The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Jon]

'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."

The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.

And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense.  Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.

At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up.  He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity.  It's a bit unnerving.

OK.  So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition.  Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it.  Well done.

"Shoa"

[Quality Start Machine]

'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."

The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.

And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense.  Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.

At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up.  He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity.  It's a bit unnerving.

OK.  So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition.  Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it.  Well done.

Thomas is a fine one to talk about entitlement, since he only got his job because they needed a black guy.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I can't quite make out their facial features, Chuck.

If I knew the coding for sizing the images I'd make the adjustment.

[Tank]

Seriously?  This fucker is on our Supreme Court?

I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."

Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind.  It's science.  Or something.  You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part.  Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

Which leaves out some important qualification...

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

...

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."

The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.

I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.

There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for  guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.

[Philberto]

'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."

The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.

And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense.  Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.

At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up.  He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity.  It's a bit unnerving.

OK.  So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition.  Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it.  Well done.

This?

[Gil Gunderson]

Seriously?  This fucker is on our Supreme Court?

I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."

Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind.  It's science.  Or something.  You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part.  Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

Which leaves out some important qualification...

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

...

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."

The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.

I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.

There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for  guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.

Wrong.  Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal.  European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal.  Conservatives don't like liberals.  Conservatives don't want any liberal legal nonsense in the courts.  Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law.  QED.

[Tank]

Seriously?  This fucker is on our Supreme Court?

I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."

Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind.  It's science.  Or something.  You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part.  Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

Which leaves out some important qualification...

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

...

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."

The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.

I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.

There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for  guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.

Wrong.  Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal socialists.  European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal socialists.  Conservatives don't like liberals socialists.  Conservatives don't want any liberal socialist legal nonsense in the courts.  Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law.  QED.

Gil hasn't been keeping up with the latest Movementarian framing directives.

Nowadays any Eurofag, even a multibillionaire monopolist oligarch, is by definition Redder than Lenin.

[Philberto]

Seriously?  This fucker is on our Supreme Court?

I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."

Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind.  It's science.  Or something.  You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part.  Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

Which leaves out some important qualification...

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

...

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."

The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.

I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.

There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for  guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.

Wrong.  Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal socialists.  European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal socialists.  Conservatives don't like liberals socialists.  Conservatives don't want any liberal socialist legal nonsense in the courts.  Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law.  QED.

This too

[RV]

So does anyone have a problem with appointing a special prosecutor? Patrick Fitzgerald perhaps?

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.'s methods and the Justice Department's long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?_r=1&hp

[Tank]

Fox News (!) with a dose of sanity re: that Obamafascist DHS report...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWycXKTuPZ8

A lot of worthwhile points and facts, but I'll highlight this one in particular:

So there are two assessments. One on the left—the one on the right is the one that's getting the attention because of the leak.

...

And I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush Administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he left office.

[morpheus]

I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)

Cheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:

CHENEY:

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."

"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."

"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."

Makes sense to me.

[Quality Start Machine]

I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)

Cheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:

CHENEY:

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."

"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."

"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."

Makes sense to me.

Dick Cheney, Champion of Free Flow of Information.

[RV]

I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)

Cheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:

CHENEY:

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."

"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."

"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."

Makes sense to me.

Works for me.

Maybe said memos will reconcile why Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times when waterboarding is supposedly so effective that he 'broke' in 35 seconds.

And maybe said memos will explain what moral and legal double standard allows a great country like ours to authorize acts that we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for carrying out in World War II.

[RV]

DPD to add: oops.

Cheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.

The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.

[Quality Start Machine]

DPD to add: oops.

Cheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.

The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.

Dick Cheney, Champion of Free Flow of Information.