Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nope. You're a sick person who has no compassion.
And that sadly is the damned truth.
Posted by: VERITAS77
In reply to: BullNBear52 who wrote msg# 276523 Date:7/1/2007 4:18:07 PM
Post #of 276536
You are a typical arrogant person.
You have disrepect for people, make fun of religion,
make sexual jokes concerning a 5 year old to boot.
======================================================
Posted by: BullNBear52
In reply to: follylama who wrote msg# 276520 Date:7/1/2007 3:45:21 PM
Post #of 276529
Last Saturday a Jehovah Witness came to my door with her grand daughter who was about 5 years old. I listened politely and when she was done said to the little girl "would you like a Feeze-pop"?
How's that for religious tolerance. I did my good deed and the little girl left with a big grin on her face.
It's been a while since we've had a good flame...#msg-19937620 :)
Pelousi is well on her way to insure a recession. I think we'll be in a full-blown recession within 3-4 years if a liberal like Hillary or Obama wins president in 2008, and then you'll really see some whining. All you have to do is raise taxes. Dems are well on their way.
iHub flame reaches new standard:
...you have no claim to my weakness or strength may I be rubber and you glue, whatever you say stick it back to you...
Being contemptuous does have pay offs .. ".. feelings of superiority .." .. arrogance & contempt come to mind ..
Not a classy flame, but you sure know what this guy thinks:
MATT YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!! FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR MOTHER, FUCK YOUR FATHER, FUCK YOUR SISTER, FUCK YOUR BROTHER! I'm a hacker, and I'll destroy this damn site. DOS attacks from here to the moon! You're a piece of shit, and I hope you die!!
Flaming lives on iHub:
I find most of your posts ill informed lacking in even the most rudimentary intelligent analysis one would expect from a c+ 8th grader. You have little understanding of history and lack the most basic brain stem formation to complete logical thoughts hence your lifelong ambition would be to be mediocre at best. As for your disagreement with our feckless one I suspect you voted for him twice and would vote for him again.
While I do have some people on ignore I would not put you there as you do bring much comic relief with your posts. I suspect you were an embarrassment to your parents growing up like your posts embarrass you here. Hopefully you will continue on oblivious to the side show you really are to educated people.
Nice flame, but bring your dictionary...
Be forewarned: In this post, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. As this letter will make clear, careful examination of Skunksyard's effusions have left me no choice but to conclude that Skunksyard spreads horny, laughable views, as though it were a disgrace to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Skunksyard proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never malign and traduce me. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It is my personal opinion, based on careful observation, that if you were to tell her that she is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of misinformed, spiteful solecism to a proclaimed attachment to propagandism and back -- and back again -- she'd just pull her security blanket a little tighter around herself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Mankind needs to do more to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to not fall into Skunksyard's trap. Skunksyard says that I'm too craven to take a strong position on her pranks, which, after all, dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. You know, she can lie as much as she wants but she can't change the facts. If she could, she'd doubtlessly prevent anyone from hearing that her expostulations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: Strangle a board with numerous mindless, meaningless posts. Phase two: Lie ,lie and lie. To skunksyard a lie well told and sworn upon is better than the truth anytime. Anyway, that's it for this post. Let Skunksyard read it and weep.
LOL...
sounds like I missed some good ones.
The post (referencing the "Mission Accomplished" banner):
... are you totally obsessed with that banner deal?
That's a treatable condition, you know ....
The flame:
Interesting thought....Did treatment help your condition(s)?
An excellent iHub short flame:
All you've posted is reactive piffle.
A man decided to write a book about famous churches around the world so he bought a plane ticket and took a trip to Bangkok, Maine, thinking that he would start by working his way across the USA from North to South.
On his first day he was inside a church taking photographs when he noticed a golden telephone mounted on the wall with a sign that read, "$10,000. per call." The man, being intrigued, asked a priest who was strolling by, "what the telephone was used for." The priest replied that it was a direct line to heaven and that for $10,000. you could talk to God. The man thanked the priest and went along his way.
Next stop was in Chicago. There, at a very large cathedral, he saw the same golden telephone with the same sign under it. He wondered if this was the same kind of telephone he saw in Maine and he asked a nearby nun what its purpose was. She told him that it was a direct line to heaven and that for $10,000 he could talk to God "O,K,, thank you," said the man.
He then traveled to Kansas City, Billings MT, Seattle WA, and Salt Lake City . In every church he saw the same golden telephone with the same "$10,000 per call" sign under it.
The man upon leaving Salt Lake decided to travel down to the Southwest to see if any of those states had the same telephone service. He arrived in Fort Worth, TX, and again, in the first church he entered, there was the same golden telephone, but this time the sign under it read, "$.40 per call." The man was surprised so he asked the priest about the sign. "Father, I've traveled all over America and I've seen this same golden telephone in many churches. I'm told that it is a direct line to Heaven, but in the Northeast and Southeast, even on the West Coast the price was $10,000 per call. Why is it so cheap here?"
The priest smiled and answered, "Son, you're in Texas now, it's a local call."
NEW ELEMENT CALLED REPUBLICANTIUM:
A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet discovered. Though just newly discovered, scientists believe it has existed in some form for ages. The most recent decades have witnessed drastic mutations, and scientists cannot predict the results of continuing mutations. Based upon its characteristics, the new element has been named Republicantium.
Republicantium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Republicantium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Republicantium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.
Republicantium has a normal half-life of 2 to 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a re-organization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Republicantium mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Republicantium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
Though scientists have made this discovery and identfied the properties of the element, they are at a complete loss to ascertain any productive purpose for the element. This is most peculiar, seeing that even the most dangerous of elements, isotpoes, etc., normally have some use; for instance, radioactive isotopes lend themselves to some forms of medical treatment. Republicantium seems to do nothing more than erode everything with which it comes in contact. More shockingly is that scientists cannot figure out how to eradicate the element, as each time any species has ever tried to attack it, Republicantium only mutates further into a more destructive mechanism.
Hang him out to dry...
June 30, 2005
Time Decides to Hand Over Notes of Reporter Facing Prison
By ADAM LIPTAK
Time magazine said today that it would provide documents concerning the confidential sources of one of its reporters to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.
The United States Supreme Court turned down appeals in the case on Monday, concluding the gravest legal confrontation between the press and the government in a generation. Two reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, face jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury.
In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection.
"I found myself really coming to the conclusion," he said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do."
The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.
The press has traditionally argued that it needs confidential sources to ensure that the public is fully informed. That interest is outweighed, recent court rulings have said, by the needs of the judicial system for evidence.
On Wednesday, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington said he would order the reporters jailed for up to 120 days if they do not agree to testify before the grand jury in the meantime. He also said that he would impose substantial fines on the magazine.
The magazine made its decision over the objections of its reporter, Mr. Cooper.
The documents to be turned over to the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, include Mr. Cooper's notes of interviews and "the ordinary work product that is typical of the interaction that takes place between reporters and editors," Mr. Pearlstine said. He said Time has not yet decided when and how the transfer will happen but said the documents will not be made public by Time.
The move may have consequences for Mr. Cooper.
"My hope," Mr. Pearlstine continued, "is that the special counsel concludes that he does not need Matt's testimony and does not need his incarceration."
It is less clear whether the magazine's decision will affect Ms. Miller, but one of her lawyers, Robert S. Bennett, said it might help her.
"I hope that Time's disclosure will eliminate the need for Judy's testimony and that this crisis can be ended," he said.
Ms. Miller declined to comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The New York Times, was critical of Time.
"We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records," he said. "We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and The Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines.
"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time."
Mr. Pearlstine said that "responsible news organizations can have different opinions."
But, he added, "If I were The New York Times in 1978 I would have turned over the information."
Mr. Farber refused to supply his notes to a doctor on trial for killing patients by injecting them with curare. The doctor, Dr. Mario Jascalevich, was acquitted.
Mr. Farber, now retired, recalled the efforts he and the paper had made to protect his notes.
"The Times, at my request, I think it was, relinquished control of the notes to me," he said. "I took responsibility for protecting them, and I did protect them. I divied them up and hid them all over the region in a variety of places."
Zachary W. Carter, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said that media companies and their reporters have different obligations.
"I don't believe that a company has the right to put the assets of it shareholders at risk in an act of civil disobedience," he said. "On the other hand, the reporters are only faced with the consequences to them personally. They have the absolute right to put their liberty and fortunes at risk."
James C. Goodale, a former general counsel of The Times Company and an authority on legal protections for reporters, said news organizations have sometimes claimed ownership of reporters' notes - in order to protect them.
"It has always been thought to be beneficial to the reporter to have the institutional press on his side," Mr. Goodale said.
Mr. Goodale added that he disagreed with Time's decision.
"A public company must protect its assets even if that means going into contempt," he said. "It has an obligation under the First Amendment to protect those assets, and it's in the interest of shareholders to protect those assets."
Judge Hogan has scheduled another hearing for Wednesday to consider the reporters' fate. Until Time's decision complicated matters, it appeared that the reporters, both of whom have refused to testify, would be told when and where to report to jail at that hearing.
The case has its roots in an opinion article published in The Times on July 6, 2003. In it, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat, criticized a statement made by President Bush in that year's State of the Union address about Iraq's efforts to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa. Mr. Wilson based his criticism on a trip he had taken to Africa for the Central Intelligence Agency the previous year.
Eight days after Mr. Wilson's article was published, Robert Novak, the syndicated columnist, reported that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Mr. Wilson's wife, Ms. Plame, was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Wilson has said the disclosure was payback for his criticism. Others have said that the disclosure put his criticism in context by suggesting that Mr. Wilson's trip was not a serious one but rather a nepotistic boondoggle.
Mr. Cooper's article about Ms. Plame appeared after the Novak column. Ms. Miller conducted interviews on the matter but did not publish an article.
Mr. Cooper has testified once in the inquiry in August, limiting his answers to conversations he had with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC have also testified. All of the reporters said they acted with their sources' permission.
The current subpoena to Mr. Cooper concerns information he received from other officials.
Since Mr. Novak appears not to be facing jail time, he presumably supplied information to Mr. Fitzgerald. It is not clear why that did not conclude the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Novak have consistently declined to discuss the matter.
Mr. Pearlstine, the Time Inc. executive, said his decision will have at least some impact on reporters' relationships with their sources. It will be hard to measure that impact, he said, because the press is also recovering from journalistic scandals at The New York Times, CBS and Newsweek.
"It's hard to know at this point," he said, "how broad a chilling effect it will have."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30cnd-leak.html?ei=5094&en=42200d95d59e0cb4&hp=&a...
His will be done!
Except for that Houston part....<vbg>
Not surprisingly, I liked the earlier versions with New York and California punch lines better.
Subject: No greater place on Earth
>
>
>
>
> Once upon a time in the kingdom of Heaven, God was missing for six days.
>
> Eventually, Michael the Archangel found him, resting on the seventh day.
>
> He inquired of God. "Where have you been?"
>
> God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed
> downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."
>
> Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"
>
> "It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put Life on it. I'm going to
> call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."
>
> "Balance?" Inquired Michael, still confused.
>
> God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example,
> northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth but cold
> and harsh, while southern Europe is going to be poor but sunny and
> pleasant. "I have made some lands abundant in water and other lands
> parched deserts. This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be
> very cold and covered in ice."
>
> The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land mass and
> said: "What's that one?"
>
> "Ah," said God. "That's TEXAS-- the most glorious place on earth."
>
> There are beautiful beaches, streams, hills, and forests. The people from
> TEXAS are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent and humorous and they
> are going to be found traveling the world. They will be extremely
> sociable, hardworking and high achieving, and they will be
> known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace."
>
> Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about
> balance, God? You said there would be balance!"
>
> God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the idiots I put in HOUSTON."
>
>
> Scroll on down
>
> A TEXAS BLESSING
>
> Note: If you are not a resident of TEXAS or never have lived in the hot,
> humid Southwest, you may not understand the weight of this blessing!
>
>
> Bless this house, oh Lord, we cry.
> Please keep it cool in mid-July.
> Bless the walls where termites dine,
> While ants and roaches march in time.
>
> Bless our yard where spiders pass
> Fire ant castles in the grass.
>
> Bless the garage, a home to please
> Carpenter beetles, ticks and fleas.
>
> Bless the love bugs, two by two,
> the gnats and mosquitoes that feed on you.
> Millions of creatures that fly or crawl,
> in TEXAS, Lord, you've put them all!!
>
> But this is home, and here we'll stay,
> So thank you Lord, for insect spray.
> Scroll down
>
> HOLD IT.............there's more..........SAD BUT TRUE!!!
>
>
> YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN TEXAS IN JULY WHEN. . .
>
>
> The birds have to use potholders to pull worms out of the ground.
> The trees are whistling for the dogs.
> The best parking place is determined by shade instead of distance.
> Hot water now comes out of both taps.
> You can make sun tea instantly.
> You learn that a seat belt buckle makes a pretty good branding iron!
> The temperature drops below 95 and you feel a little chilly.
> You discover that in July it only takes 2 fingers to steer your car.
> You discover that you can get sunburned through your car window.
> You actually burn your hand opening the car door.
> You break into a sweat the instant you step outside at 7:30 a.m.
> Your biggest bicycle wreck fear is, "What if I get knocked out and end
> up lying on the pavement and cook to death?"
> You realize that asphalt has a liquid state.
> The potatoes cook underground, so all you have to do is pull one out and
> add butter, salt and pepper.
>
> Farmers are feeding their chickens crushed ice to keep them from laying
> boiled eggs.
> The cows are giving evaporated milk.
>
>
>
> Ah, what a place to call home.
> God Bless Our State of TEXAS !!
I have not read the decision of the lower court in the reporter case and there was no Supreme Court opinion since they just denied cert.
Basically, as I understand it, and I could be wrong since I have not read it in detail, when there is evidence that the information in the possession of the reporter could have only gotten there by someone committing a crime, there is no shield to the investigation into the crime that must have been committed by the disclosure to the reporter. The same is true when the reporter is a witness to a crime.
The government interest in preventing and punishing crime is said to outweigh the interests of the reporter in a free press.
Of course, any time a court starts with balancing crap, it is usually just a gloss for reaching a particular result in conformity with the judges' views on what is reasonable under the circumstances.
All I have time for right now.
This one does qualify as venom.
#msg-6817772
You forgot about the reporters case which most concerns me. If you'd rather move the conversation(s) I'd be interested in your response to that case and this one as well.
#msg-4744912
Congress imo needs to pass a shield law for reporters. In this climate today they would have fried Woodward.
We had a similar case here a while back.
#msg-6789314
They used pretty much the same argument.
Substantial changes in the judicial interpretation of "public use" have taken place over the past few decades. Until the early 1950's, the courts interpreted the public use doctrine as meaning that property which was taken by government had to be literally used by a public body (e.g., park, school).
More recently, the courts have substantially broadened the notion of public use whereby public use can mean for public benefit or advantage.
I heard one commentator suggest that churches in Manhattan might be the next target for public use condemnations. Wonder how that would fly at the Court. NYC vs St Patrick's Cathedral.
Thanks for the reply. I agree with your opinion at the end btw, my take is leave religion at the church door not the White House's door or courthouse for that matter.
I'll have to read the decisions especially O'Connor's Kennedy's and Breyer's before I get back to you. Breyer does appear to be the odd duck in the decisions. However the Court in 10 rulings(???) still can't make up their mind.
However one has to wonder if they in their opinions are attempting to set themselves up to be picked as the next chief justice vs Scalia who is the obvious choice amongst conservatives and "constructionists".
From the NY Times the other day...
In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy
By JASON DePARLE
WASHINGTON, June 26 - When Anthony M. Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he took the place of a fallen conservative icon, Robert H. Bork, whose defeat in a Senate conflagration still shapes judicial politics. Sunny while Mr. Bork emanated gloom, clean-shaven while Mr. Bork was bearded, Justice Kennedy was above all philosophically undefined while Mr. Bork's conservatism was chiseled.
But for the next few years, Justice Kennedy sided so reliably with the court's right flank that relieved conservatives proclaimed him an ally: "Bork without the beard."
No one calls him that now. Instead, some notable conservatives are calling for his impeachment. For more than a decade, Justice Kennedy has infuriated the right, writing decisions in cases that struck down prayer at public school graduations, upheld abortion rights, gave constitutional protections to pornography and gay sex and banned the death penalty for juveniles.
With talk of a possible court resignation to follow the term that ends Monday, Justice Kennedy is looming in many conservatives' minds as just the kind of painful mistake they hope President Bush avoids. Showing few sharp edges in life or in law, the justice emerged as a consensus third choice, after President Ronald Reagan's first two selections failed. Demanding more ideological clarity in what could be the first Republican selection in 14 years, the right is now mobilized with a cry: "No more Tony Kennedys."
A genial apostle of tolerance and consensus, Justice Kennedy, 68, is an unlikely lightning rod, one whose traditional Catholic background has little in common with the flag-burners, pornographers or abortion advocates his reading of the Constitution protects. In an interview last week, he responded to a question about what it was like to be cast as a Judas justice.
"Oh, I suppose everyone would like it if everyone applauded when he walked down the street," he said. "There is a loneliness. You can have all the clerks and all the colleagues you want, but in the end the decision is yours to make. And it's surprising how often the judge must go back and ask, 'Why am I doing this?' "
While his critics protest specific outcomes in cases from the culture wars, they also express outrage at his expansive style, which they call pure judicial activism.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Bork, a prolific lecturer and author who functions as a kind of shadow justice, said Justice Kennedy's opin-ions typified a court "no longer sticking to the Constitution" but "enacting a political agenda." Then he returned to the sore and now timely subject of his own defeat.
"It's hard to pick the right people in the sense of those who won't change, because there aren't that many of them," Mr. Bork said. "And if you do identify somebody who believes in the original principles of the Constitution, then the other side can see it too and will put up a bitter fight. So you tend to get people who are wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those people tend to drift to the left in response to elite opinion."
Looking ahead to the fight that may unfold if the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, or another justice resigns, Mr. Bork offered a fix: "I think the solution is one hell of a battle for judges who stick to the actual Constitution."
A Dress Rehearsal
Much of the right seems ready now for just that kind of fight. This year's showdown over Mr. Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts played out as an elaborate dress rehearsal for a Supreme Court battle. It ended with a seeming stalemate between Republicans who want to end the possibility of judicial filibusters and Democrats who want to preserve them.
Organizational battalions are now in place, with conservatives saying they are playing defense against what they call a powerful attack machine on the left that took down Mr. Bork, and nearly Justice Clarence Thomas. Encouraged by White House advisers, C. Boyden Gray, a former aide to the first President Bush, has set up the Committee for Justice to coordinate strategy and run advertising campaigns. Leaders of the Federalist Society, the premier network of conservative lawyers, have started another group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to rally support.
Progress for America, another conservative advocacy group with close ties to the White House, said it planned to spend "an initial $18 million" on ads for a Bush Supreme Court nominee. The campaign started last week, spending $700,000 to discredit liberal attacks before they can begin.
Conservative Christian groups are taking the lead. Focus on the Family, a leading evangelical group, and its Washington spin-off, the Family Research Council, have rallied churchgoers around judicial fights, seeing them as a chance to reverse decades of losses in the culture wars.
"The confrontation is coming with a vengeance," wrote Dr. James C. Dobson, in a Focus on the Family Action letter to about two million supporters. As he often does, Dr. Dobson labeled Justice Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America."
For much of the right, his story is a dismayingly familiar one. Ever since the elevation of Earl Warren, Republican presidents have picked justices who disappoint the Republican faithful: William J. Brennan Jr. (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), Harry A. Blackmun (President Richard M. Nixon), John Paul Stevens (President Gerald R. Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (President Reagan) and David H. Souter (the first President Bush).
One result is rage at what Mr. Bork sees as subverted democracy. Even though Republicans keep winning elections, he said, the court "can say that the majority may not rule" in areas where permissiveness reigns, including abortion, gay rights and pornography. Calling most justices "judicial oligarchs," Mr. Bork said they reflected "the intelligentsia's attitude, which is to the cultural left of the American people."
Some conservatives blame the judicial selection pool, which is largely confined to graduates of elite law schools that they describe as liberal (Justice Kennedy studied law at Harvard). Some say the Senate confirmation process weeds out strong conservatives. Many critics argue that justices drift left after reaching the court, in the hopes of pleasing "liberal elites."
Virtually all the court's conservative critics say that Republicans have not fought hard enough on behalf of philosophical purists.
"I think the conservatives have decided they've been outmaneuvered in the past," Mr. Bork said. "They're ready to fight back."
Among the combatants is Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and a prominent social conservative. "The basic line I've heard again and again is 'No more unknown packages,' " Mr. Farris said. "We want to know what we're getting. Kennedy was an unknown package."
Virtually unknown to the public, Justice Kennedy was scarcely bred for the crossfire. By outward appearances, he has lived a life of utter conformity, attending his parents' alma mater, Stanford; taking over his father's law practice; and raising his three children in the house where he was raised. As a childhood friend tells the story, Justice Kennedy's father was so nonplused by his son's altar-boy piety, he offered him $100 to get in trouble; the young man refused. (If such an exchange occurred, Justice Kennedy said he no longer remembers it.)
Among those who find Justice Kennedy hard to define is Justice Kennedy. Asked last week about the source of his political values, he said, "my religion, I guess," a brand of traditional Catholicism. Yet he also talked of imbibing the openness and optimism of a boyhood spent in postwar Sacramento. Asked how he had become a conservative, he said: "That's not a term I usually use for myself. People say I'm a libertarian. I don't really know what that means."
In a wending conversation last week, he touched on topics as diverse the Enlightenment (he likes it) and the television free-for-all "Hardball" (he doesn't). The partisanship of Washington seems alien to him. "Earl Warren ran on both the Democratic and Republican tickets," he said, speaking of the California governor and family friend who joined the Supreme Court in 1953 as a famously activist chief justice. Moving to Virginia after joining the court, Justice Kennedy was startled that someone thought it necessary to warn him that a neighbor was a Democrat. "I found that a little offensive," he said.
His rejection of the term aside, "libertarian" at least partly describes him. Among the childhood memories he conjured last week was his reading the scene in George Orwell's novel "1984" in which the protagonist is tortured into saying two plus two is five. Then, "they say, 'we're going to continue the torture until you believe it,' " he said, recalling his adolescent horror at the prospect of mind control.
Liberty, especially liberty of speech, remains a defining concern, and he is a zealous enforcer of First Amendment rights. A 1980 case drew his special ire as an appeals court judge. The police paid a 5-year-old to inform on his mother - an infringement of the parent-child bond he called an especially "pernicious" encroachment upon "personal liberty."
His admirers see in him the essence of a judicial temperament: good judgment, fair-mindedness and a willingness to disentangle his own moral values from the law. "There's a moral component to tolerance," he said last week. "It means, 'I respect your views, I respect your standing as a citizen.' "
But his ever-polite manner is not at issue; what detractors question are his judicial views. In writing a decision this year that banned the death penalty for juveniles, Justice Kennedy bolstered his argument by citing similar bans in such questionable arenas of human rights as Nigeria and Iran.
Writing in National Review, Mr. Bork called the decision a "dazzling display of lawlessness" that comes "close to accepting foreign control of the American Constitution." Two marquee names of Christian conservativism, Mr. Farris and Phyllis Schlafly, demanded his impeachment. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, warned that Congress could remove judges who failed to show "good behavior."
One critic at a forum on the "Judicial War on Faith" accused Justice Kennedy of upholding "Marxist-Leninist, satanic principles."
It Started With School Prayer
The case that might be titled Conservatism v. Kennedy began a few years after he joined the court. In 1992, he drafted what was to be a majority opinion that affirmed the right to school prayer. Then he switched sides and struck it down. "My draft looked quite wrong," he wrote to Justice Blackmun.
His decision in the case, Lee v. Weisman, cited "research in psychology" to argue that students might feel coerced by prayers at public school graduations. Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's conservative anchor, scoffed that "interior decorating is rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs."
Five days later came a decision in an epochal abortion case. For years, the court appeared to be headed toward an overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that found a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Had 58 senators not voted against him, Mr. Bork would have cast the decisive anti-Roe vote.
Justice Kennedy's constitutional views on the matter were largely unknown, since his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had brought no major abortion cases. His record there was solidly conservative, but there were glints of ideological departure. While upholding the Navy's right to expel a gay sailor, he warned in a 1980 footnote that some restrictions on homosexuality "may face substantial constitutional challenge."
Hoping to forestall his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, opponents flagged the case for Senate conservatives. "No way, Jose," responded Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, at the prospect of Mr. Kennedy's selection. But Mr. Reagan chose him anyway, in part for his straight-arrow reputation. Mr. Bork had failed, and a second choice, Douglas H. Ginsburg, had withdrawn after admitting marijuana use.
Justice Kennedy then met with Senator Helms and assuaged him by saying that he admired his anti-abortion views. A published account of the meeting appeared, and Democrats quizzed Justice Kennedy about it at his confirmation hearing.
"I admire anyone with strong moral beliefs," he said. "Now, it would be highly improper for a judge to allow his or her own religious views to enter into a decision respecting a constitutional matter."
The deft display of diplomacy brought unanimous confirmation.
In his surprise ruling four years later, Justice Kennedy not only reaffirmed the fundamental right to an abortion, but he joined an opinion that chided Roe opponents, including those in two Republican administrations, for repeated assaults on a settled issue around which a generation of citizens had made life plans.
"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," he wrote in the case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, casting his views in part as a defense of precedent.
The infuriating news for conservatives was delivered with a puzzling overture, as Justice Kennedy invited a reporter into his chambers just before taking the bench. "Sometimes you don't know if you're Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line," he said. Then he excused himself to "brood."
Explanations for his defection flourished. He had been manipulated by law clerks. He had been seduced by elites. He had misled the right all along. Mr. Bork said: "He had indicated that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, and then changed his vote. He was expected to be different."
Justice Kennedy later offered his own view in a lecture to a law school class. As reported by Jeffrey Rosen in The New Yorker, his "eyes filled with tears" as he explained his moral opposition to abortion, but he said he could not impose personal views.
Among the many things in Casey that provoked conservatives is one often-ridiculed line. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," Justice Kennedy wrote.
"What the hell does that mean?" Mr. Bork said last week, mocking its vagueness and its distance from constitutional text. "Obviously it doesn't mean the individual is unbounded by any law. So it must mean that the individual is unbounded by laws the justices don't like. It's simply an assertion of power, in a way that's particularly empty of intellectual content. It sums up what's wrong with the court."
More conservative setbacks followed Casey. In a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote the decision that found constitutional protection for homosexual sodomy. And he did so with unexpected sweep, calling the Constitution sufficiently expansive that "persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives," he wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny" by outlawing sex. As Justice Kennedy read from the decision, which overturned a recent precedent, some gay and lesbian lawyers in the courtroom silently cried.
Scathing in dissent, Justice Scalia warned that the ruling undermined all kinds of morals-based legislation - including laws against adult incest, bigamy, and bestiality - and laid the groundwork for gay marriage, a notion that Justice Kennedy's opinion explicitly rejected. But a few months later, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a right to gay marriage under the State Constitution, it cited the support of the Lawrence ruling.
"Anybody who doesn't understand that Lawrence legalized gay marriage doesn't understand how to read Supreme Court cases," Mr. Farris said.
The Good Old No. 3 Club
For all the furor on the culture-war fronts, Justice Kennedy's record remains largely conservative. He sided with the 5-4 majority in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that stopped a Florida vote recount and ensured a Bush victory. And his views on affirmative action are especially immune to change. As he sees the matter, the Constitution forbids it.
In his agonizing over many social issues and his ability to empathize with those outside his own moral code, Justice Kennedy's admirers see courage. "Kennedy has the ability to generalize from his own freedom to the freedom of other people," said Robert Gordon, a professor at Yale Law School.
Others praise his openness. "One of the things critics ridicule in him is that he changes his mind a lot," said Michael Dorf, a former Kennedy clerk. "In my mind that's a good thing. You want judges to be impartial and not out of hand reject the arguments on either side."
Mr. Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, has a more ambivalent view. He talked with Justice Kennedy at length in 1997 for The New Yorker, which cast him mostly in favorable terms. But Mr. Rosen said more recent cases had left him uneasy with what he called their unnecessary reach.
"Speaking as a liberal advocate of judicial restraint," he said, "I sympathize with the criticism of Justice Kennedy in some of these areas involving abortion, gay rights and the application of international law to the culture wars." While still seeing a "great good faith" at work, he warned that Justice Kennedy had "embraced a rhetoric of judicial supremacy."
"His opinions are filled with the rhetoric of the unsought burden of judicial review," Mr. Rosen said. "Then pushes it for all it's worth."
Justice Kennedy last week rejected the talk of usurped authority. "In the long term, the court is not antimajoritarian - it's majoritarian," he said. Over time, "people recognize the good faith and the legitimacy and openness and honesty of the process," he argued. "The judicial function does not lend itself to day-to-day critique."
Meanwhile, attacks come with the job. As the most difficult questions arise, including those of life and death, "we don't have the option not to decide," he said. "I mean, we're the ones who help the executioner pull the switch," he added. "It's not at all surprising that people disagree."
In 1987, with his nomination still pending, Justice Kennedy received a note from Justice Blackmun, who as the author of Roe was a magnet of scorn and himself a third pick. Welcome to "the good old No. 3 club," Justice Blackmun wrote.
"Mr. Justice Story was also in the No. 3 club," Justice Kennedy replied. He was referring to James Madison's 1812 nominee, Joseph Story, who went on to side with the Federalists, his patron's enemies.
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27kennedy.html
The condemnation case is interesting not so much for its result but for who came down on which side. The conservative wing of the court, which usually gives great deference to the reasonableness of government choices with respect to reasons for policy (especially in the criminal law arena), here chose to give little to no deference to government policy choices.
Public purpose, like reasonableness, is in the eyes of the beholder. Traditionally, many true conservatives have taken a narrow view of government interference with private property rights and have been unwilling to cede that aspect of private life to the government. Many liberals on the other hand have been willing to let government have its way when it was advancing some social purpose that they found to be a greater need or goal. As I have said before, however, these days the only real difference between most "conservatives" and most "liberals" is what aspect of our life they want government to have control over.
I do not profess to have significant expertise in the area of takings, but like many others areas of the law, I tend to come down on the side of "when in doubt, keep the government out."
The opinions in the Kentucky case clearly illuminate the differences of opinion concerning the history and scope of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses. In the end, the Kentucky case really came down to the majority's view (as well as the view of three of four of the prior judges who reviewed it) that the purpose of the display in that case was not secular or historical, but rather that the purpose was to establish a religious view. Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion could easily be viewed as the most honest of all of the opinions. She, unlike most of the other judges on the court, would draw a bright line that would prohibit all religious displays in almost all circumstances. Most of the other members of the court -- on both sides -- seem to have a moving line dependent on the nature of the case. This moving line, of course, sometimes produces some results that appear inconsistent -- at least in the way they are reported in the press.
The Kentucky opinion can be found at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1693....
The Texas opinion can be found at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1500....
Beware, they are both very long and sometimes tedious reads. Ironically, in them, like in the Bible, one can find nuggests to support almost any proposition on these issues than one is inclined towards. But, since most of these views -- on both sides -- are largely based on opinions and not fact, there will always be disagreement.
The flip-flop vote between the two cases is Breyer. His concurrence in the Texas case, for which he was the fifth vote allowing the monument to remain, highlights the nature of the moving line. Based on the vastly different facts of the two cases, and about the only common fact was the fact that each had some version of the 10 Commandments, he reached different conclusions.
Interestingly, from a legal standpoint, Kennedy disassociated himself from Scalia's attack on Souter in the Kentucky case. I suspect that Kennedy viewed it as too much of a personal attack -- and some of the text of Scalia's opinion could easily be interpreted that way. Scalia has little tolerance for those with whom he disagrees and for those he views as intellectually inferior to him. But, I digress.
On a personal note, I believe each side of the argument to be partially correct and partially incorrect. I probably most closely associate with the views expressed by O'Connor in her concurrence in the Kentucky case, though I disagree with some of them as well. In the end, and when in doubt, I come down on the side of "keep the government the hell out of anything even remotely close to our personal lives." I think that is especially true with respect to religion. Many Christians, myself included, would find great offense in government sponsored displays critical portions of the Quran. The only way in my mind to be assured that the government does not advance religious views I find offensive is for government to advance no religious views or goals. Religion is personal and ought not be established, even when it is viewed consistently by 98+% of the citizenry, or its free exercise be abridged by any action of the government.
Pardon me for using this board for other than what it's for but I am wondering what your opinion is on some of these recent decisions.
Justices issue mixed rulings on Ten Commandments
By James Vicini 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court declared on Monday it was unconstitutional to post framed copies of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses but permissible to have a commandments monument on the grounds of a state Capitol.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/ts_nm/usa_court_command...
I myself don't understand the split decision if you will.
U.S. court rejects reporter appeals in leak probe
By James Vicini 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by two journalists who argued that they should not have to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the leak by government officials of a covert CIA operative's name to the news media.
Without any comment or recorded dissent, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court's ruling that New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper should be jailed and held in contempt for refusing to testify.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/usa_court_bush_le...
This one in my liberal mind is troubling.
Justices Rule Cities Can Take Property for Private Development
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6779784
This one caught me by surprise in the fact that the libs on the court decided in favor of the city. One could almost say St Patrick's Cathedral in NYC is now available for development.
But some of our clients will be finding their way off of death row. Unfortunately, three of our clients missed out on this life saving event by 1-5 years.
Edit -- grub
That about sums it up.
Kennedy's opinion rested in large part on the fact that 30 states, including the 12 states that have no capital punishment, forbid the death penalty for offenders younger than 18. That number represented an increase of five since the court upheld the juvenile death penalty in 1989.
The court weighs death penalty laws according to what a 1958 ruling called the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," and looks to state legislation and jury verdicts to decide whether a "national consensus" has developed against a previously accepted practice.
Are you saying "Kill the little bastards!" ain't legal no more?
Fred
Scalia had a rough day yesterday.
Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Death Penalty -
Happy New Year to one of Ihub's best!
Flame of the week...in response to a post from the Jailhouse...ref: #msg-4059746
Try posting on the NOLIB board again asshole.
No better yet, I'd like to see you post on it. ROTFLMAO.
In my opinion this deserves to be repeated here; where fear of being deleted and banned is the last thing one needs to worry about. It really is too bad.
Posted by: WTMHouston
In reply to: IH Admin [Matt] who wrote msg# 36322 Date:2/12/2004 4:11:05 PM
Post #of 37045
That's too bad. I really did not figure that you wanted all of the discussion on this thread. Guess I figured wrong. Out.
#msg-2363364
Troy
Boy if that doesn't take the cake! First he whines about others then he pulls the same stunt! But merely disguises it.
Posted by: AKvetch
In reply to: BullNBear52 who wrote msg# 605 Date:7/29/2003 8:19:46 PM
Post #of 610
You are so proud of yourself, but it doesn't count if you post to yourself, although Churak and Phil do the same as you. Nice try, and such a waste of a 10k grub.
JMHO
AK
by the
belt loops
I'll take this grub too. Thanks Nuffie.
AK
How? and thanks for the grub.
AK
No nuf, if I had the other would have felt slighted. Wow, Troy has lots of off-topic posts to delete. See you elsewhere <hint>.
AK
mr ak__you could have directed your post to one of them--12 demerits.
AK,
The discussion is over as far as I am concerned. Please feel free to delete the posts.
You didn't answer my question though.
Have fun,
Phil
Phil and Sarals, please take your discussion to the Parking Lot or elsewhere. We have reasonably tried to keep this board on topic. I don't want to get into post deletions here too. Thanks.
AK
But not as fun.
Have fun,
Phil
Keeping one's emotions and personal judgements out of political debating makes for much more intelligent and civil conversation.
sara,
Remember what I told you about political discussions getting personal?
They sometimes can/do.
If you don't like it, tough.
Have fun,
Phil
ask yourself if the post addresses an issue or mainly address the intelligence of a particular poster. Basic concept some people can't grasp... post about the issues, not about posters.
A tree hugging liberal might view it as a personal attack.
It's definately a critical post, but an attack?
I hardly think so.
Have fun,
Phil
Followers
|
6
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
139
|
Created
|
11/14/02
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator WTMHouston | |||
Assistants MMMARY AKvetch |
Posts Today
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
139
|
Posters
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Assistants
|
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |