A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Brilliant! All law enforcement officials want to rape youngish prostitutes!

you equate prostitution with rape? wow. I could tell you're sexually frustrated, but I had no idea even this oldest form of overcoming your personality or physical flaws wasn't available to you.

Your mom must have done a real number on you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by andViolins
And that my friend is why you're going to be left here with all the other sinners. Like me.

Behind!

aV

The thing that I find most humorous about them is the fact that they have allowed Kirk Cameron to retain some semblance of a career.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why do we debate NHS so much? It can't work here because it'd rip the fabric of our society. It'll just work like public schools. The people that want to, or live in areas that dictate they ought to, will opt out of it. The marketplace will give them options.

We debate it because it's the knee jerk reaction that comes every.single.time someone suggests that the healthcare system in the US is really fucking lousy for the 46 million people here who don't have health insurance.

Docs that take Medicare aren't the worst in the business. I don't know too many that stopped taking Medicare that are doing that well, though there are a few that have decided to go off the reservation.

People need to start looking inside the country for examples of disasterous public healthcare instead of outside. The VA, Medicare, county and city clinics, Medicaid, IHS, Champus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
  
  The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
  
  That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

link

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
  
  The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
  
  That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

link

I think what disturbs me most about this is the "signing statement" bullshit. The bill specifically reaffirmed what was established law -- that the executive branch can't open mail without a warrant. Bush signed that law, but issued a signing statement purporting to say that neither the bill he was signing into law, nor the law which that bill reaffirmed, actually applies to him.

Was Bush sick, or drunk, they day they taught "checks and balances" in school?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Also detailed in the declassified [FBI] file was Rehnquist's 1981 hospital stay for treatment of back pain and his dependence on powerful prescription pain-relief medication.... Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination. When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a "disturbance in mental clarity."
  
  The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included going to the hospital lobby in his pajamas in a bid to escape. He imagined that there was a Central Intelligence Agency plot against him, and he also seemed to discern changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. Rehnquist thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him.
  
  The doctor said Placidyl is a highly toxic drug and that she could not understand why anyone would prescribe it, especially for long periods. Prior to his hospitalization, Rehnquist occasionally slurred his speech in his questions to lawyers at Supreme Court arguments. Those problems ceased when he changed medications, the doctor said.
  
  Charns said that some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist's file might contain. In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, "No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ..." The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security. "It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later," Charns said.

AP

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think what disturbs me most about this is the "signing statement" bullshit. The bill specifically reaffirmed what was established law -- that the executive branch can't open mail without a warrant. Bush signed that law, but issued a signing statement purporting to say that neither the bill he was signing into law, nor the law which that bill reaffirmed, actually applies to him.

Was Bush sick, or drunk, they day they taught "checks and balances" in school?

I blame courts' reliance on "legislative history." This is a reaction to that--if Congress can give courts a basis to interpret a statute based on statements by a commitee, or a single member, why can a President not do the same in expressing his understanding of what the meaning of a bill he signs is?

(And, of course, a signing statement, as is the case with legislative history, that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute, is generally disregarded).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think what disturbs me most about this is the "signing statement" bullshit. The bill specifically reaffirmed what was established law -- that the executive branch can't open mail without a warrant. Bush signed that law, but issued a signing statement purporting to say that neither the bill he was signing into law, nor the law which that bill reaffirmed, actually applies to him.

Was Bush sick, or drunk, they day they taught "checks and balances" in school?

Just remember it was Alberto Gonzales who wrote the memo finding "support" for the signing statement the next time someone puts his name on a short list to join the Supremes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
(And, of course, a signing statement, as is the case with legislative history, that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute, is generally disregarded).

A particular problem arises when the executive asserts the right to engage in action, otherwise ostensibly barred by the law, which may not be discovered by others or challenged in court. E.g., the opening of mail. A court might well disregard the signing statement here in light of the express terms of the statute, but Bush has just asserted the right to open mail without going to a court to get a warrant.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Also detailed in the declassified [FBI] file was Rehnquist's 1981 hospital stay for treatment of back pain and his dependence on powerful prescription pain-relief medication.... Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination. When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a "disturbance in mental clarity."
  
  The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included going to the hospital lobby in his pajamas in a bid to escape. He imagined that there was a Central Intelligence Agency plot against him, and he also seemed to discern changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. Rehnquist thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him.
  
  The doctor said Placidyl is a highly toxic drug and that she could not understand why anyone would prescribe it, especially for long periods. Prior to his hospitalization, Rehnquist occasionally slurred his speech in his questions to lawyers at Supreme Court arguments. Those problems ceased when he changed medications, the doctor said.
  
  Charns said that some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist's file might contain. In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, "No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ..." The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security. "It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later," Charns said.

AP

I'm not sure why we need to know this. The man is dead, and while I disagreed with him quite often, I have no ill will toward him.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I blame courts' reliance on "legislative history." This is a reaction to that--if Congress can give courts a basis to interpret a statute based on statements by a commitee, or a single member, why can a President not do the same in expressing his understanding of what the meaning of a bill he signs is?

(And, of course, a signing statement, as is the case with legislative history, that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute, is generally disregarded).

Because his intent is irrelevant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A particular problem arises when the executive asserts the right to engage in action, otherwise ostensibly barred by the law, which may not be discovered by others or challenged in court. E.g., the opening of mail. A court might well disregard the signing statement here in light of the express terms of the statute, but Bush has just asserted the right to open mail without going to a court to get a warrant.

True, but that's a problem with the policy, not with the signing statement. If anything, it's preferable that he put his intentions in a statement than failing to disclose it as he did with the warrantless wiretap program.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I blame courts' reliance on "legislative history." This is a reaction to that--if Congress can give courts a basis to interpret a statute based on statements by a commitee, or a single member, why can a President not do the same in expressing his understanding of what the meaning of a bill he signs is?

(And, of course, a signing statement, as is the case with legislative history, that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute, is generally disregarded).

Somehow, I doubt that Bush's reasoning in as sophisticated as what you put in the first paragraph. But, in any event, I would disagree -- the answer to your question is because courts are supposed to interpret laws, while the executive is supposed to carry them out (or veto them if he doesn't like them).

As for the second paragraph, again, the different roles of the two branches makes all the difference. While both legislative history and signing statments that are inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute should disregarded by the courts, that doesn't mean that they are equal in (non)effect. Inconsistent legislative history will be ignored by the executive. A signing statement, apparently, won't be -- someone will have to sue Bush (leading to all sorts of problems with standing, ripeness, etc unless they can show that there mail was actually opened).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
True, but that's a problem with the policy, not with the signing statement. If anything, it's preferable that he put his intentions in a statement than failing to disclose it as he did with the warrantless wiretap program.

Yes. Except one starts to think that signing statements become the vehicle for misguided policies that otherwise would never see the light of day.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Somehow, I doubt that Bush's reasoning in as sophisticated as what you put in the first paragraph. But, in any event, I would disagree -- the answer to your question is because courts are supposed to interpret laws, while the executive is supposed to carry them out (or veto them if he doesn't like them)..

His advisors' thinking is, however.

I'm not comparing the role of the courts to the role of the executive. I'm comparing the role of the executive's views on the meaning of legislation to the role of legislators' views on the meaning of legislation when that legislation is interpreted by courts.