Conservative Terrorism
Tweet
It’s time to call this what it is and get Republican politicians on the record as to whether they condone this sort of stuff, or will they continue to use “judicial activism” as code speak to incite violence against judges.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have been the targets of death threats from the “irrational fringe” of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.
Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate “patriotic” killing of the justices.
Security concerns among judges have been growing.
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Over the past few months O’Connor has complained that criticism, mainly by Republicans, has threatened judicial independence to deal with difficult issues like gay marriage.
105 Responses to “Conservative Terrorism”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“People apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.”
And we know that, how?
Frank, other countries’ laws are not used as “precedent” in SCOTUS (or in any other court). This isn’t a case of semantics…”precedent” actually means something in the context of legal analysis. Looking to the laws of other countries is not the same as utilizing their laws as precedent.
Who?
Please be specific.
And we know that, how?
Tom DeLay (R-TX):
John Cornyn (R-TX):
For the record, I repudiate the people who made death threats against the liberal Supreme Court justices who have decided that they should be using other countries’ laws as precedents in American courts.
I don’t think they should be killed.
I think they should be impeached and removed for malfeasance
Just curious: I wonder how many death threats Pres. Bush gets “apparently spurred by Democratic criticism of the President”?
“Please be specific.”
Frank has no idea what he’s even saying. He’s just repeating what he heard from two dozen right wing hacks from Limbaugh to Hewitt to Malkin who don’t give a shit about lying to people.
Hey Oliver, every Justice that decided in favor of Bush for the 2000 election had to have elevated security because of the death threats they were getting. I suppose that was all the fault of all the liberals who to this very day won’t stop bitching about that decision like little girls.
Once again, Willis is in his own version of the Twilight Zone where only conservatives are the big meanies.
So you’re saying conservative pols haven’t been calling for the deaths or excusing the killing of judges? Remains unclear.
So it never happened, right?
Frank –
You dimwit, it isn’t a question of whether it “happened.” It’s a question of what you mean by precedent and what you are implying this use of precedent means. You anger only suggests how ignorant you are of our very history.
Our entire system of justice has been heavily influenced by foreign law and court decisions from it’s very beginning. To suggest that referring to foreign legal rulings to strengthen ones argument somehow dilutes the “Americanness” of American law flys in the face of our colonial history.
At the same time, there’s different degrees of legal precedent. No one on the SCOTUS was using foreign laws as binding or mandatory precedent. Which is what you’d think they were doing given the wailingand crying from the Limbaugh types, and the slow-witted such as yourself. Closer to what Justices Kennedy, Breyer et al have done is advisory precedents, “cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases.” Closer still, however, is was Kennedy, Breyer et al actually did which was to refer to foreirn laws and legal decisions to, as the argument you cite states, “buttress their views.” Hardly what you would call “precedent.”
Idiot.
Frank, I’m not sure if you agree with Feeney and Goodlatte, but it’s not foreign precedent they have a problem with, it’s foreign precedent that doesn’t mesh with their own views:
Last I checked, England and other British colonies were still considered foreign countries.
“Use” != “Precedent”
Much as I am loathe to go out and prove things for liberals, who seem unable or unwilling to do the same:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/
And what examples of “Republican criticism” does the article provide?
Valid example, IMO. Coulter should be shunned for this crap. The fact that she is a Republican hero is an enormous blot on the party.
Quoting a Justice (in bold letters, no less) is an example of encouraging violence?
Hmmm. “Outrageous” and “impeaching” are now words that incite violence. We never hear those words from Democrats, do we?
Furthermore, Justice Ginsburg’s own example from her speech points not to explicit or implicit calls of violence against the judiciary by Republicans, but to proposed legislation:
So legislation proposed by congressional members is now considered “Conservative Terrorism”.
This has always seemed to me to be an obvious claim about having to stand before God in judgement, especially considering that it was in the context of the Schiavo case.
Can anyone point to any violence against the judiciary that was motivated by political ideology rather than personal revenge or attempts to escape?
A good blog to reference on this subject
Orcinus has a number of articles on this subject and goes into rather significant detail about the rise of eliminationist rhetoric in the U.S.
Of course, no amount of proof will matter because we’ll be back here again tomorrow having this same “debate” with the same people. It’s like being trapped in the political equivalent of Groundhog Day.
I’m just glad to hear that Justice Ginsberg is finally awake!!
I don’t think anyone has any objection to the use of British common law as precedent for the Supreme Court’s rulings. According to the ever ride and crude frameone, I, as a dimwit, can figure that out.
It’s not Blackstone that has people concerned, it’s contemporary foreign law that has people exercized. I don’t know why I continue to converse with people that are so addlepated, and ill – mannered.
I guess I foolishly believe that there is always hope, even for the most hopeless seeming brutes. Frameone, why don’t you get over yourself, stop with the name calling, and grow up. Surely, with a great enough effort, you could get beyond acting like a spoiled adolescent for at least a few minutes.
Bill L: Did you mean to link to “The Foundations of Fascism”? Why?
First of all, I’m not angry (I think there’s some projection going on here, O rabid one).
cellulose: It is well known that American law relied, and relies, heavily on Blackstone’s Commentaries. I’m not proving it to you.
And I’m not even sputtering all over the keyboard, or calling any body an idiot or a moron, or anything. See, frameone, it can be done — maybe even by you.
frame, don’t you see, man? Frank has once again deftly completely changed the subject and ‘rented space” in your head.
The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.
This has always seemed to me to be an obvious claim about having to stand before God in judgement, especially considering that it was in the context of the Schiavo case.
Yes, you and I can extrapolate that meaning, but perhaps not the rabid Mad-dog Johnny Walmart who listens raptly to everything that Rush and Papa Bear say and snaps one day.
“I don t think anyone has any objection to the use of British common law as precedent for the Supreme Court s rulings.”
I hear those Founder dudes weren’t really keen on British law.
This is the problem with originalism and a strict textualist approach. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Unless you can show me the “But We Have No Problem With British Common Law” clause in the Constitution.
Frank, I see your link to an MSNBC article, but don’t see any place where you’ve indicated those cases where ustices on our Supreme Court “used other countries’ laws as precedents.”
Can we carry forward with the cases mentioned in the article? Namely:
Are those good examples?
“It s not Blackstone that has people concerned, it s contemporary foreign law that has people exercized.”
And can you explain to us why, Frank? In other words, do you even know what you’re so angry about?
cellulose: I see, so now you’re deciding what “precedent.” Gee, and all this time I was thinking you weren’t an expert on Constitutional Law. Silly me.
And, duros, you need medication.
Oh yes, this is usually the cue for frameone to launch into a lengthy explanation as to why I deserve it (he’s probably typing it right now — unless he has it saved on Word, and just copies and pastes)
He doesn’t need my help. He does fine beatin you down on his own.
Usage: Definition of a barking moonbat : someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency
Frank = Moonbat
And, I guess, now it begins, end of discussion, no more comments, the thread is closed. It’s time to GET FRANK!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s that time again! Nothing to say, the arrogant left wing assholes gang up on the troll!
Casting reason to the winds, forgetting all about their legendary (self – proclaimed) tolerance, the wolves gather ’round the “idiot”, the “moonbat”, and show us what they’re really made of!
On, duros, on cellulose, on frameone, attack! Attack! ATTACK!
“And I m not even sputtering all over the keyboard, or calling any body an idiot or a moron, or anything. See, frameone, it can be done maybe even by you.”
Is this *not* suppoed to come off as ironic? The disingenuity is biting.
Also, Frank, you make it sound as though Ginsberg and the like took a quick look at French (or whatever) law and remarked, “THIS IS HOW IT SHALL BE!” All obey French law!
That’s simply untrue. I’m still waiting for a reference to a Supreme Court opinion which does something close to use foreign law as precedent. Remember, as we’ve already established, “precedent” actually means something in the legal context. It doesn’t mean “referenced” or “mentioned.”
“It s time to GET FRANK!”
Oh my god. What a whiny little baby.
I was just waiting for you to answer my question, frank, don’t get all riled.
“Oh yes, this is usually the cue for frameone to launch into a lengthy explanation as to why I deserve it.”
Frank, for two seconds, just return to your original argument and try to defend it. Or should we just assume that citing a totally dishonest Powerline post, without even a link, BTW, is the best you can do?
“Casting reason to the winds”
Frank, you clearly did this a long, long time ago.
“Do you know, or care, that your rude and crude behavior erodes whatever small amount of credibilty you might have in your animalistic comments
Typical. Frank gets called out — yet again — and instead of defending his position he starts whining about how I’m rude and crude. Ya. Maybe. I just have little patience for right wing idiots who don’t think before they mouth off.
Would you care to respond at all to the blatant distortions present in the Powerline post you cited? Care to defend him at all? Care to defend your original position at all? Actually, would you care to even state the original reasoning that lead you to decide that some judges need to be impeached?
You haven’t even done that yet.
Like I said, you’re angry but you have no idea why.
reference to foreign law is nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.
You didn’t answer my question, Frank.
Oh, by the way, backing up frameone tells me a lot about you two. He needs your help. Riiiiight!
duros: “Frank = moonbat” Oh, so clever!
duros62 = doo – doo head
See, now he’s got me doing it….
“First of all, I m not angry”
No, of course, not. But you still have no idea what you’re talking about. Cutting and pasting from Powerline is about as ridiculous a rebuttal as one can possibly imagine. Way to think and reason for yourself, Frank (in my book that makes you a royal idiot). If you bothered to read Ginsburg’s speech, which you clearly haven’t, you will see that she lays out a long and significant American tradition of looking to other countries for advice and guidance in fomulating legal opinions. Naturally, Powerline overlooks this and insists she simply refers repeatedly to “the Declaration of Independence’s reference to ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,’ as if it somehow supported her argument.” Elsewhere this Powertool completely misrepresents Ginsburg’s position. He writes:
“If foreign guidance had been sought in the Lawrence case, would the justices have looked to the law in Muslim countries where commission of such acts is a capital crime? If not, why not? There is no coherent answer to these questions, and, Ginsburg does not offer one.”
Ginsburg, however, clearly states:
“The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.”
That right there should be enough to expose Powerline as the bullshit peddlers that they are. But since you didn’t read Ginsburg’s speech you’d never know this.
You’d also never know that Ginsburg rejects the use of foreign legal decisions as precedent for US courts:
“Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.
Representative of the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues, Patricia M. Wald, once Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, last year said with characteristic wisdom: “It’s hard for me to see that the use of foreign decisional law is an up-or-down proposition. I see it rather as a pool of potential and useful information and thought that must be mined with caution and restraint.”
You’re an idiot Frank. A total idiot.
Ah, yes, “You re an idiot Frank. A total idiot.” Reasoning for yourself?
Do you know, or care, that your rude and crude behavior erodes whatever small amount of credibilty you might have in your animalistic “comments” (I use the term very loosely — screed is more appropriate)?
And, oh yes, jackoff, I read the speech.
“And I m not even sputtering all over the keyboard, or calling any body an idiot or a moron, or anything.”
But Frank you have absolutely no ground to. Meanwhile, you have proven yet again that you don’t think for yourself, you have no ability to reason, that you react in the extreme to questions and issues you have no comprehension of.
For crying out loud, Frank, you cited Powerline as source, including one of the most egregious distortions in the whole piece as evidence of sound logic. What could be more moronic? What more proof does anyone need to know that you are an idiot?
reference to foreign law is nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.
I don’t get it. So if a justice gets stuck on a particlar issue of law, something that maybe has not been addressed in this country, and looks to another country to see how they handle it, it’s automatically “to advance a left-wing agenda”?
This is not allowed for the other justices, just the liberal ones?
“This whole thread is bogus, and I, like a fool, got involved with you three jerks for nothing.”
Once again, classic: “You evil liberals tricked me!”
“lessee, my original argument, hmmmm. Had it here somewhere. Oh yeah, to piss off the liberals!”
“you have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to demand anything from me?”
Just the facts, maam, just the facts.
According to Ginsburg, someone in a Web site chat room wrote: “Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment … an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O’Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. … If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.”
*…ahem…*
Cases, anyone?
Sorry, Frank. I seem to have set all this off way back at the top of the thread with my response to this:
I asked for specifics and you cited an MSNBC article that mentioned three specific cases.
Are those the examples of “using other countries’ laws as precedents” you’d like to talk about?
Or are you enjoying your little contretemps with frame and duros so much that you’d prefer to stick with that?
Finally, unless the Justice made two speeches in Suth Africa, the speech linked in PowerLine makes no reference to threats, let alone details.
This whole thread is bogus, and I, like a fool, got involved with you three jerks for nothing.
oooooh, ya got me!
Pretty clear we have all abandoned our origianl arguments, isn’t it?
“No mention of death threats”
So you’ve totally dropped the topic that led you to link to the MSNBC article and quote Powerline? Are we’re supposed to pretend that this “never happened”?
duros62: Speaking of abandoning arguments: Frank = Moonbat
Frank,
My part in this thread focussed entirely on your second comment:
“I repudiate the people who made death threats against the liberal Supreme Court justices who have decided that they should be using other countries laws as precedents in American courts. I don t think they should be killed. I think they should be impeached and removed for malfeasance.”
First of all, how magnanimous of you to grant pardon on these judges’ lives. But I was responding entirely to your assertation that these judges should be impeached for “using other countries laws as precedents in American courts.”
These judges have not used other countries’ laws as PRECEDENT in American courts. This is a simply dishonest description of the issue promulgated by the Limbaughs of the world. You clearly do not understand that and repeatedly proved your ignorance of the matter in your follow posts.
None of the angry conservatives in the MSNBC article you linked to describe the issue the way you describe it although it’s clear that their vehemence is intended to distort and distract from the real issues involved. They simply leave it to professional liars such as Limbaugh to complete the link.
Then you cited a post at Powerline, home to amateur liars extraoridnaire, that was dishonest on its face.
When confronted with the truth of the matter you dropped your original assertion entirely, whined about being called names, asserted that we had tried to change the subject on you and then, creme de la creme, put forward that idea that you shouldn’t be held accountable today for something you posted yesterday.
Idiot.
You re a pompous, ill – mannered gasbag, and you have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to demand anything from me?
So you have no defense then? ok.
You guys are doing exactly what I said you would do — you can’t even help yourselves, you’re so driven — and yet frameone calls me a “whiny baby”. Now who’s the idiot?
Try not living up to your reputations as arrogant liberal assholes, and I’d have nothing to “whine” about.
Of course, three people dissecting your argument, cherry picking, and referring back and forth to statements made yesterday (!) is the liberal m.o. — they call it “fair play.” It’s what makes this thread rock, right, guys?
The original argument had to do with “Republican death threats” — are there any other kind?
With the three of you throwing around orders, you probaby won’t find this acceptable, but look at these two statements, and see if you can find the “spur” to a death threat:
“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.
“And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.
So, we’re back at the beginning.
Oh, Gawd! Another county heard from….
Ginsberg made three speeches in South Africa:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.html
No mention of death threats
I told you. So predictable, but, then, rabid pseudo – intellectuals always are.
Yes, frameone, O master of all he surveys! I’ll just do exactly what you say… You have never steered me wrong in the past. Our relationship has been based on mutual respect and consideration up until this point, hasn’t it?
I’d be a fool to spoil it now, wouldn’t I?
How many times a day do people unfortunate enough to be in your vicinity tell you what a jerk you are? Damn, Paul, you really have more balls than brains.
You’re a pompous, ill – mannered gasbag, and you have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to demand anything from me? As if anything I, a dimwit, a royal idiot (BTW, thanks for the “royal”), a moron, could ever meet the incredibly high standards of the Perfect Frameone (hallowed be his name!)
One last question: Who licks the soles of your shoes dry when you walk on water?
Of all your chicanery Frank this is my favorite:
“So it never happened, right?”
You have no idea what “happened,” Frank. You can’t even accurately articulate it in your own words.
No one said anything about “Republican death threats” Mr. DeLay’s remarks could be (could be) misinterpreted by an unbalanced individual to be a call to arms.
You were the one who wen’t off on a tangent about Justices setting legal “precedent” using foreign law.
The original argument is whether the GOP condones or condemns death threats against judges whose opinions and decisions they disagree with.
So, …
Am I to assume that the person who wrote that is advocating the Pat Robertson method of praying real hard so they have a heart attack and die?
Classic Frank. Too classic. Neither the courage of your convictions nor the facts to back them up. When confronted with the reality of your ignorance it’s whine, whine, whine.
I have no idea. However, you seem to be of the opinion they have not.
Have you any support for your conclusion?
It seems to be credible enough for this to happen..
Worry is not limited to the Supreme Court. Three quarters of the nation’s 2,200 federal judges have asked for government-paid home security systems, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this week.
How modern conservatism has become a cult
14 aspects of fascism
Specific discussion on the threatening tone adopted by the Right towards judges (you have to scroll down to “Black robes” to read it)
Clearly what we have here is a growing chorus of angry and often eliminationist language directed at those people perceived as being “against America.” This has grown to include “activist” judges whose primary failing appears to be an unwillingness to rule in such a fashion as suits the Right. Now we see that perspective amplified and “legitimized” through the lens of xenophobia. Judges aren’t merely undermining our way of life, they’re in league with filthy foreigners who are either spineless accomodationists (France, Germany, and Spain(after they pulled out of Iraq, anyway)) or brown people who hate our freedoms (the overly generalized view of Islam and, by extension, the entire Middle East).
Ironically, the Dubai ports deal debacle is a perfect example of how successful the administration has become in branding any nation from the region a potential terrorist threat. Though Dubai certainly has its share of “issues,” any one of which would be grounds for reconsidering doing business with them, the real fundamental basis for the outcry against them taking control of our ports wants pure xenophobia. Certainly Dubai would let terrorists attack us, because they share the same theology, right? I mean all Arabs are terrorists, or want to help the “cause,” right? It’s much the same thinking as “all Japanese can’t be trusted” circa the 1940′s.
So how does that tie in with the judges and the nonsensical fear that we are somehow being ruled by France (or whomever) by proxy? Well, as Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Those nations that have chosen to stand against our crusade or just stand aside have been labeled terrorist sympathizers, or even enablers. In the U.S., those who have voiced their disdain for this administration’s heavy reliance on fear and violence to advance its agenda have been singled out for the same treatment. This isn’t just on the “fringe,” either, as it takes about 3 seconds to Google plenty of examples of such extreme rhetoric from mainstream media pundits and politicians (Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Rush, and so on). Clearly this is where even the current climate of anti-”activist” judge fervor becomes such a problem. No longer are opponents seen as simply holding a contrarian viewpoint, they are now elevated to “5th column” status and seen as a vile threat to not only the nation, but the “American way of life.” As such, they are seen as supporting enemies of this country by virtue of simply undermining the goals of its government, even if those goals clearly run contrary to the rule of law. It’s not much of a leap from there to the very real danger of physical assault and even murder.
Consider the logic:
George Bush wants to beat the terrorists and rescue our freedoms.
Some radical judges are trying to say that he has to play by the “old” rules and are trying to stand in his way.
They are putting this country at risk.
In fact, by even giving the appearence of dissent, these activist judges are weakening our resolve and emboldening the terrorists.
Terrorists hate us and have no respect for life.
They will kill anyone that stands in their way, even children.
Can we afford judges who side with baby killing America haters?
We must act to stop these judges who refuse to support this crusade against the Islamic satanists who would pit their false God against ours.
But impeaching a judge, particularly a lifetime appointed one on the SCOTUS, is extremely hard. What to do…What to do…
Get it now?
Never mind, Frank.
I choose Lawrence v. Texas for my first discourse.
In Lawrence, the majority held that an earlier Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, was wrongly decided. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority with O’Connor filing a separate, concurring opinion.
Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist dissented.
So did Kennedy “use other countries’ laws as precedent” in this case?
In a word, no.
Kennedy’s task in writing the majority opinion was to demonstrate that the earlier case was decided incorrectly. He quotes the decision in Bowers in which the justices cite both Judeo-Christian tradition and the traditions of western civilization as a justification for laws against homosexual conduct. Kennedy mentions foreign law for one purpose only: to rebut the argument made in Bowers.
Want to discuss? Or move on?
Have either Justice Ginsburg or former Justice O’Connor actually reported to the police the death threats Mrs Ginsburg said they have received?
The making of a credible threat is against the law; one supposes that Mrs Ginsburg is familiar with the law. If a credible threat (meaning: one which carries a reasonable possibility of being carried out) was received, was it reported, and if not, why not?
It seems that entitling a thread “Conservative Terrorism” based on threats that the people who received them did not find sufficiently credible to report them to law enforcement is a bit (and more than a bit) of a stretch.
Oh, yeah.
And in his dissent, Breyer even quoted Scalia:
No answer on Lawrence?
Well, what about that 1999 death penalty case in which Breyer cited Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe fer gawdsake!
The case involved the separate claims of two death row inmates that long delays (20 and 25 years) in carrying out the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
That case was never decided by the Supreme Court.
The court denied certiorari and let the lower court decision stand. Breyer wrote a dissent to that decision, arguing that the court should hear the case. In his argument, Breyer cited seven U.S. decisions that considered similar delays. He cited cases in which courts in other countries that allow the death penalty had considered similar questions. And he cited seven U.S. court precedents (dating back to 1888) in which U.S. courts have studied foreign court decisions in their deliberations.
Discuss? Or move on?
That leaves just one, the 2002 opinion in which Stevens cites….shudder….the EU in deciding that we shouldn’t execute retarded people.
Shall we look into that one?
Man! Nobody puts a room to sleep the way I do.
OK, you asked for it.
Here’s Stevens “using other countries’ laws as precedent.” Ready?
Buh…buh…but wait, Quaker. You must have made a mistake. Where does Stevens cite EU law as precedent?
Granted, this passage is buried waaaay down in a majority opinion, in which six justices decide that executing the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual. But it’s plain as day, isn’t it?
See that little “21″ at the very end? That refers to a footnote in which the justices list a number of sources, including an amicus brief in a U.S. case written by someone from the EU!
It’s just like they’re trying to give the country to the French, ain’t it?
But impeaching a judge, particularly a lifetime appointed one on the SCOTUS, is extremely hard. What to do& What to do&
Get it now?
You mean it has occurred to you that shooting them might be a good idea?
Funny, it never entered my mind…
But then again, I’m not in the habit of shooting I disagree with.
Quaker I.A.B.
You’re good, man. You’re very good.
Uh, actually it must have entered your mind, Frank, because I never said anything about shooting anyone. I merely argued that what currently passes for conservative thought these days is increasingly xenophobic, growing to encompass not only those from foreign lands, but also those believed to harbor “anti-American” feelings at home. That “anti-Americanism” has been reduced to those who dare question the current administration and above all, its figure head George W. Bush. Compromise, or worse, admission of failure, is seen as weakness and can never be accepted. Such a mindset favors violent solutions over rational discourse.
Again, though, all evidence is ignored and we find ourselves having gotten exactly nowhere.
Allow me to quote myself:
“Of course, no amount of proof will matter because we ll be back here again tomorrow having this same debate with the same people. It s like being trapped in the political equivalent of Groundhog Day.”
The reason nothing is settled is because what you call “proof” is nothing more than strong belief.
There is also the benighted notion by most liberals that they “know” what is right, and conservatives have only to know what they know, and they will agree.
You just don’t get it, do you, Bill? You have an opinion. I have an opinion. I’m not sitting around waiting for liberals to tell me what to think.
When you quote from a blog, you are repeating an opinion. No matter how well – formed or well – written, it is an opinion, not a fact.
Even if it’s Powerline?
So if a blog posts that 2 + 2 = 4, it’s an opinion? Is this more thinking along the lines of something’s true until a liberal/progressive says it?
My proof was not contained simply in my post Francine, it was also in the many articles linked to at Orcinus, which I am 100% sure you never read. Those articles rely heavily on quotation and historical context to form their conclusions. They aren’t plucked out of thin air. While it can be argued that those conclusions are “opinion,” at least they have an actual factual basis and aren’t based on some shifting interpretation of the english language as it pertains to the law.
Again, Franklin, you re-affirm my point by side stepping the issue and dismissing opposing viewpoints as mere opinion. Back to square one.
And Frameone and Quaker are right, your newfound distaste for blog quotation is RICH after the lengthy Powerline cut-and-paste.
“When you quote from a blog, you are repeating an opinion. No matter how well – formed or well – written, it is an opinion, not a fact.”
Holy crap. What Quaker says. You just quoted at length from Powerline as if it were a factual statement about the SCOTUS using foreign law as legal precedent in the US. Are you getting stupider?
Frame, I think it’s the exhaust fumes personally. Big delays on the New England Thruway (95).
Frank_D Says:
“And I m not even sputtering all over the keyboard, or calling any body an idiot or a moron, or anything. See, frameone, it can be done maybe even by you.”
Frank_D Says:
“fastcheck: Let me know when Target ships the rest of your brain.”
frameone: You didn’t really think I was going to be suprised by that statement, do you? Of course I quoted an opinion, not “as if it was a fact,” but rather, as a statement of my beliefs as made by someone else. I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again. No, I’m not getting “stupider”. You’re just getting ruder and cruder.
Bill L. If you can’t even get my name right, how could you possibly be right about anything else?
And, I’m not going to spend half a day reading other people’s opinions, regardless of how many links to others’ opinions are contained in them, just to satisfy you.
fastcheck: Let me know when Target ships the rest of your brain.
I think we have the cause of your problem, Frank. You got your brain from Target. Maybe you shouldn’t look for a bargain next time?
HTH
Celluose, if Frank didn’t exist, we would have to invent him. He’s comedy gold.
“I m not supposed to be constantly verbally sparring with leftwing wiseasses”
I give up. What is your purpose Frank, as a right winger on a board run by a liberal Democrat?
factcheck: Can’t you even write your own insults?
Incidentally, this is a comment thread — in case you pseudo intellectuals haven’t noticed. I’m not supposed to be constantly verbally sparring with leftwing wiseasses
factcheck: my purpose is not to be your friggin’ punching bag. I’m terribly sorry, if my disagreeing with you offends your delicate sensibilities, but you, in particular, have so little say, and most of it is incorrect. I’m sure that you, like frameone, feel justifies in insulting me interminably, but to pretend I deserve it, or that it is somehow required because I am a conservative, and you are not, is just a lie you tell yourself, and expect me to believe.
Well, I don’t. This will be the third and fourth time I will issue this challenge:
Go over all these threads.
Go as far back as you like — I’ve been here a long time.
See if you can find where I insulted somone without provocation.
I issued that challenge to two different people; one a month or so ago, one a few weeks ago. Either they didn’t bother to look, or they have yet to find one.
See if you can do better than they did.
In the meantime, your insults say much much more about your personalties, than your comments do about your political beliefs. Especially when the former so clearly outnumber the latter.
“No, I m not getting stupider .”
And Frank, if you have to say it …
“I ve done it before, and I ll do it again.”
How resolute of you, Frank. I take it then that you will continue to quote equally dishonest and misleading opinions as well? Way to go Frank. Now you sound exactly like Bush.
“I m sure that you, like frameone, feel justifies in insulting me interminably”
Frank –
Factcheck is right. You asserted that liberal Supreme Court justices should be impeached for using other countries laws as precedents in American courts.
You have been unable to prove or defend the claim that they have actually used foreign laws as precedents.
You have given no instances or examples in which they have done so. Quaker has pretty much nailed you on that front.
The outisde opinion that you turned to in your defense is blatantly dishonest as I pointed out to you.
So just answer the question before you: Are you standing by your claim that liberal Supreme Court justices have used other countries laws as precedents in American courts?
“Maybe there are other reasons why I don t feel like debating him, that I m not telling you. Then again, maybe I m just not in the mood. Then again, maybe I get tired of all this crap from time to time.”
Of course maybe you’re just wrong and you aren’t honest enough to admit it.
Frank, if you’re so interested in debating without insults, why don’t you debate Quaker? He presented a rebuttal of your arguments, without what you call insults, yet you ignored him. How about we hear you defend your claim about
“liberal Supreme Court justices who have decided that they should be using other countries laws as precedents in American courts.”
You completely ignored his rebuttal and decided to play victim again. Are you now ready to abandon this statement, or do you want to engage Quaker in debate?
If you’ll leave me alone,I’ll abandon the statement. Are you the matchmaker around here?
Maybe there are other reasons why I don’t feel like debating him, that I’m not telling you. Then again, maybe I’m just not in the mood. Then again, maybe I get tired of all this crap from time to time.
Of course, none of this means anything to you, right?
Excuse me, I meant Constitutional interpretation, not judicial interpretation.
Okay, I guess I don’t want to go to the trouble of providing evidence that people like you will just call distortions.
Quaker has demonstrated that European and other countries’ jurisprudence has influenced Supreme Court decisions. If you wish to split hairs, and say these are not “precedents,” then I throw in the towel.
When mention of other nations and international law and similar wording shows up in decisions written to stretch the Supreme Court’s interpretive powers even further outside the Constitution, then excuse me, but the writers at PowerLine are right: the justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance.
This is way beyond anything envisioned by the Framers, who, you may recall, didn”t even include judicial interpretation in the Constitution.
And, oh yes, I definitely get tired of this crap from time to time.
“influence” is not the same as “precedent”
So sue me. See you in court. I can’t lose. You see, there was this case in Tonga a few years back…
Quaker has demonstrated exactly the opposite. Stop fooling around.
Whoa up there, Frank.
I read the decisions and explained carefully. I showed that “international law” did NOT “show up in decisions written to stretch the Supreme Court’s interpretive powers…”
This isn’t hair-splitting. This is outright refutation. This is debunking. This is clear cut proof of the opposite.
Let me repeat the question for you:
Who? Be specific.
Okay, so Frank effectively refuses to engage in any meaningful debate over how right wing hate speech directed at judges constitutes a genuine form of terrorism by dismissing my posts and any articles I linked to as “opinion.” A position made unintentionally hilarious by his reliance on Powerline to buttress his argument that, terrified for their lives or no, stinking liberal judges are trying to turn us into a French colony by using European law as precedent in their own decisions.
Except they aren’t, which Quaker has established.
So naturally Frank ignores the inconvenient liberals and their facts and gets straight to the chewy “truthiness” core of his argument by claiming Quaker proved him right when he proved him wrong…or something…whatever…liberal judges should be impeached!
On the one hand, it’s that Groundhog Day thing again, where no matter how what you say or how effectively you argue your point, you’ll only wake up to find yourself arguing the same points again the very next day. On the other, I really have to hand it to Frank for so doggedly hanging in there and fighting for a position that is patently wrong but which he feels in his gut must be true.
Stephen Colbert is a f*cking genius.
an amicus brief in a U.S. case written by someone from the EU!
The court denied certiorari and let the lower court decision stand
I love the smell of splitting hairs in the morning. It smells like … liberal rhetoric!
And, oh yes, Quaker… Isn’t it frustrating when someone says something about you that isn’t true?
I could say it again, and refuse to deny it, but that would be so much like you, wouldn’t it?
What goes around, comes around, eh, Quaker?
“The writers at PowerLine are right: the justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance.”
First of all, the writers at Powerline completely distorted Ginsburg’s speech by asserting that she offered no explanation for why she would look at, say, France’s decisions, decisions and not, say, Saudia Arabia. In fact, she clearly asserted that the only appropriate leagl systems to look to would be those, “legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own. That makes the writers at Powerline either stupid or so thoroughly duplicitous that only a willful fool would consider them an authoritative opinion.
Second, the reason why “justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance,” to borrow Powerlines inherent dishonest phrasing, is precisely because THEY ARE NOT USING FOREIGN LAWS AS PRECEDENT. They are, with reservations and limitations, turning to other like minded liberal democracies for examples to support their own legal arguments. Then again, as Quaker has clearly and admirably pointed out in the three cases that really pissed off conservatives, the discussion pf foreign laws and legal decisions were so qualified and limited that they barely even rise to the level of substantive argumentation.
I give you Justice Ginsburg again:
Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.
Representative of the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues, Patricia M. Wald, once Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, last year said with characteristic wisdom: It s hard for me to see that the use of foreign decisional law is an up-or-down proposition. I see it rather as a pool of potential and useful information and thought that must be mined with caution and restraint.
Frank, if at any time in the future you wonder why other posters won’t engage you in serious debate, just reflect on what you’ve posted here.
If you reflect honestly, any questions you have will be answered.
pfjkclv mtnvua waerixop zjplfgeoy jdzap wmjtryc lrqh
pfjkclv mtnvua waerixop zjplfgeoy jdzap wmjtryc lrqh