Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
This may be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. "At this point no personal involvement by the defendant" That is beyond stupid. How long had it been since any of these idiots practiced law? And the consumption of ones time, although onerous, isn't the biggest problem - this doesn't even address the fiscal and emotional toll. It ain't cheap. And where in the United States are frivilous or vexatious lawsuits terminated at the pleading stage? Its not like courts give out Summary Judgements like candy. At the time this decision was issued I thought it was really shortsighted and naive, but practical experience has shown that the decision has had drastic consequences that where worse than anything I had imagined.


That is the biggest problem of appointing judges for life. They become completely detached from reality.

This decision exposes a president to the potential for lawsuits brought just to embarrass and harrass. I hate to get back at the Clinton thing, but I think the reason many don't view Clinton's perjury so seriously is because the lawsuit was not brought to vindicate the rights of Paula Jones - it was prosecuted to neutralize the Clinton presidency. Had he not been president, there would have been no lawsuit. Had he not been president, and the results of his depositions leaked to Drudge and then reported on the news every evening, he probably would not have been tempted to stray into perjury.

The decision came out my first year in law school while I was taking a class that focused on separation of powers issues. I remember thinking at the time that the decision would produce horrible results, and that its reasoning was laughably naive. I think the decision should be overturned, but I wonder if I'll still think so when the Dems are playing payback with a Republican president less well insulated than W.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But the Texas case allows Tem Commandments on state grounds.

Now, if anything, this split seems a result-oriented decision geared solely to prevent having to tear this down from the front of the US Supreme Court Building

Who is that, and why does he have horns?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I hate to get back at the Clinton thing, but I think the reason many don't view Clinton's perjury so seriously is because the lawsuit was not brought to vindicate the rights of Paula Jones - it was prosecuted to neutralize the Clinton presidency. Had he not been president, there would have been no lawsuit. Had he not been president, and the results of his depositions leaked to Drudge and then reported on the news every evening, he probably would not have been tempted to stray into perjury.

These are the people I don't get. Just because you don't think that the case should have moved forward doesn't change the gravity of the perjury. This is a nation of laws. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was OK, and the Trial judge ruled that the question was relevant, and then Bubba lied. What people may think about it, or what the lie was about is irrelevent. He committed perjury under oath. Lying about sex is fine. A president lying about sex to the American public is fine. A President lying to the American public about anything is fine. Lying under oath, no matter what the subject, is not fine.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
These are the people I don't get. Just because you don't think that the case should have moved forward doesn't change the gravity of the perjury. This is a nation of laws. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was OK, and the Trial judge ruled that the question was relevant, and then Bubba lied. What people may think about it, or what the lie was about is irrelevent. He committed perjury under oath. Lying about sex is fine. A president lying about sex to the American public is fine. A President lying to the American public about anything is fine. Lying under oath, no matter what the subject, is not fine.

Exactly. This is why I can't let this subject die. Why can't the left admit that perjury is wrong, no matter what the reason? Why Bilmore, why?

I continue to be dumbfounded by the sliding scale of morality, but it emboldens my continued tilting at this windmill.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Exactly. This is why I can't let this subject die. Why can't the left admit that perjury is wrong, no matter what the reason? Why Bilmore, why?

I continue to be dumbfounded by the sliding scale of morality, but it emboldens my continued tilting at this windmill.

You changed back just to stymie my efforts at rapprochement, yes?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fortunately, my children and grandchildren are cosigners on that credit card. As are yours. So, reproduce early and often, please. You too fringe. Penske, you're exempt.

Too late. hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
A President lying to the American public about anything is fine. Lying under oath, no matter what the subject, is not fine.

I just don't get this. Lying can be problematic for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it's a crime. Suppose that Clinton lied to everyone and convinced us all that Somalia was a threat to our security, in order to justify military intervention there. Who in their right mind would say that the lie in his deposition was worse?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
USSC rules no Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom -- in a 5-4 decision.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/church___state_issues

Let the culture wars resume.

Would have Hammurabi's code been OK? Or what about Justinians Code? I understand the separation stuff, but what about historical stuff? Why is historical stuff OK but not religious historical stuff. Here in California they don't want the state reparing old California missions. As long as stuff is labelled historical, and has influenced todays culture, why is that not fine?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why can't the left admit that perjury is wrong, no matter what the reason?

Perjury is wrong, no matter what the reason.

You can call me Sancho.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You changed back just to stymie my efforts at rapprochement, yes?

No, I got outed with the other one. See the FB. sorry. I hope this does not impact our "relationship" pookie, such as it is.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just don't get this. Lying can be problematic for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it's a crime. Suppose that Clinton lied to everyone and convinced us all that Somalia was a threat to our security, in order to justify military intervention there. Who in their right mind would say that the lie in his deposition was worse?

A President lying can cause all sorts of problems. But it is not illegal. There are all sorts of things that are problematical that we don't like but they are not illegal. Clinton lying about Somalia woud not even come close to Clinton lying under Oath. Our whole legal system rides on testimony and the validity of that testimony. Every minute of every day there hundreds if not thousands of court cases occuring whose just outcomes depend on people telling the truth under Oath. The more people fear the outcome of lying under oath the better our legal system. The less people fear the consequnces of perjury the more injustice gets done. Perjury is hard to catch but when you do catch it we have to prosecute to promote the integrity of the system. If Clinton had been impeached and prosecuted it would have sent a message to the whole country that perjury is not tolerated. Letting Clinton lie and get away with it, just reconfirmed everyones cynicism about the legal system.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perjury is wrong, no matter what the reason.

You can call me Sancho.

I think you are patronising me.

Apropos of none of that, I honoured Australia this weekend and my tip to you is anything from this place is great:

http://www.twohandswines.com/

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
A President lying to the American public about anything is fine.

Really? About anything at all?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Really? About anything at all?

If its in the name of the national defence during wartime, definitely.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Really? About anything at all?

It is not illegal. It is not a crime. It may cause other problems but is not a crime.