No Abuse of Guantanomo Prisoners

RE: 2 cheers for democracy?

>Doug, I find this one of the oddest, most puzzling of several

>odd and puzzling notions that seem to be touchstones of

>yous.

That's because, as set forth below, you are either distorting the point I am making or misunderstanding it (which may be my fault for not expressing it clearly enough) before thinking about it.

>Why should fully a third of the populace "weep" because it

>holds an opinion different from the majority?

As a general proposition, there is no reason to weep merely because one's views are held by a minority rather than a majority. But if the claims of Bush-haters are to be taken at face value -- that they (you) believe he is a destructive, dangerous, lying, war-mongering, stealing, corrupt criminal who is bringing this nation to ruin on both a foreign policy and economic level -- then it would only be natural to weep, wouldn't it, upon seeing that this fascist, dangerous criminal commands the popularity of a huge majority of citizens and appears to be sailing to easy re-election.

Do you really

>believe, as you told me the other day, that finding oneself

>disagreeing with the majority must engender "cognitive

>dissonance"?

Again, as a general proposition, no, it is not the case that merely finding yourself in the minority engenders cognitive dissonance. But when you believe that the President of your country is a uniquely corrupt and dangerous fascist-criminal who is plundering the nation's resources for his corporate crony friends and leading us into dangerous, unnecessary wars and imposing a Police State, and yet the vast majority of citizens who are governed by this President seem to support and admire him and want him to continue to hold office, that must create, at the very least, some serious frustration on your part, and, I would say, some intense confusion as to why it is that your fellow citizens can't even remotely see what you think is so abundantly clear.

>The anxiety you express about not being in the majority wasn't

>shared by the Framers. They feared the tyranny of the mob only

>slightly less than the tyranny of the despot. Thus the great

>powers to resist the majority will that the Constitution vests

>in the Senate. Backstopped by those "unelected judges."

I'm so glad you raised this point again, because if memory serves, there were some important points you neglected to address when we last discussed it, such as:

(a) although it is true that the Founders created the judiciary for the purpose, in part, to strike down duly enacted laws which are violative of the Constitution, and although it is also true that when judges exercise that authority properly, it promotes rather than hinders republican principles, do you recognize that judges, when striking laws, can also exceed their authority by inventing or invoking constitutional limitatations which actually do not exist, thereby striking duly elected laws due to their personal dislike for those laws, rather than due to some constitutional principle?; and,

(b) if the answer to (a) is "yes," do you believe that, given the unelected and life tenured status of federal judges, that when judges do this, it is quite dangerous, tyrannical, and anti-democratic?

>First, if they were terrorists, why were they

>>released?

>The U.S., after thoroughly investigating them, obviously

>concluded that they weren't terrorists and weren't a threat,

>and commendably, released them.

And if they were not terrorists and were not a threat, why were they imprisoned in the first place? You mean to say they were simply innocent people who were imprisoned and abused by the U.S. for no reason?

>Second, now that they are no longer in U.S.

>>custody, what is to prevent them from blabbing to anyone who

>>will listen all about the things you think should be kept

>>secret?

>Nothing is preventing them from disclosing what they know.

>But I doubt they know much about the layout or security

>measures at Guantanamo; I have the feeling they didn't see

>much during their stay on that lovely Carribean island.

They would certainly know as much or more about the prison layout, security measures and interrogation techniques as a lawyer who only visited the place for a few hours, and you just got through saying that the U.S. was justified in seeking to prevent such lawyers from telling what they know.

>>If they had any concern about secrecy, they just blew it by

>>releasing dozens of people, some of whom are probably

>talking

>>to the media as I write these words.

>No - I am certain that they frequently change the security

>schemes at Guantanamo for exactly that reason.

If so, there is no reason at all to try to gag lawyers who visit. You can't have it both ways.

> And, as I just

>said, I am quite sure the prisoners know far less and see far

>less than, say, an IRC member inspecting the prison.

There you go making shit up again. If the prisoners are kept in open cages for months at a time I would think they have the layout of the place memorized by now. What else do they have to do?

>>In case you were going to say they are "unlawful

>combatants,"

>>under the Geneva Convention, any prisoner taken during war

>is

>>entitled to a hearing to determine whether he is in fact an

>>unlawful combatant. No such hearings have been held.

>Entitled to what kind of hearing? How long after the

>detention is this hearing required to be held? Are they

>entitled to lawyers and an open hearing? What provisions of

>the Geneva Convention regarding illegal combatants has the

>U.S. violated?

If I follow your usual pattern, I will just tell you that "I don't do research for you" and that "if you don't believe me I don't give a fuck" and to look it up yourself. Since you have said that to me and to others you can hardly complain if I take the same position, right?

>>Yes. We would forever lose the right to criticize other

>>nations for practices such as arrest without judicial

>review,

>>right to counsel, or other due process rights -- assuming we

>>haven't lost it already.

>rather than as warriors

>waging an incomparably destructive and dangerous war on the

>United States -- says all one needs to know about why you

>oppose the Bush Administration's war on terrorism.

Oh, why don't you give the Republican Smear Machine a rest once in a while. There is no "war on terrorism," and only a real idiot would take that ridiculous slogan seriously. Terrorism is merely a style of warfare, not a cause. Saying we will make war on terrorism as a result of 9/11 is like saying we must make war on carrier-based aircraft after Pearl Harbor. What we are fighting is Islamism, a political philosophy based on the notion that compelling people to accept Islamic law is the best method of government for Muslim countries. If we hadn't inserted ourselves into a quarrel between the Islamists and their opponents in that region for our own benefit, we wouldn't have been attacked at all.

>No country, in the middle of a deadly war, can afford to

>refrain from attacking and punishing enemies until they have

>been given a full-fleged trial,

Blah, blah, blah.

>Numerous times throughout U.S. history, our Government has

>restricted the liberties we enjoy in peace, on the ground that

>doing so is necessary in times of war. Do you dispute that?

Of course not. And on almost all such occasions -- the Japanese-American internment in WWII, for example -- history has shown that the restrictions were completely unnecessary.

>This is false. I have made clear that I am against the

>detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. Government without due

>process.

So you feel Hamdi and Padilla should be immediately turned over to civilian authorities?

(at least until today, when the

>always-out-of-step 9th Circuit issued a decision which I have

>not yet read).

I am getting really tired of the Republican Lie that the 9th Circuit is some sort of bastion of liberalism. If a lot of its decisions were based on liberal philosophy rather than sound principles of law, one would expect that it would have a very high reversal rate by a Supreme Court that has a majority of Republican justices. But the FACT is that the 9th Circuit's reversal rate is NOT the highest of the Courts of Appeals, and is in fact in the middle of the pack. So much for this stupid lie you and the other rightist keep repeating.

>Constitutional liberties are different during time of war.

>That is a basic constitutional principle, and always has been

>since the founding of our Republic.

That simply does not accord with your statement above that U.S. citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla should receive due process.

RE: 2 cheers for democracy?

>As a general proposition, there is no reason to weep merely

>because one's views are held by a minority rather than a

>majority. But if the claims of Bush-haters are to be taken at

>face value -- that they (you) believe he is a destructive,

>dangerous, lying, war-mongering, stealing, corrupt criminal

>who is bringing this nation to ruin on both a foreign policy

>and economic level -- then it would only be natural to weep,

>wouldn't it, upon seeing that this fascist, dangerous criminal

>commands the popularity of a huge majority of citizens and

>appears to be sailing to easy re-election.

All right. You gave a serious and relatively restrained statement of your view. Let me try and respond in kind.

I do think it's possible for some of the people to fool many of the people much of the time, if that is their modus operandi. I sincerely believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and some others have a documented history of deep dishonesty in dealing with the public, and that W. goes along when his rather astute political radar tells him it would be expedient to do so, which is most of the time.

>Again, as a general proposition, no, it is not the case that

>merely finding yourself in the minority engenders cognitive

>dissonance. But when you believe that the President of your

>country is a uniquely corrupt and dangerous fascist-criminal ...

and yet the vast majority of

>citizens who are governed by this President seem to support

>and admire him and want him to continue to hold office, that

>must create, at the very least, some serious frustration on

>your part, and, I would say, some intense confusion as to why

>it is that your fellow citizens can't even remotely see what

>you think is so abundantly clear.

Well, no. First, as was dissected here, it is not quite honest to call 58% a vast majority.

Second, even tiny minorities have turned out to have been in the right. Indeed, the founders expected that from time to time the vast majority would probably be hoodwinked by office seekers and holders. Again, The Federalist and other contemporary evidence suggests this was one of the prime reasons for designing regular and frequent elections.

Third, as Sen. Sam Ervin said, "I am possessor of a great affliction, a Scotch-Irish conscience, which prevents me from following after a great multitude to do what I conceive to be evil."

(a) although it is true that the Founders created the

>judiciary for the purpose, in part, to strike down duly

>enacted laws which are violative of the Constitution, and

>although it is also true that when judges exercise that

>authority properly, it promotes rather than hinders republican

>principles, do you recognize that judges, when striking laws,

>can also exceed their authority by inventing or invoking

>constitutional limitatations which actually do not exist,

>thereby striking duly elected laws due to their personal

>dislike for those laws, rather than due to some constitutional

>principle?;

Of course. Judging is an affair of approximations, trying to pin down the centerline of what are most often fuzzy, multivariate issues. Intellectual weakness, lack of courage, ideological bent surely color judges' decisions. How could it be otherwise?

(b) if the answer to (a) is "yes," do you believe that, given

>the unelected and life tenured status of federal judges, that

>when judges do this, it is quite dangerous, tyrannical, and

>anti-democratic?

Less so than the alternative. The founders foresaw this was possible, but concluded that a judiciary free to decide independently of the pressure of the mob was so important that it was worth even the risk of those abuses. They also built self-correction into the system. If the court of last appeal gives a ruling that people don't like, the same issue can be brought before it again and again. As Tocqueville noted, part of the genious of the American judicial system is that a ruling is never final. If the people dislike a ruling sufficiently, repeated court challenge can be counted on over time to batter it down.

>I am getting really tired of the Republican Lie that the 9th

>Circuit is some sort of bastion of liberalism. If a lot of

>its decisions were based on liberal philosophy rather than

>sound principles of law, one would expect that it would have a

>very high reversal rate by a Supreme Court that has a majority

>of Republican justices. But the FACT is that the 9th

>Circuit's reversal rate is NOT the highest of the Courts of

>Appeals, and is in fact in the middle of the pack. So much

>for this stupid lie you and the other rightist keep

>repeating.

You should really learn to find out what you're talking about before opening that big filthy trap of yours, especially when it comes to your favorite pasttime - running around screetching "LIAR!!" every time you address an issue in the most tiresome fashion imaginable, like some sickly caricature of Al Franken.

<<News

U.S. Supreme Court Keeps a Watchful Eye on the 9th Circuit

Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, as shown by statistics compiled by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the High Court’s recently completed October Term, 2002, proved to be no exception to the 9th Circuit’s disfavored place amongst the justices.

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

. . . .

These continuing negative trends are certainly not reflective of the competency of the 9th Circuit’s entire bench, which includes some of the most respected appellate judges in the country. It is, however, indicative of a judicial philosophy to which some 9th Circuit judges adhere. Specifically, in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until that changes, it is likely the justices will keep a watchful eye on the federal appeals court out West by continuing to review and reverse a disproportionately large number of 9th Circuit decisions.>>

full cite: (http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm)

>>I am getting really tired of the Republican Lie that the

>9th

>>Circuit is some sort of bastion of liberalism. If a lot of

>>its decisions were based on liberal philosophy rather than

>>sound principles of law, one would expect that it would have

>a

>>very high reversal rate by a Supreme Court that has a

>majority

>>of Republican justices. But the FACT is that the 9th

>>Circuit's reversal rate is NOT the highest of the Courts of

>>Appeals, and is in fact in the middle of the pack. So much

>>for this stupid lie you and the other rightist keep

>>repeating.

>You should really learn to find out what you're talking about

>before opening that big filthy trap of yours,

Oh, blow it out your shriveled old ass, you Nazi shithead. If you think you can post of bunch of your right-wing crap here and get away with it you're even more of a fool than you appear.

>Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial

>activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals

>court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in

>recent years.

Has it? We will shortly see if the right-wing propagandists Doug is quoting actually have any FACTS that back up this claim. Let's read on.

>Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term

Oh, I see. So they are only talking about ONE TERM, although they earlier refer to "recent years." Uh huh.

>through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate

>courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from

>the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment

>of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the

>justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the

>federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments

>coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of

>the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Very interesting. Now let's see if this has anything to do with the question at issue.

>Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of

>the cases (24 of 80)

Hmmmmm. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the 9th covers about a third of the nation? I wonder why Doug's source "forgot" to mention this fact. Any theories, folks?

and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of

>59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this

>term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more

>than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous

>reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on

>the whole,

the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more

>reversals this past term than all the state courts across the

>country combined

Hmmmmm again. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the Supreme Court hears comparatively few appeals from state courts due to the fact THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET STATE LAW? Once again, a salient fact that Doug's source "forgot" to mention.

and represented nearly half of the overturned

>judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Oh my, how OMINOUS that sounds! Reading that, one might not at first realize that IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION AT HAND. Because it says absolutely nothing about the percentage of the 9th's decisions that get reversed, even in that one term, as compared to the percentage of reversals for other Courts of Appeals. It in NO WAY contradicts what I said -- that the 9th's reversal rate is NOT the highest (or even the second highest) among the Courts of Appeals.

In short, it is exactly the sort of lying smear job one has come to expect from lying right-wing shits like Doug. Armed with crap from right-wing hate groups like the so-called "Center for Individual Freedom," they smear it on message boards like this at every opportunity. But here, it will not work. Go back to masturbating to your photo of Hitler, Doug. You are playing out of your league.

>Oh, blow it out your shriveled old ass, you Nazi shithead. If

>you think you can post of bunch of your right-wing crap here

>and get away with it you're even more of a fool than you

>appear.

LOL!!! One can always tell how cornered you feel by how vicious your name-calling and vulgarity is. And you got really angry here, which is a sign of how wrong you know you are. I LOVE IT.

So you didn't like that source? It spewed right-wing crap? How about the Washington Post, which you said you read. Here's what its Supreme Court reporter, Joan Biskupic, had to say about the 9th Circuit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/national/holdingcourt/courts091099.htm):

<<Still, the 9th is probably the nation's most controversial circuit. Despite the conservative influence of the Reagan-Bush judges and the moderate Clinton appointees, it remains one of the most liberal circuits. It also has the dubious distinction of being the circuit most reversed by the Supreme Court. So, if you lose a case in the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court agrees to review it, chances are you'll win.

What's that, bitch? Is that Washington Post a rightt-wing rag?

If you think you're going to make some point by claiming that there are other circuits that have a 100% reversal rate in certain terms because 1 out of 1 of the decisions they make which is reversed gets appealed, and that this % is higher than the 9th Circuit's, which has 19 out of 25 or some similar number reversed, then save it. Nothing could be dumber. As the Washingon Post makes clear, the Supreme Court far more frequently reaches down to take 9th Circuit cases and reverse them, because those decisions are so out-of-step.

None of your name-calling and lying can change that.

"Go back to masturbating to your photo of Hitler, Doug."

That's pretty harsh woodie. I think it much more likely that he jerks off to his hero Roy Cohn.

RE: 9th Circuit Appeals

I don't know whether doug is right or not about the 9th Circuit.

What I do know is that his figures are utterly meaningless.

First, the number of federal appeals to the Supreme Court is clearly an infinitesimally small fraction of the total number of appeals heard by the Circuit Courts. The overturning rate for 9th Circuit appeals is, therefore, such a small proportion of its total caseload as to be meaningless.

Second, the number of federal appeals to the Supreme Court in its own right is very small. We're talking about less than a hundred appeals all up, if I understand doug's figures, for the term. Such a sample is itself statistically meaningless. A few appeals could swing the figures dramatically in one direction or antoher.

Third, until we know something of the 9th Circuit's number of judges and area of coverage, we don't know what these figures mean. For example, the map at the Federal Court website suggests that the 9th Circuit covers the whole of California, which means that it covers a state that would be one of the 10 largest economies in the world if it were an independent nation. Such a region is likely to generate lots of litigation and lots of appeals, compared to, say, the Pacific Northwest. I'm guessing that the 9th Circuit has a larger number of judges than many of the other circuits, based on the maps of the different circuits. But I'm only guessing that: is it true? I don't know.

Fourth, we also need to know something of the extent of litigation in that area. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, generates far more federal cases than its population would suggest, because it happens to be based in Washington. I have no idea whether Californians are more litigious than their fellow Americans in other states, but it's an important question to answer in order to make sense of the figures.

I don't particularly care if the Washington Post also thinks the 9th Circuit gets overturned more often than others, because most journalists have no idea what figures mean either. Until some law school does a properly-calibrated study, using a statistically meaningful number of federal appeals (judging by the figures, it would have to be for quite a few years), and making proper comparisons based on population, number of circuit judges, and so forth, the raw figures mean nothing. Doug might be right - but he might be completely wrong. None of us can know with these figures, so the "debate" is pointless.

RE: 9th Circuit Appeals

>I don't particularly care if the Washington Post also thinks

>the 9th Circuit gets overturned more often than others,

>because most journalists have no idea what figures mean

>either. Until some law school does a properly-calibrated

>study, using a statistically meaningful number of federal

>appeals (judging by the figures, it would have to be for quite

>a few years), and making proper comparisons based on

>population, number of circuit judges, and so forth, the raw

>figures mean nothing.

What an awesome example this is of how some people are so blindly ideological that they will never believe something they don't want to believe, no matter how much proof you show them.

First, I post proof of the 9th's Circuit uniquely high reversals from a website which, using publicly maintained reversal data, statistically demonstrated how out-of-step the 9th Circuit is and how much more frequently it is reversed than basically every other circuit combined. But nope - that wasn't good enough, said one of the homo-socialists here, because that came from a conservative website!

So then I go to one of the liberal churches and get the same exact analysis from one of the liberal oracles, the Washington Post (which the first homo-socialist says he reads regularly and even cites to), and then some other homo-socialist comes along and says that this source isn't good either because the person saying it isn't a lawyer - right, it's just the reporter who spends every day of his life covering the Supreme Court for one of the most important papers in the nation (and most judicial reporters for large newspapers and media are lawyers), so what the fuck does he know about the federal judiciary?

I could find a video of the 9th Circuit singing in unison saying that they are the most reversed Circuit in the country, and that still wouldn't be good enough - because True Believers never let something as insiginficant as proof get in the way of their Beliefs, no matter how compelling the proof is. That's what makes them True Believers.

And meanwhile - all they do is carp and deny and stomp their feet, not wanting to believe, dismissing every source that shows that they are wrong, while never posting their own proof of anything. And now they will all swoon down together and congreate and pat each other on their sourceless backs and think the fact that the choir they preached to likes them is proof that they are right.

>>Oh, blow it out your shriveled old ass, you Nazi shithead.

>If

>>you think you can post of bunch of your right-wing crap here

>>and get away with it you're even more of a fool than you

>>appear.

>LOL!!! One can always tell how cornered you feel by how

>vicious your name-calling and vulgarity is. And you got

>really angry here, which is a sign of how wrong you know you

>are. I LOVE IT.

LOL! YOU are actually calling SOMEONE ELSE "vicious" and "vulgar"? Is there no end to your hypocrisy? If being vicious and vulgar is a sign of being "cornered" then you must feel "cornered" every time you post here.

Don't be such a dolt as to flatter yourself that you have the ability to "corner" me or anyone else here. You are a ridiculous old poof who makes a fool of himself here on a regular basis pontificating about subjects of which you know nothing, that's all.

>So you didn't like that source?

Another one of the phony, right-wing "think tanks" that infest Washington? Why wouldn't I like it?

>What's that, bitch? Is that Washington Post a rightt-wing

>rag?

Dung, you wet little shit, we are still waiting for you to post FIGURES showing that the 9th has a higher reversal rate than any other Court of Appeals. I think this must be the third or fourth time in this thread I have pointed this out. Still nothing from you.

>

>If you think you're going to make some point by claiming that

>there are other circuits that have a 100% reversal rate in

>certain terms because 1 out of 1 of the decisions they make

>which is reversed gets appealed, and that this % is higher

>than the 9th Circuit's, which has 19 out of 25

Still having trouble mastering basic algebra, Dung? Let me help. The reveral rate of a Court of Appeals is NOT the percentage of its decisions accepted for review by the Supremes and reversed. The reversal rate IS the percentage of ALL decisions of that court reversed by the Supremes. We have yet to see you post any numbers on that.

>or some similar

>number reversed, then save it. Nothing could be dumber. As

>the Washingon Post makes clear, the Supreme Court far more

>frequently reaches down to take 9th Circuit cases and reverse

>them, because those decisions are so out-of-step.

>

>None of your name-calling and lying can change that.

But you are the one who is lying, as usual, Dung. The article you quoted said no such thing. The Supremes cannot "reach down to take" cases from a Court of Appeal, they can only choose to review those cases in which one of the parties asks for review. What percentage of 9th circuit cases were appealed to the Supremes last term and of that percentage how many did the Supremes take? Do you even know? Looks like, as usual, you are making shit up because you have no facts. That's par for the course with you, Dung.

RE: 9th Circuit Appeals

>I don't know whether doug is right or not about the 9th

>Circuit.

>

>What I do know is that his figures are utterly meaningless.

>First, the number of federal appeals to the Supreme Court is

>clearly an infinitesimally small fraction of the total number

>of appeals heard by the Circuit Courts. The overturning rate

>for 9th Circuit appeals is, therefore, such a small proportion

>of its total caseload as to be meaningless.

I'm not sure I would call it "meaningless," but you are right in saying that the percentage of cases decided by the 9th that are overturned by the Supremes is far smaller than implied by the skewed figures our friend Dung posted.

If you want to know how "out of step" the 9th is with other Courts of Appeal, you need to look at either the percentage of its total decisions that are reversed by the Supremes as compared to that of other CA's OR the percentage of its total decisions appealed that are reversed by the Supremes. For some strange reason Dung does not want to talk about these numbers. I wonder why?

>I'm guessing that the 9th Circuit has a larger

>number of judges than many of the other circuits, based on the

>maps of the different circuits. But I'm only guessing that:

>is it true? I don't know.

You are a good guesser. The 9th has the largest number of judges of any of the Courts of Appeals, and covers an area that includes about one third of the entire population of the United States. Dung tells us that 30% of the Court of Appeals decisions reviewed by the Supremes last term were from the 9th. Since the 9th covers more than 30% of the nation, that is about the average number one would expect.

You will notice that the right-wing "think tank" article Dung first posted on this issue tries to make it seem as though that 30% figure proves that the 9th is responsible for an unusually large percentage of the decisions reviewed by the Supremes. If they had mentioned that the 9th covers MORE THAN 30% of the country, of course, that figure would no longer seem disproportionate. So they don't mention it. It reminds me of the way the infamous Senator McCarthy once ran for a judgeship by accusing his opponent of profiting from his office by more than $300,000.00. Turns out that figure was simply the cumulative amount of salary the man had earned during all his years as a judge. Typical right-wing smear tactics. Is it really a surprise that Dung does the same?

>Abraham Lincoln, everyone's favorite defender of liberty,

>suspended the right of habeus corpus and other constitutional

>protections during the Civil War.

This horseshit is insupportable. No surprise that Doug approves of this sorry episode, but even he ought to be ashamed to admit it.

The events he refers to were damned by the Court after the war in a landmark ruling on constitutional protection of civil liberties. The Court's decision was that military rule could not supersede the civil courts in areas where the civil courts and government remained open and operational -- which the current administration has so far ignored, just as Lincoln ignored the Court for a time.

In 1862, a number of so-called Copperheads criticized Lincoln for violating the Constitution. In response he went further, suspending habeas corpus nationwide and ordering the arrest of some 13,000 citizens under military authority.

Immediately the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional in the absence of an act of Congress. But Lincoln and the military ignored the ruling.

In 1866. after the war ended, the Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal. In the heart of the ruling, Justice David Davis wrote:

"These securities for personal liberty thus embodied were such as wisdom and experience had demonstrated to be necessary for the protection of those accused of crime. And so strong was the sense of the country of their importance, and so jealous were the people that these rights, highly prized, might be denied them by implication, that, when the original Constitution was proposed for adoption, it encountered severe opposition, and, but for the belief that it would be so amended as to embrace them, it would never have been ratified.

"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

RE: Americans love Bush

>Sen. Paul Tsongas (D) once said that you can't be pro-jobs and

>anti-corporation. You can't consistently urge that

>corporations be soaked with tax increases and then also claim,

>at least with a straight face, that you favor job creation.

>I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why that is - but

>apparently, the "lower income Americans" who support Bush's

>economic policies have already figured this out.

Then how about a little fiscal responsibility? Tax cuts should go hand in hand with spending cuts. Dubya has been the most fiscally irresponisble President in decades. Conseratives used to campaign for such things as a balanced budget and fiscal responisbility. Why is that now un-conservative?

Apparently the accident occurred at birth or before. All substance was transmitted to the dick and the brain shriveled.

the Cajun

RE: 9th Circuit Appeals

And in the meantime, doug, how about answering the question I posed, instead of going off on a stupid rant about why people didn't accept your so-called statistics?

After all, none of the questions I raised shows that you are wrong: merely that your figures prove nothing. We live in an age of statistics where so many of the statistics are actually drivel. The media is the worst offender, rattling off meaningless figures about so many things as if they prove something.

So if you want to "prove" that the 9th Circuit is hopelessly out of step with the law, all I'm asking you to do is to produce some meaningful statistics. Not distortions, half truths and incomplete figures.

You may well be right about the 9th Circuit. I don't know. But your figures don't even begin to prove your case.