Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

We are obsessed with Freedom theatre.

Something to do with our Puritan roots. You know, "we want the freedom to do X, as long as it doesn't include the freedom to do Y and Z too. Everyone knows Y and Z is wrong anyway."

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

Actually thats pretty common in the states, or you can't buy until after noon or so

I keep it simple and cheap for myself. Up on my meds and two glasses of Jack and coke. After that I'm golden

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

Well then yes exactly. We continually give up our rights to appease this cause or that and legislate morality and reduce our freedom.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Sounds like something the British did in the 1770s!

Didn't Obama sign into law something about locking up US citizens without trial, the other day?

I thought you guys lived and breathed freedom?

We do, some people just view "freedom" as a more fluid concept than others.

or some freedom are given up as law doesn't pertain to them. Like a law passed for no overnighters in a public park. Doesn't bother me since I don't use the park (exmple...a example)

Jihadin, it bothers me. Back here in the UK, people like to take telescopes and barbecues into parks on summer nights. In the winter, we like to rally cars through the parks.
Are you seriously telling me that if I lived in the USA I would not be able to drive my car through a park at night? The USA is going downhill!

Back on topic - what kind of a name is newt? It's almost as bad as the name Timothy or Matthew The chinese must be laughing - President Newt. Could you imagine Newt Khan, ruler of the Mongal hordes sweeping across Europe. The Mongal invasion would have died in its tracks!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Back on topic - what kind of a name is newt?

It's short for newton.

I totally didn't know that until someone mentioned it on a forum like 2 days ago.

Huffy wrote:

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

Actually thats pretty common in the states, or you can't buy until after noon or so

Aiiiieeeeee!!

@Rented Tritium. That may be, but Newton? Sounds like the kid that always got bullied at highschool!

Ronald Reagan has a ring to it, Bill Clinton likewise, but Newt???

Anyway, back on topic. I though the judges were a key part of the checks and balances - 1/3 president 1/3 judges 1/3 congress etc. If Newt tries to neuter the judges, won't there be riots or something?

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

In Georgia I couldn't buy beer on Sundays...a fact I was unaware of because I stayed on post and bought it at the Class 6, THEN I discovered that you couldn't buy yuengling in Georgia...fething godless communists!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Rented Tritium. That may be, but Newton? Sounds like the kid that always got bullied at highschool!

Ronald Reagan has a ring to it, Bill Clinton likewise, but Newt???

Anyway, back on topic. I though the judges were a key part of the checks and balances - 1/3 president 1/3 judges 1/3 congress etc. If Newt tries to neuter the judges, won't there be riots or something?

Pssst.... I don't know if you know this, but we don't really teach civics in schools anymore. Too busy focusing on math, science, and engineering stuff.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It was said of the British army during the napoleonic wars that it had the knack of finding the least qualified person and making him head of the army. Somehow, that seems to have transfered to modern politics. Rant over.

Everybody who would make a good President or other high level politician has something better to do.


Also, it might be worthwhile for our European friends to note that the laws regarding a lot of freedoms (or lack thereof) vary widely by state, and even county. For example, alcohol laws, driving laws, whether or not you can be in a park at night, etc.. In a lot of parks around where I'm from you can be there after dark, and a lot of them even have nighttime events, for example.

Jihadin wrote:I keep it simple and cheap for myself. Up on my meds and two glasses of Jack and coke. After that I'm golden

Good time of the year to stock up on those holiday packs that have free glasses at the same price as just a bottle.

I think it's hilariously amusing how people focus on the bolded part:

When asked by host Bob Schieffer how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.

while failing to acknowledge the rest of the quote.

Congress issues subpoenas to the Executive Branch all the time, and occasionally they even hold officers of the Executive in contempt.

Further, the inferior courts (District Courts and Appellate Courts) are actually created by Acts of Congress, not by the Supreme Court. Extending Congressional oversight to the judges serving on those courts is reasonable, at least from a Constitutional basis.

And finally, as Former Speaker Gingrich said, Congress already uses the power of subpoena over judges in case of impeachment.

What Gingrich is describing is essentially an impeachment proceeding against a sitting judge for exceeding their authority. There's a reasonable discussion that could be held as to whether impeachment is a legitimate way to compel judicial conformity with Congress, but that's a pretty far stretch from what the dialogue from the left has been.

This article, and those claiming "Gingrich wants to arrest judges!", is simply bald-faced politicking by people who don't bother with, and likely aren't interested in, the actual facts.

biccat wrote:What Gingrich is describing is essentially an impeachment proceeding against a sitting judge for exceeding their authority. There's a reasonable discussion that could be held as to whether impeachment is a legitimate way to compel judicial conformity with Congress, but that's a pretty far stretch from what the dialogue from the left has been.

Instead of talking about why hypothetical, undefined boogeyman "on the left" are what's talking about, why don't we talk about whether or not it's wise revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons, rather then just let the system work as it has been for 222 years? Is it actually broken? The decision that outraged conservatives so - the Biery case - was, in fact, reversed on appeal.

Ouze wrote:Instead of talking about why hypothetical, undefined boogeyman "on the left" are what's talking about, why don't we talk about whether or not it's wise revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons, rather then just let the system work as it has been for 222 years? Is it actually broken? The decision that outraged conservatives so - the Biery case - was, in fact, reversed on appeal.

First, we're not talking about "hypothetical, undefined boogeymen." I can link you the stories of the people who have been advancing this argument. The reason this is being put forth is to control the story about Gingrich and cast a critical eye on him so as to tarnish his appearance in the eyes of the electorate.

Second, this wouldn't "revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons." This is the power that Congress already has. The fact that they have failed to use it for political purposes doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Congress has shown a lot of deference to the judiciary, this proposal is asking for Congress to address the court as a coequal branch.

Third, the fact that Biery was reversed so quickly should raise a question as to the judge's fitness to serve, which Congress is specifically empowered to address. If a judge routinely makes erroneous and biased decisions - costing taxpayers, litigants and defendants money to appeal and reverse - then Congress has not only the power of impeachment, they (arguably) have the responsibility to remove a poorly performing judge from his position.

And I could link you to people arguing that the only way for the US to succeed is through it to embrace theocracy, Biccat.

I mean feth, I listen to them occasionally IRL. Some are in my extended family.

Dunno what your point is here.

biccat wrote:The fact that they have failed to use it for political purposes

Is a good thing. The last thing I want is for congressmen to get MORE power over this country; one way or the other, regardless of party, most of them would gladly run the country into the ground to get some extra cash from special interests and corporate sponsors.

They're already doing it anyway.

biccat wrote:
This article, and those claiming "Gingrich wants to arrest judges!", is simply bald-faced politicking by people who don't bother with, and likely aren't interested in, the actual facts.

Fun fact, the first, and only, time the bold phrase exists in this thread is the quoted body of biccat's post.

I am proud to say that his strong standards of argumentative integrity continue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
First, we're not talking about "hypothetical, undefined boogeymen." I can link you the stories of the people who have been advancing this argument.

And yet you haven't done so, perhaps because doing so would entail arguing against an expressed position, rather than one which you are free to alter as befits your own position.

I don't think Newt wants to arrest judges, I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent to subpoena judges decisions congress disagrees with, that sounds like intimidation. If instead judges faced subpoena to testify before congress based solely on partisan activism that'd be another kettle of fish...a kettle of fish salting in some alternate universe were a non partisan commute was to be found.

dogma wrote:Fun fact, the first, and only, time the bold phrase exists in this thread is the quoted body of biccat's post.

Wow dogma, you should really try to expand your horizons outside of Dakka.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5

I would say that your failure to investigate a position before making poor arguments laced with ad hominem attacks is surprising and unusual. But it's not.

dogma wrote:And yet you haven't done so, perhaps because doing so would entail arguing against an expressed position, rather than one which you are free to alter as befits your own position.

See above.

I like this particularly uninformed quote from some un-identified poster up-thread.

I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat.

Perhaps, since you've decided to take a position opposite mine, you could explain, without the personal attacks, how this argument amounts to "us[ing] the Constitution like a Nerf bat." Unless you think that the poster was referencing someone other than Mr. Gingrich when he said "certain politicians."

I'm certainly interested in the opinions of someone who "ended up winning" by "wagering" on his own "academic ability."

biccat wrote:
Wow dogma, you should really try to expand your horizons outside of Dakka.

So you chose to, arbitrarily, make reference to an argument no one else made in this particular thread, without making direct reference to said argument; which was the point of my criticism.

biccat wrote:
I would say that your failure to investigate a position before making poor arguments laced with ad hominem attacks is surprising and unusual. But it's not.

I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a form of argument which may, or may not, be fallacious. It is fallacious where it is substituted for a substantive point, but that was not the case in either my statement, or your's as quoted.

That said, I do find it terribly amusing that you would attempt to bandy about ad hominem charges (in the sense they are often used on the internet) while simultaneously committing to an ad hominem statement.

biccat wrote:
See above.

Had you provided support to begin with, rather than shifting the burden of proof, we could have avoided this unpleasantness.

biccat wrote:
Perhaps, since you've decided to take a position opposite mine...

That's odd, I don't think I've expressed a position in this thread, save for that you are not particularly good at supporting your position. I suppose that's in opposition to your position, on the grounds that expressing any position likely presumes to being able to support it, but you never expressly stated that your argument was of a quality sort.

biccat wrote:
...how this argument amounts to "us[ing] the Constitution like a Nerf bat." Unless you think that the poster was referencing someone other than Mr. Gingrich when he said "certain politicians."

It is an exercise of soft (Nerf: threats to subpoena) power (bat: Congress may subpoena) using Constitutional authority (powers granted to Congress) per the convenience of the dominant party. Admittedly, I am inferring that Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power, but I feel that his historical partisanship justifies the inference.

An independent judiciary is essential to keeping what is left of our democracy. Gingrich is a dangerous narcissistic pig with delusions of grandeur, but what does it say about Republicans currently that so many of them like a guy who left Congress in disgrace years ago with a $300,000 for ethics violations?

Unsurprisingly, a pro-adultery group is endorsing Gingrich. No, that's not a joke. They even bought a billboard.

http://wegoted.com/blog/default.asp?NID=839

Pro-Adultery Website Endorses Newt Gingrich
posted by From the Studio | Monday, December 19, 2011



Pro-adultery website AshleyMadison.com has erected a billboard in Pennsylvania endorsing Newt Gingrich for President. The billboard reads: "Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the Ashleymadison.com Era"

Ashley Madison founder Noel Biderman, said in a statement on Friday: "Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people."

"Gingrich proves that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone's ability to do a job. Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come. He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage."

AustonT wrote:I don't think Newt wants to arrest judges, I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent to subpoena judges decisions congress disagrees with, that sounds like intimidation.

You think he wouldn't use these powers to do just that...?

He's a total partisan hack, why wouldn't he?

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

^^ this

BrassScorpion wrote:An independent judiciary is essential to keeping what is left of our democracy.

There is no such thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:Gingrich is a dangerous narcissistic pig with delusions of grandeur, but what does it say about Republicans currently that so many of them like a guy who left Congress in disgrace years ago with a $300,000 for ethics violations?

That Gingrich is a savvy politician with a particularly impressive capacity to appeal to populism.

You know, for the guy who's meant to be the smartest man in the Republican Party, Newt doesn't seem to do a lot of reading. I mean, judges do actually explain their decisions. In fact, their decisions are delivered with explanations for their reasoning, and which precedents played an important role in the decision.

I mean, these things are often really long and written in that horrifically dry style they must teach in law school, so I'm not saying Newt has to actually read the things. But to be unaware of their existence... well that's a little odd considering the Newt's grand intellectual pedigree. Why, it's almost as if he's not actually that smart at all.

frgsinwntr wrote:Fear is the mind killer

Fear? I thought they said beer. Beer is the mind killer.

Not sure if Dune makes more or less sense now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:JBack on topic - what kind of a name is newt? It's almost as bad as the name Timothy or Matthew The chinese must be laughing - President Newt. Could you imagine Newt Khan, ruler of the Mongal hordes sweeping across Europe. The Mongal invasion would have died in its tracks!

For whatever reason, American politics is full of people with really odd names.

Tipper Gore
Scooter Libby
Dick Sweat
John Boehner
Anthony Wiener

Dick Armey