Originally Posted by rickholio

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'.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

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

Originally Posted by Lenny2

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.

Originally Posted by rickholio

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?

Originally Posted by Lenny2

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.

Originally Posted by Lenny2

WTF are you talking about? And how the hell did Hillary get into this conversation?

Just because someone is a member of my party doesn't mean I agree with their position on everything. That would be absurd.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Hilllary is a big liberal and those are liberal values.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Please dont take this the wrong way or take offense, but you are looking at it from an angle if you think an ACLU lawyer is an impratial centrist.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Thats a very weak argument. For your argument to be right, you would have to assume that the people didn't elect the people making the legislation that the wanted to kill all left handed people.

Bottom line is that the citizens of the country elect the official based on their values and want them to inact legislation and appoint interpretors of that legislation (judges) with the same values.


Why should one of the many minority parties demand that a judge have their values.

Originally Posted by theking

It will not be an every day "beat cop" acting upon the provisions of the Patriot Act. I approve of the the fact that one need only be suspected of a crime. I want people that are suspected of crimes and/or "terroist" activities investigated. Your average Joe citizen is not going to be suspected of a crime...so it does not affect your average Joe citizen.

Originally Posted by directfiesta

People should ask for documents in such an important matter, mainly taking in consideration all the lies and propaganda that this administration pushes....




spin.... spin .... Sounds like the same wrtiter as the one doing the Bush speeches ....

Originally Posted by Lenny2

According to your logic we should be allowed to kill all of the left handed people if that's what 50.1% of the American people want right?

Originally Posted by rickholio

The provisions of the USA PATRIOT act directly rewrite portions of the criminal code. Thus, all law enforcement, I repeat, all law enforcement can and will use these provisions. There is no special "patriot act police" that have these powers handed down from on high. Even Dpty. Cleetus in Bumblefuck, Idaho has these rights, if he gets it in his head that the "hahahahahahas down the end of Buffalo road have one of them thar crack houses in it".

Read the bill. Take some time and actually READ the damn thing.

Originally Posted by theking

I have read it more than once and have followed all hearings held that involves the Patriot Act...and you are mis-representing the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by USA PATRIOT act, section 213

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Originally Posted by rickholio

Name one element of my interpretations of the patriot act that are 'misrepresentations'.

- Are only 'special officers' entitled to use these new powers (as you claim), or are they available to all law enforcement officers?

- Are police now, or are they not, allowed to enter your place of work, residence, or other property without requirement to disclose their presence as clearly defined in section 213 of the USA PATRIOT act?

You clearly find my perspective on this 'misleading', based on... what, exactly? The fact that you don't agree?


You dodged a direct question in the prior thread, and you mealy-mouthed a response in this one. Here's the correct way to answer a yes or no question: "Yes", or "No". You are permitted to add 'sir' afterwards.

The question is, paraphrased for simplicity:

"Do you believe that rights have been lost during this administration?"


The 'alterations' have given the police the ability to invade your property and take your shit and not even tell you why or tell you why they're doing it. Being presented with a warrant at time of search and seizure was one right you were afforded by the fourth amendment and centuries of case law that has now been removed.

"Altered" looks, flies and quacks like a duck called 'curtailed' in this instance.



Quoth you, in the other thread:


You claim to have read the act. If so, then you would have known that section 213 was NOT part of the sunset provisions and precisely the point at issue here. Thus, it was a canard, a straw man argument that served no purpose but to distract from the main point.

As to the 'neverending stream of right wingers' comment, that was in reference to the people Bush will likely nominate, following HIS established pattern of behaviour.


If you had no fear of terrorists and/or criminals, you would see no need to change the laws. Fear underlies the entire structure of this administration, and fear is often the root cause for many of those that support it (with greed rounding up the rest).

I'm not without fear, but I fear far more an increasingly reckless and totalitarian state than disgruntled brown people.


It is absolutely applicable, although obviously highly contrived. These provisions are available to any law enforcement agent at any time for any crime, NOT LIMITED TO FEDERAL AGENTS. Where do you get the idea that there's limits on this to only federal agents? Wherever it's from, that source is in error.

Quoth DIRECTLY from the section itself:


Show me one part in there where it limits these powers, which directly amend the UCC, only to federal agencies.


The rhetorics are purely for illustrative purposes, and I challenge you to find a single aspect of the act that would deny its plausability.

I do not talk out of my ass on these matters, sir. I bother to inform myself and arm myself to the teeth with all available information before posting on elements of fact and public record. The pure fact is that section 213 allows police, as defined clearly above, to enter and procure property without informing you why, where or when.

The USA PATRIOT act has converted a right, enshrined into the UCC, to be exempt from police wandering through your house into a privilage to be revoked at any time on any suspicion by any law enforcement branch, dependant on the attitude of a judge at a given point in time. In fact, if they can get a federal judge to rubberstamp things, that judge need not even be in physical proximity of you (section 219). Perhaps this is the source of your belief that only federal forces have these extended abilities... 219 doesn't limit the scope of the act only to federals, it extends the ability of federals to act without geographical limitation IN ADDITION to giving local law enforcement those extra abilities (such as 213).

Originally Posted by dig420

if you really cared about your country and your freedom, 'hoss', and were anything more than an ignorant redneck you'd hate this administration more than I do.

Rick, remind me to buy you a hooker next time you're in Vegas. I don't have the patience to explain things to these unibrows anymore, I just call them names, but it's good to know someone is taking up the slack.

Originally Posted by theking

FYI...Danny boy...I do not approve of the majority of the policies of this administration. Do I hate this administration...no...do I find fault with it more than other administrations in my life time...possibly...but it has been my experience that every administration has fallen short of pleasing me...but then again that is not their job to please me...or you.

Originally Posted by dig420

shut the fuck up and go put some more baby powder on that sloping forehead, redneck. It's glowing. All you ever do on this board is post in support of your beloved leader GWB. That rugged self made man.

Originally Posted by dig420

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?

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

until people stop complaining on boards and actually do something nothing will change.

attend a rally, stand up in the streets with your btrothers and sisters of america and initiate change.

more action needs to be taken instead of talk

Originally Posted by Rich

Rush Limbaugh says so is about as far as you're going to get with this guy, don't waste your breath.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Even some idiot on GFY is still proposing universal healthcare. Thats not big government. That creates less beurocracy in the healthcare decision making process. LOL :thumbsup