50.........

The article has been changed. The first part of my post was a cut and paste from the article as it read last night.

Interesting

:helpme

http://www.tagliners.org/pics/signs.jpg

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

http://home.sc.rr.com/jbernick/gb-stfu.JPG

Who the fuck does Bush think he is?

dont know maybe: the president of the United States

Not really, they change online articles all the time. People are way too stupid to notice.

Incorrect.

The foundation of the current interpretation grew out of a subpoena that the independent counsel Ken Starr issued for notes that were taken of conversations between Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House attorneys in preparation for grand jury appearances and congressional appearances.

The Office of the President asserted an attorney-client privilege. The District Court accepted that, saying that Clinton thought the privilage existed at the time and therefore entitling her to rely on it. The Eighth Circuit reversed and said there is no attorney-client privilege for the First Lady or any other government official who consults with government counsel as opposed to private counsel.

The court of appeals based this ruling on the fact that the Office of the Solicitor General works not for the president but for the people of the United States, and therefore no party's consultations are entitled to attorney-client privilage. The Clinton white house appealed to the supreme court, which refused to hear the case letting the Eight Circuit case stand.

Apparently, Orrin Hatch was quite pleased at the decision, and remonstrated the clintons for attempting to assert that privilage in an op-ed in the New York Times. I wonder if he'll speak up and bitch out the bush administration for attempting the exact same maneuver but with full knowledge of its illegitmacy. I won't hold my breath.

I suppose, in an odd way, people should be thankful to Ken Starr... while his purient interest extended to little more than dick sizes and boxers/briefs, his legal maneuvers have yielded a powerful tool to defeat stonewalling and corruption in established parties.

Illegitimacy, even.

Bush thinks he's God's second son :1orglaugh

They are requesting documents from when he was the Solicitor General...so your scenario is not applicable...so no...I am not wrong...thank you very much.

The scenario is entirely applicable. Attorney/Client privilage would extend both ways, but when it's removed it extends neither way. Nothing that he did while working in the Solicitor General's office is thusly protected, and you will see such when the Eighth Circuit ruling is upheld.

Additionally, he (John Roberts) was never Solicitor General himself. He was Dep. Solicitor General under Ken Starr. He was the ?political deputy? in the Solicitor General?s office and thus, unlike career Deputy Solicitor Generals, cannot dismiss positions he took as simply arguments he was forced to make as part of his obligation to zealously represent the interests of his client, the federal government. While in the Solicitor General?s office during the Bush administration, Roberts co-authored briefs in a number of controversial cases.

The documents requested, as that has NOT been mentioned yet here, center around his involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal and the Bush 41 administrations pardoning of Oliver North and co-conspirators. It's obvious WHY they would want to not release those papers, and why the democrats want them: Iran/Contra was the biggest black eye on republicans since Nixon. Nevertheless, what legal protections they may have enjoyed to protect that information were blown away by Ken Starr himself when he pursued the Clinton witch-hunt and obtained the precident of non-privilaged communication.

look what the dems did for theirs they gave no such info :thumbsup

If you dig your head in the sand on this one, bush will kick you in the butt and break your neck.

:1orglaugh

Not the first time ... You should have seen some of his other posts !

ain't that the fucking truth.

Anyone that doesn't realize what is going on is seriously misled or stupid. Requesting documents is a way for democrats to move the goal post.

Their attempts at legislating the common man are failing and this is the only way to continue to raise money and keep government power over minorities. With this appointment, liberalism will have been removed from the three branches of goverment by the people of the United States.

Democrats are jumping ship faster than you can count. Liberalism sunk that baby, its over.

And now that the unions are split its getting even worse for the dems.

I agree. It will be SO FUCKING NICE when we have truly god-fearing folks as our absolute rulers using the Patriot Act to squash the filthy liberal traitors.

You would expect people to just say "Oh, well, if George says he's good, then that's good enough for me"? Perhaps if he had a track record of honesty and forthrightness rather than a long long history of denial, deflection, stonewalling and disassembling(sic).

This is a lifetime appointment of someone whom his own friends say is "the most conservative guy (they) know". To think that appointment would simply be installed without every spotlight available shined upon the man is assinine. Every person, and I mean *EVERY* person offered is going to get the 3rd degree from now until the appointment is made. Get used to it. It's the way it should be.

yep, damn liberals trying to subpoena libraries and bookstores, spying on us Patriots. Telling everybody who they can't marry and forcing women to carry babies to full term, pushing for more spy power for the central government and trying to make religious devotion the main criteria for scientific credibility.

How dumb do they think we are, anyway?

Rickholio....great find.

Denying documents based on attorney/client privilege in this case is ridiculous.
That would be like Bush sending a memo to the Attorney General telling him (through the FBI) to torture all detainees in a terrorist investigation. Then he could keep that a secret because the attorney general was his "lawyer"

I do not agree with your conclusions.

I fully expect the admin will not turn over documents from when he was in the Solicitor Generals office...and I fully expect the Supreme Court will not rule against the admin...lower courts are of no import in this matter.

We will see the outcome.

Ah... well, the torture memo actually came the other direction, from Alberto Gonzales (now Attorney General Gonzales) to the white house, advising them on the legality of torture.

What a sad state when things have degraded so far that a sitting president asks for legal opinions on how much torture he can get away with.

Thus ends the grand experment, I suppose. I'm sure there's plenty of string-pullers who are standing in line to start new experiments though, and a captive group of test subjects on which to ply thier trade.

do you have any idea what a drooling moron you sound like next to rickholio?

now call me Danny Boy.

I just find it hilarious that this administration has run the economy into the ground, started an unnecessary war which fomented a serious terrorist movement, lent it's support to faith based science, passed legislation increasing the power of the govt. over the individual and just in general has done SO MANY great things for this country and it's citizens

-- and these loopy-ass pornographers can't grovel deeply enough before their altar.

The supreme court already rejected arguments against People v. Clinton in 1997. The situation is basically identical and no other case law exists for precident. What makes you think the supremes will hear the case this time?

The only reason I could see is if the administration puts heavy (and potentially illegal) pressure on the supremes to hear the case, and would need a very clear and legally sound reason to derail the prior ruling. "Because democrats were in power then" doesn't qualify.

Danny boy...you should just go back to your bong and let the adults participate in discusssion.

what I like about you, Tex, is that you manage to be so funny without EVER ONCE REPEATING YOURSELF!!

you are truly 'special'.

now I'm going to go upstairs and jack off. Take solace in the fact that, while I'm doing it, I'll make more money than you'll make all year :P

Hey I have a question. What did Rush Limbaugh have for breakfast this morning?

Your head is far enough up his ass I figure you'd know.

The people of the U.S. do NOT want liberalism removed as you so stupidly put it.....ANY poll from any reputable organization shows that Americans favor the Democratic positions on handling the economy, the deficit, health care, and numerous other issues.
The reason the republicans have been successful in elections is largely due to the gerrymandering of congressional districts done by the republican controlled congress and the fact that incumbents have an enormous advantage in any election.
Clinton stumbled badly in his first two years and that tilted congressional power to the republicans in the '96 election. Combine the gerrymandering with the power of being an incumbent and that is why the republicans still control congress.

There will be a big shift the other way in the 2006 elections, you can bet on it.

I do not agree that the Clinton scenario is even similar let alone being "basically identical".

I do not know how much you net per year...but I do know how much I net per year and it is rolled back. I do not have a need to use the money that I net...so I am very satisfied...thank you very much. So go ahead a play with your pee pee...Danny boy and I will take solace in the fact that you are an ultra liberal druggy...and of no more import than any other grain of sand on the beach of humanity.

The fact that you think the majority of americans have liberal values just goes to show that the majority of democrats dont know what liberal values are.



My guess is that more of these kids when asked would not believe that the democratic party is the party of big government. They would think I was trying to bash them if I explained that democrats want larger government control over their lives.

That is not false, that is just a fact.

and you're a willfully ignorant fascist flag-waving fuck selling your country out to the first politician willing to put on a cowboy hat and pretend that international diplomacy is as simple as a Toby Keith song.

I hate you fucks. You're traitors to this once-great nation.

Think about just national elections. Only 2 democrats in the last 30+ years elected to the white house and those 2 were supposed to be southern conservative democrats. No true liberals at all.

yep, dems want greater control over our lives. That's why they're pushing for increased govt surveillance power over citizens, that's why they're trying to control women's reproductive process, who and what gender people sleep with, and what people read in school.

/sarcasm, just in case the republicans don't understand.

The overall scenario is obviously quite different. One was a witch-hunt intended to bring down the current government at any cost. This one is to make sure that the hard right doesn't control the supreme court for a generation.

However, the particular legal tool, and it's usage, is identical. Independant counsel wants access to documentation of conversations and memos between the white house and solicitor general. In both cases, the documentation is explicitly determined to NOT be protected, and is the law of the land until overturned by the supreme court.

I'm sure the conservatives are wailing and gnashing teeth that they couldn't get thier golden boy in place before being served with the same medicine they pioneered in the anti-clinton campaign, but legal precident is often a double-edged sword when it comes to application against sitting governments.

The more the GOP whines about it, the more I'm curious as to what will be revealed. The whole Iran/Contra thing stunk to the heavens. Ollie North the Mute Marine should STILL be in Levinworth for his contributions, along with all the co-conspirators if not for Bush I handing out pardons like condoms at a gay pride parade.

See, you proved my point.

Saying that Democrats want more government power over private citizens is not a negative statement. That is a core value. Except in election years, the party leaders will tell you that is what the party stands for.


Dont take it the wrong way, that is just fact.

then explain to me how the democrats want 'more power over private citizens'.

I've given you about a dozen examples of conservative usurpation of private liberties, why don't you give me a few examples from the other side?

For the record, TheKing refuses to accept that personal liberties have been curtailed in any form by this administration, even in the face of direct proof to the contrary. Rather than admit that section 213 of the USA PATRIOT act allows police to enter your home without warning or notification for 'Sneak and Peak' (a clear reduction on personal rights and a direct attack on the 4th amendment), he simply stopped commenting on the situation. You can see the exchange here.

For what its worth, I don't believe he's 'disassembling'. I honestly think he believes that everything is hunky and/or dory with this administration and any rights that were lost were ones that 'people really weren't using anyways'. As a result, trying to refute his claims with logic and fact are often wastes of time except as a means on which to hone your rhetorical skills.

That said... game on. :thumbsup

Your conclusions about my position do not accurately reflect my position about the Patriot Act and I did not "simply stop commenting" on the situation as I made my points and did not have any other points to make.

The Patriot Act still requires permission from the Courts before the police can carry out whatever part the Patriot Act they want to enforce. The Patriot Act only affects those that are suspected of criminal activity and/or "terrorist" activity. It does not affect every day Joe citizens.

Will there be mistakes made...undoubtedly...as there has been with a multitude of other laws. Will there be some abuses of the law...undoubtedly (none have been found yet that have teeth)...as there has been with a multitude of other laws.

I do not fear the Patriot Act and it has been veted before Congress (I watched the entireity of the hearings) so if the Congress approves the Patriot Act again it will be with wide open eyes.

Do I approve of all aspects of the Patriot Act...no...do I approve of its intent...yes.

I'm still astounded how you can claim that an everyday beat cop can enter your home, without your knowledge or receipt of a warrant, to snoop around and remove any physical items thought to be related to the case is not something that affects the 'average joe'. Remember, there's no special requirement for you to get the 'sneak and peek' treatment... you need only be suspected of a crime. You might want to read the act itself and its various analyses.

My conclusions about your stance are 100% accurate based on your commentary to this point. You may want to review your comments.

To remind you, my last question was this:
I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Are you finally prepared to give one?

Not speaking for either side but no administration in history has EVER released documents in regards to these nominations for the Supreme Court. Go Libertarian!!

Well when he says the democrats want a big government to control your lives he's referring to big government overseeing corporations.
When it comes to individual liberty the democrats have been leading the fight for those rights for decades (starting with the civil rights movement)

The conservatives believe that any increase in government taxation, spending, or regulation interferes with people's freedoms. So in the name of freedom corporations should be allowed to pollute freely and not have to pay for the cleanup, they should pay a lower tax rate than the average citizen and workers should have no rights whatsoever because it makes it impossible for these multi-billion dollar conglomerates to "compete".

However in the name of national security they're willing to throw out the entire bill of rights and throw trillions of taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex.

So to make it simple

Democrats fight for the rights of the individual over the corporations while Republicans fight for the rights of corporations over individuals.
When republicans refer to big government taking away rights, it basically means they're trying to get corporations to stop polluting or using slave labor or avoid taxation.

Truth be told, most governments prior to the last generation or so have had the good sense to try to pick judicary that were relatively centrist and impartial too (with some notable exceptions).

Perhaps I'm looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but in the past if there was some guy looking to be on the supreme court that wanted to overturn or strike down a wide swath of popular existing case law to please his masters, it was generally accepted that in the interest of public good he'd be quietly removed from the running. Things are considerably more pugnacious these days, in these opening days of the 'cold civil war'.

Hillary shaking her head about these issues:

Private Industry = NO NO
Private Gun Ownership = NO NO
Private Land Ownership = NO NO
Private Health Care = NO NO
Private Welfare = NO NO
Private Retirment = NO NO

This is a perfect example of why the court system is so important in a government such as ours.

Theoretically speaking, if someone wanted to pass a law saying we will kill all the left handed people in this country next Friday.....if 50% of both chambers of congress vote yea and the president signs the bill....it IS the law of the land.
Now obviously no reasonable person believes something like this would happen, but sometimes congress and the president do succumb to the "mob mentality" and pass unconstitutional laws.

If it weren't for an independent court system, ALL of the left handed people would be dead. The courts are the only recourse the left handed people would have to prevent execution.

Now if a district court judge says that the law is unconstitutional and ordered all left handed people immediately released from custody, the conservatives would whine that the judge is "legislating from the bench" and call him an "activist judge" because according to them the only thing the judge is allowed to do is "interpret the law" so in this case the only thing the judge could decide is whether or not the plaintiff was left handed.

In short, the independence of our courts is what keeps us free. An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a dictator can. It is the power of the courts to keep the other two branches of government in check that guarantees us our constitutional rights.

Bush has just nominated someone to the highest court in the land where he will stay for probably 30 years or more. A thorough and exhaustive vetting process is what the American people deserve and should demand.