Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 89

Shape Shifter · 09-14-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Call me crazy, but when did a Republican minority ever filibuster the nominee of Democrat POTUS?

Seriously, give me a single example,

07-01-1995

Republican Filibuster Kills Surgeon General Nomination

BY CHRISTOPHER WEEMS

The long and often controversial fight over the nomination of Nashville gynecologist Dr. Henry Foster effectively ended last Thursday as a Senate filibuster, led by Texas Republican Phil Gramm defeated the enomination.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:2347...omination.html

eta: How many Clinton judicial nominees even made it out of committee? The Rs didn't even need to filibuster these.

Hank Chinaski · 09-14-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have no idea. But it's not like the rules are new. And there are all sorts of ways in which the rules thwart the will of the Senate majority.

etc "power" to "will"

Its un-American. If you believe that the government should not be holding innocent people indefinitely, you should believe that said innocent people should be able to do something about it.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My question was, if they're innocent and the government continues to hold them, should they be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Not, do they have the right under the law as it is, but should the law give them the right. I thought you were ducking the question, but perhaps you didn't understand what I was getting at.

Ooops :blush: - I didn't understand what you were saying

But to answer that question. No - we shouldn't give them that right. We should endeavor to not hold innocent people, but in a war you don't want to be handing out rights to the enemy.

Hank Chinaski · 09-14-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Ooops :blush: - I didn't understand what you were saying

But to answer that question. No - we shouldn't give them that right. We should endeavor to not hold innocent people, but in a war you don't want to be handing out rights to the enemy.

Spank, i can't keep up with Ty's madness. Is he now admitting his complaint isn't that Bush is taking away rights- it's that Bush isn't creating new rights?

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's crazy -- and I think the founding fathers would have thought it crazy -- to empower the executive branch to seize and hold innocent people indefinitely without any sort of judicial review. The writ of habeas corpus exists for this purpose. The framers understood the dangers of unbridled power.

And again -- I'm not arguing about what the law is. I'm arguing about what it should be.

Then why didn't they place such rights in the constitution or the bill of rights? Can you imagine if we gave the writ of habeas corpus during WWII to all enemy combatants? We would still be hearing the cases. We sure as hell didn't give it to enemy combatants during the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

Prior to Gerald Ford the executive branch could order the CIA to kill people. Let alone hold them indefinitely.

As long as these groups are at "war" with the US we can hold on to their people indefinitely.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not to speak for Spanky, but I think we've both said repeatedly (i) no, the government should not be holding truly innocent people indefinitely, but (ii) assuming they were - and this is a major, major assumption - no they should not be entitled to habeas corpus nor should the law be expanded. He has other non-judicial means of recourse, such as a plea from his foreign ambassador.

:td:

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why didn't they place such rights in the constitution or the bill of rights? Can you imagine if we gave the writ of habeas corpus during WWII to all enemy combatants? We would still be hearing the cases. We sure as hell didn't give it to enemy combatants during the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

Prior to Gerald Ford the executive branch could order the CIA to kill people. Let alone hold them indefinitely.

As long as these groups are at "war" with the US we can hold on to their people indefinitely.

You're confusing the substantive question -- whether the person should be set free -- with the procedural question -- whether the person should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The writ predates the Constitution by ~400 years.

And who said anything about enemy combatants? I just said it's a guy, and we know he's innocent. Not an enemy combatant. Not a part of a group we're at war with. Just an innocent guy.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spank, i can't keep up with Ty's madness. Is he now admitting his complaint isn't that Bush is taking away rights- it's that Bush isn't creating new rights?

:shrug:

Gattigap · 09-14-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
07-01-1995

Republican Filibuster Kills Surgeon General Nomination

BY CHRISTOPHER WEEMS

The long and often controversial fight over the nomination of Nashville gynecologist Dr. Henry Foster effectively ended last Thursday as a Senate filibuster, led by Texas Republican Phil Gramm defeated the enomination.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:2347...omination.html

eta: How many Clinton judicial nominees even made it out of committee? The Rs didn't even need to filibuster these.

:td:

***

No, wait. I thought doing that was supposed to be cool for some reason, but it just feels retarded. Am I not doing it right?

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're confusing the substantive question -- whether the person should be set free -- with the procedural question -- whether the person should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The writ predates the Constitution by ~400 years.

And who said anything about enemy combatants? I just said it's a guy, and we know he's innocent. Not an enemy combatant. Not a part of a group we're at war with. Just an innocent guy.

We don't want to be holding innocent people. However, we also don't want foreign nationals in foreign countries to have any rights in relation to the United States. The way to solve the problem of innocent people being held is not giving them the right of Habeas Corpus.

What is so absurd about your hypo is that as I understand it, only "innocent" men would get a hearing. I can't imagine a situation where the executive branch would admit they are holding an innocent man. If they were holding them, and they were asked why, I am sure they would give a reason.

Your writ would only work if the executive branch admitted that the person was innocent. But if they really wanted to detain him then they would say he is not innocent and then the person would not get his hearing.

If on the other hand you are saying we should give the writ to every foreign national the United States detainees overseas, well that is just crazy.

So your question, it seems, is really academic.

SlaveNoMore · 09-14-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
07-01-1995

Republican Filibuster Kills Surgeon General Nomination

BY CHRISTOPHER WEEMS

The long and often controversial fight over the nomination of Nashville gynecologist Dr. Henry Foster effectively ended last Thursday as a Senate filibuster, led by Texas Republican Phil Gramm defeated the enomination.

Fair enough.

And that was a disgrace too, especially since it seems to have set a precedent for a 60-vote supermajority requirement

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap

No, wait. I thought doing that was supposed to be cool for some reason, but it just feels retarded. Am I not doing it right?

Maybe "it" has nothing to do with the way you are "doing it". Did you ever consider the option that maybe you may feel retarded because you are retarded?

:buckt:

:dance: :dance2:

Retard · 09-14-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
:td:

***

No, wait. I thought doing that was supposed to be cool for some reason, but it just feels retarded. Am I not doing it right?

You're doing just fine.

:stupid:

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Retard
You're doing just fine.

:stupid:

Touché

:jedi:

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-14-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
We don't want to be holding innocent people. However, we also don't want foreign nationals in foreign countries to have any rights in relation to the United States. The way to solve the problem of innocent people being held is not giving them the right of Habeas Corpus.

Why don't we want foreigners to have any rights? Do you not believe that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Why does a "conservative" want to limit a procedure that's been part of our traditions since 1305?

Quote:

What is so absurd about your hypo is that as I understand it, only "innocent" men would get a hearing.

The hypo was that he's innocent, not the law.

Quote:

I can't imagine a situation where the executive branch would admit they are holding an innocent man. If they were holding them, and they were asked why, I am sure they would give a reason.

Try harder. Where have you been living for the last six years?

Quote:

If on the other hand you are saying we should give the writ to every foreign national the United States detainees overseas, well that is just crazy.

Why? If, e.g., the person is an enemy combatant, we have every right to hold him, and the writ of habeas corpus does him absolutely no good.

It's a way to have your claim heard, not a "Get of Jail Free" card.