The theater of the absurd and the chamber of horrors

[Zogo]

Some embarrassing statistics concerning Iraq:


-About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces

-Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

-Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion

and then there's this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_rebuilding_dc that's another $75 million down the drain.

[MidnightStalker]

In a world where polls mean most...

[VeeKaChu]

It's OK Zogo, with yesterday's passage of Bush's pet bill in the Senate we nudge closer to becoming *the* superpower that embraces torture and the federally-legislated "dissappearing" of enemies of the state. In short order (well actually probably not until after the repugnantcans once again steals control of the Houses in November, thanks god for Diebold) it'll become 'dangerous' to publish these sorts of treasonous stories, and then we won't have to see them anymore.

Luckily, if the Courts actually do their jobs this new bill will be found to be un-Constitutional (legal scholars all over the country have already said that it's a lock, because adherence to the GC is already written into the Constitution and cannot be legally legislated away), and the country may be saved. If they don't, then the Constitution is dead, as is America.


John Stewart makes me laugh and cry at the same time - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIybRwBDhQo

[xero]

I don't want to dive into legalistic waters too deeply Veek, but I'd like to take issue with your views of the constitutionality of this torture law.

I'm a firm believer in the legalistic theory called Attitudinalism. This means that there is no such thing as an absolute law or absolute constitutionality -- only law and constitutionality as it relates to those who interpret it.

Anyways, onto the meat of the subject. You'll see where I was going with Attitudinalism at the end of the post when I wrap it up.

First, our Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. This means you could have the most blatantly unconstitutional law on the records for years/centuries/eons, and as long as no actual case concering a grievance is brought before the Court, they don't have to make a ruling.

Second, our Supreme Court hears cases based on various threshold considerations. Here's a simple list of the important ones: Standing, mootness, political questions doctrine, deferrence to the authoring agencies, and presumed constitutionality. Statistical analysis from Lexis-Nexis cites that when the Court is politically aligned with the other branches of government, presumed constitutionality or deferrence to authoring agencies (in this case, it would be Congress and the White House/Department of Justice) is used to allow the Supreme Court to excuse themselves from examining cases about nine out of ten times.

Third (and lastly), the Supreme Court right now is controlled by a new-and-improved right-leaning 5-4 majority, now featuring that facist Samuel Alito and John Roberts as the new "court unity" Chief Justice. Do you really think Roberts has any interest in "court unity" against his conservative ideology?

These three points culminate to show that it's pretty goddamned unlikely that a case regarding this law would ever be brought before the Supreme Court -- and that even if it was, all statistical trends heavily favor them ruling in favor of the torture policies in one way or another.

The constitutionality of this new torture legislation is completely irrelevant. It's about how the justices decide to handle such constitutionality questions that's important (see: Attitudinalism).

-----

But all in all, this whole torture definition fiasco is a complete and utter joke that continues to make us look like fools in the eyes of the world.

It's just like arguing over the semantics of the word "is." Except instead of blowjobs and cigars as sex toys, we're torturing people.

Hooray!

:rolleyes:

[VeeKaChu]

Nice reply Xero, thanks. Those are considerations I was not aware of.
What I get from it, however, is that you're essentially explaining ways that the high court can abrogate their actual responsibility in considering the outrages in this legislation.

But I'll remind you that a case is already heading their way that will bring all this before them, the decision of the 78th Circuit Court that holds that the criminal George W. Bush violated international law with his illegal wiretapping. Based on your third point, the SCOTUS would want to hear that, if only to overturn it. This will bring them into conflict with the "We-Embrace-Torture" bill, as it includes language to retroactively pardon "CheneyCo, et.al." for past and future violations of international law, and my understanding is that this is where the blatant unconstitutionality derives from... if they rule based on the legislation as it's written, they are embracing its inherent unconstitutionality.

[MidnightStalker]

Has anyone ever called you a cynic, Veek?

[xero]

But I'll remind you that a case is already heading their way that will bring all this before them, the decision of the 78th Circuit Court that holds that the criminal George W. Bush violated international law with his illegal wiretapping. Based on your third point, the SCOTUS would want to hear that, if only to overturn it. This will bring them into conflict with the "We-Embrace-Torture" bill, as it includes language to retroactively pardon "CheneyCo, et.al." for past and future violations of international law, and my understanding is that this is where the blatant unconstitutionality derives from... if they rule based on the legislation as it's written, they are embracing its inherent unconstitutionality.The Supreme Court waffles on rulings all the time though. It's a misperception that the Court stays consistent.

A couple prime examples you may be interested in examining to see severe waffling.

US v Lopez compared to Gonzales v Raich

In Lopez the court strikes down the Gun Free School Zones Act because they claim there is no substantial evidence that guns in high schools directly affects interstate commerce, which was what the law was passed under.

The precedent for "anything and everything Congress says is interstate commerce goes" dates back to a case in the 40s titled Wickard v Filburn, which states something like growing wheat or grain for your own personal consumption directly effects interstate commerce because it keeps you from wanting to go out and buy competing grains that may be interstate commerce related.

In Lopez the court bluntly states that the ruling in Wickard is a radical violation of the 10th Amendment, and that the case should never have been decided as it was. But because they've had no case that gives them the authority to overturn Wickard, the most they can do is strike down the Gun Free School Zones Act in Lopez

Now, compare that to the majority ruling in Gonzales. Here, the Court now has a literally identical case to Wickard, with the same justices who ruled against the US in Lopez (the ones who said Wickard was completely wrong and violated the 10th Amendment), with the only difference being some old ladies are growing pot for personal consumption (and not very much of by the way, I think it was a total of between 6 and 8 outdoor plants, a grand total of between 1 and 2 pounds of pot) rather than farmers growing wheat.

So, Chief Justice Rehnquist finally has the opportunity to strike down Wickard, which Rehnquist had been consistently ruling against in all interstate commerce cases since the late 1970s. But what does the court do? They waffle. They rule in favor of Gonzales, claiming that those 6-8 outdoor plants used for personal consumption have a direct effect on interstate commerce of marijuana trafficking -- the same ruling issued in Wickard with the exact same logic.

What happened? Attitudinalism happened.

But think about this: why did the court not rule for the US in Lopez? I'm almost positive that the gun trafficking is a much bigger issue in inner city San Antonio (where is where the school Lopez took his loaded gun into) than pot is for some senior citizens in California. So then, why did they rule interstate commerce-based congressional regulation connected to gun trafficking as unconstitutional, and then totally waffle on pot? Attitudinalism.

They also do it in another case, US v Morrison. They make a ruling consistent with their conservative beliefs -- and strike down the Violence Against Women Act, leaving a rape victim with no recourse -- claiming that there is no connection between violence against women and interstate commerce (even though congressional studies indicate otherwise).

So from this we can draw that this particular Court thinks that:

Guns are okay (especially in high schools -- it should be noted this case was decided a couple years before Columbine)
Violence against women is okay (especially when it's two college football players raping a woman they had literally just met)
Pot is bad (especially when you're an old lady with MS trying to grow for your own personal pain-killing uses)

See? Attitudinalism explains a LOT about how the Court works. Now, I'll be the first to admit it's not perfect, but it predicts events perfectly far more often than it happens to be wrong.

[MidnightStalker]

The court got it right. If Congress could federalize rape and assault, it's hard to think of anything it couldn't. This also leads to Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement in the Lopez case that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything. Of course guns in schools are bad. It's naive to think the Court think otherwise.

[xero]

The court got it right. If Congress could federalize rape and assault, it's hard to think of anything it couldn't.Exactly -- if that's your point of view.

What about those who think it's good to federalize rape and assault? Equality's the name of the game, right? If you let state laws make their own criminal statutes for rape, you devolve the justice system back to the early 1900's, when men in southern states could get away with raping women because she had a short skirt and "had it coming" -- that's a violation of the 13th and 14th and their Equal Protections, is it not?

Furthermore, does that mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because it criminalizes violent racism at the federal level? Are you suggesting hate crimes should be permitted if that's what the state decides they want to do? I hope you aren't a black dude living in Mississippi!

Now, I know you don't believe that violent racism or rape or assault should be advocated. I'm just making a point -- this is what happens when you start toying with the meanings of one Amendment against another. See why constitutional law as a legal study is so open-ended? See why Attitudinalism plays such an important role in understanding judicial theory?

This is why I don't want to get too into all this legalese, it's detracting from the point of the thread.

But my point for veek was that they lack consistency in their rulings, and that's just the way the Court works.

In short, there is no such thing as "right" when it comes to constitutionality. Be wary of how you use the term "right" in reference to the Supreme Court, because that term holds no relevance whatsoever for this subject.

-----

Anyways onto how it relates to the subject at hand:

The Supreme Court can justify ruling anything any way it wants depending on what their political and attitudinal motives are at the time. The Supreme Court is made up of some of our most brilliant legal scholars -- so it's no surprise they can twist any law to have any meaning or relevance (or lack of) through legal technicalities.

So then, it's entirely likely that despite this bill probably being unconstitutional and in violation of international law, they will support it.

Now, it's also possible they'll shoot the White House down -- though with the literature available on Roberts and Alito out there, I find it to be unlikely, since they're both partisan hacks like Scalia, as opposed to true conservatives like Rehnquist was (though actually, Roberts may be in between the two).

[MidnightStalker]

This is why I don't want to get too into all this legalese, it's detracting from the point of the thread.
Actually I think the point of the thread was relating to how people are so dominated by these polls coming from Iraq, as well as the state of reconstruction of Iraq and their police academy. It was the cynic leftist extremist who derailed on constitutional scope.

[xero]

Actually I think the point of the thread was relating to how people are so dominated by these polls coming from Iraq, as well as the state of reconstruction of Iraq and their police academy. It was the cynic leftist extremist who derailed on constitutional scope.But he has a point. Also, Veek isn't an extremist. "Extremist" is a political buzzword used to get people to vote for Republicans and "national security." Until Veek start bombing buildings or killing people in the name of his cause, he's just left.

Though he certainly is a cynic. WONDER-TWIN CYNIC POWERS ACTIVATE! *touches gloves with Veek*

With the passage of this bill, we do officially allow Bush to have authority to torture anybody for any reason he wants -- and that includes you.

We also just passed another wiretapping bill.

Bush also gave a statement yesterday saying that all of these reports that show we're making the situation worse rather than better were "classified." As in, not for us to see. Because we don't need to know the truth. And then today he went on to call the the same "classified" information "propaganda by critics."

Back to the vein of constitutionality -- is this not what Jefferson most feared when he spoke out against Federalism? I thought this president was a conservative! I thought he valued conservative ideals!

I never realized that warrantless wiretaps, arbitrary torture, and calling legitimate government documents "propaganda" while at the same time saying they should have never been seen by the public were conservative acts. What would Eisenhower, one of the most conservative presidents of the last century, thought? I know Nixon and McCarthy (just replace "Communist with "terrorist" and go read some of this speeches and statements) would have given it a thumbs-up! Do we really want our current president to be an amalgam of Nixon and McCarthy? I'm personally ashamed those sons of bitches ever held office.

In fact, these policies carry for me a distinct likeness to fascism. And this is certainly an expansion of federal affirmative authority rather than a curtailment.

Seems like Bush is going the wrong way, isn't he?

[Zogo]

In a world where polls mean most...

when the majority of people we're supposed to be "protecting" are advocating violence against us it'd be a good idea to pay attention..

this isn't 4 out of 5 doctors recommend colgate toothpaste.

thanks god for Diebold

not only will politicians be able to mess with these..but with a fairly common vending key ANYone can mess with the machine.

John Stewart makes me laugh and cry at the same time - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIybRwBDhQo

lol "senior terror linguist"

Of course guns in schools are bad. It's naive to think the Court think otherwise.

why?

[MidnightStalker]

Seeing as how you're an advocate for big guns everywhere and anywhere, I can't tell which part of the quote you're asking about.

[Terminotaur]

Lest you forget, the loss of these trivial rights is needed for the FIGHT FOR FREEEEDOM!

[Zogo]

Seeing as how you're an advocate for big guns everywhere and anywhere, I can't tell which part of the quote you're asking about.

both.

[AntioK]

this planet is so fucked

[Repair Man]

atleast we have front row seats

[Zogo]

atleast we have front row seats

I better have frontrow seats for this 20 million dollar victory party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_victory

[puppychow]

the fatal flaw of US doctrine at the moment is that we feel we need to give people democracy when clearly many don't want it (and shouldnt have it rammed down their throat). it's a strategy doomed for failure.