represent it as the truth.

And Russian Submarines- Were there Russian submarines?

you don't have the Government document, you have a newspaper story that reads:

• The document, provided in response to a Freedom of Information request, says the unidentified detainee ''assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora.'' It is the first definitive statement from the Pentagon that bin Laden was at Tora Bora and evaded U.S. pursuers.

You aren't dense enough to believe that is anything other than what the guy told them, perhaps "confirmed" by other detainees. What is most wrong when you dissemble here, is the less intelligent of your side take their cues from you. In essence you are a role model. When you intentionally ignore the facts, Sidd/Gatti/Tax/etc. now start seeing the fiction of your satire as truth. You harm them with this sort of thing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, has Terri's law entirely blown up in Congress's face? (assuming a denial of cert.) They don't get the intended result, it happens really quickly that they don't, they passed an asinine law with no benefit, and are stuck explaining why they didn't do more. Good work, fellas.

I've had days like that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, has Terri's law entirely blown up in Congress's face? (assuming a denial of cert.) They don't get the intended result, it happens really quickly that they don't, they passed an asinine law with no benefit, and are stuck explaining why they didn't do more. Good work, fellas.

Well, they do get to blame the judicary.