Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From WaPo:

• In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
  
  "It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
  
  Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

So he's sympathizing with Brian Nichols, claiming to be a kindred spirit disgusted with the judiciary? Interesting...

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From WaPo:

• In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
  
  "It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
  
  Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Goddamn the GOP and their constant calls for constitutional amendments.

The overhauling of Article III is gonna take us months to get done.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From WaPo:

• In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.
  
  "It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
  
  Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

I can't wait to see the wave of populist violence against activist judges when this hits the courts. So much for the R claim of being the party of limited gov't.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I can't wait to see the wave of populist violence against activist judges when this hits the courts. So much for the R claim of being the party of limited gov't.

Do they still try to claim that with a straight face?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Do they still try to claim that with a straight face?

As I've said here recently, it's so hard to tell when they're joking nowadays.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I can't wait to see the wave of populist violence against activist judges when this hits the courts. So much for the R claim of being the party of limited gov't.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

Uh, right. I would too, for, you know, all kinds of shit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

Uh, right. I would too, for, you know, all kinds of shit.

Yeah, it's bullshit of an idea.

But other than stupidity, let me suggest an alternate reason for the proposal: The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over criminal-law issues. The House Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over regulatory agencies, in particular the FCC.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, it's bullshit of an idea.

But other than stupidity, let me suggest an alternate reason for the proposal: The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over criminal-law issues. The House Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over regulatory agencies, in particular the FCC.

I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's assholosity.

I like your reason too. I didn't get to the part about the Judiciary Committee because I couldn't bring myself to read any of the headings, or past the sentence I quoted.

ETA Sessenenensnbrenner appears to be on whatever committee oversees the FCC. Obviously I am missing something (shocker).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

Uh, right. I would too, for, you know, all kinds of shit.

the real preverts would probably like a little jail time.

[Replaced_Texan]

Minutemen not exactly helping

Border patrol officials said the volunteers have been peaceful but have still been disrupting U.S. Border Patrol operations by unwittingly tripping sensors that alert agents to possible intruders. Agents have to respond to the false alarms, which pulls them off their normal patrols, said Andy Adame, a patrol spokesman.

When the volunteers aren't deployed, an alarm from a sensor - some of which are as close as 25 feet from the border - probably means there are illegal immigrants or drug smugglers in the area, Adame said.

"Now we not only have to look out for aliens and drug smugglers, now we have to look out for these untrained civilians who are unfamiliar with the landscape," he said.

If I were an enterprising coyote, I'd join the Minutemen in order to get a better lay of the land find out where, exactly, those sensors are. I don't think I could fake racisim for a month though.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Minutemen not exactly helping



If I were an enterprising coyote, I'd join the Minutemen in order to get a better lay of the land find out where, exactly, those sensors are. I don't think I could fake racisim for a month though.

Oh please. You'd spend all your time being dragged over to the border guards as an illegal. You'd never get close to the sensors.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So much for the R claim of being the party of limited gov't.

The current leadership doesn't even give this lip service anymore. Hence, my contemplation of changing party affiliation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think I could fake racisim for a month though.

Oscar hasn't called you in what, 3 months? Just make that a sterotype, and tap into your inner new anti-Mexican feelings.

[Hank Chinaski]

the AP photos from the pullitzer (Iraq) show the main steam press bias as this blogger notes:

• Analyzing the AP's Pulitzer-winning photos
  
  Michelle Malkin links to this page displaying the 2005 Pulitzer Prize-winning photos for Breaking News Photography.
  
  This year, the prize went to the Associated Press staff for, as the Pulitzer organization's site says, "its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities."
  
  I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:
  
  • U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
  (2, 3, 11)
  • Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
  (4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18)
  • Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
  (6, 15, 20)
  • US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
  (7, 12, 14)
  • US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
  (16, 17)
  • Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
  (1, 19)
  
  Equally telling is what the photos don't show:
  
  • US forces looking heroic: 0
  • US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
  • Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
  • Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

here are the photos- http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/br...rks/index.html

here's the blogger- http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/0...ng-photos.html

Why is it that the majority of americans see through this shit and vote intelligently, and Ty all his toadies don't see the bias?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


ETA Sessenenensnbrenner appears to be on whatever committee oversees the FCC. Obviously I am missing something (shocker).

He's the chair of the judiciary committee, though. In the house, all that matters is being the chair.