Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 12,326
John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination
    #4424880 - 07/19/05 06:41 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

John Roberts
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.



Alliance for Justice Resources:

Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts





Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
U.S. Department of Justice
1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
1986-89, Associate
1993-present, Partner

General Background:
Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights:
A Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues:
As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA?s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights:
After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools:
While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono:
Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information:
Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4424890 - 07/19/05 06:45 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

hah I was just about to post the same thing.

Quote:

The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation.




Quote:

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls




Quote:

he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs




Quote:

Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda




I think a 'screw that guy' is in order.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4424905 - 07/19/05 06:51 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think a 'screw that guy' is in order.

At the least, I was hoping that Bush would be a little more centrist in his choice. But no, he went straight for a definite right-winger. I hope there is a good fight over this guy.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4425058 - 07/19/05 07:20 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist....

Kennedy and Boxer are going to IMPLODE.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: dblaney]
    #4425075 - 07/19/05 07:23 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I heard someone suggest that this pick would help distract the attention from the Rove leak. It's quite possible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4425087 - 07/19/05 07:26 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said 11/3/2004:
Everyone has their breaking point.
As I've said before, I have every intention of staying put...
But there are certain events that could change my mind. I'm sure most of us have a few.

If Bush got enough justices into the SC to reverse Roe v Wade, I wouldn't hesistate to leave. A government that wants to restrict the rights of its citizens that much has to be either abolished or fled from. And Bush seems to be immune to just about any attack waged on him. So...




*starts packing suitcase so I'll  be ready to leave by the time Bush installs his third or fourth justice. With a conservative lock on the White House for at least the next 7 years, things just ain't lookin that great to me.  :tongue: :poop:


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4425357 - 07/19/05 08:28 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I always thought Bush's pandering to the religious right and to the social conservatives was half-hearted. He said what he needed to say to get their votes, but when it came to doing anything about their causes he didn't seem terribly active. But, it looks like he really threw the Christians a bone with this nomination.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4425440 - 07/19/05 08:51 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Screw that guy.

I doubt he'll win anyway.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4425590 - 07/19/05 09:24 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

funny how right-wingers always complain about liberal "activist judges" but yet support nominations like John Roberts who clearly has an activist agenda himself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Vvellum]
    #4425724 - 07/19/05 09:47 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

bi0 said:
funny how right-wingers always complain about liberal "activist judges" but yet support nominations like John Roberts who clearly has an activist agenda himself.




These fucking ideologue judges (on the Left and the Right) are abominations to the legal system. We need some old-school judges who actually have read the Constitution, do what they can to uphold it, and who make no effort to inject their personal political beliefs into things.

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/19/05 09:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4425774 - 07/19/05 09:55 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

We need some libertarian judges, pure and simple.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Ravus]
    #4425807 - 07/19/05 10:04 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
We need some libertarian judges, pure and simple.




I couldn't have said it better myself.

Both the left and right are equally to blame for the travesty that they like to call the Supreme Court. it doesn't even seem like they even look at the Constitution anymore to make their decisions, and if they do, it is only to add weight to their ideals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Redstorm]
    #4425838 - 07/19/05 10:13 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
doesn't even seem like they even look at the Constitution anymore to make their decisions





The Constitution is amazing. It lays out a workable governmental system and it addresses all of the pitfalls that seem to have been inherent in the different forms of government. It is a grand framework for a limited and responsible republic.

Unfortunately, the Constitution was thrown into the garbage a long time ago. When I hear politicians pledging to uphold it or praising this or that about it, I want to barf. They have soiled the document to the point that I don't think the current governmental situation is repairable nor is it anywhere near what the founding fathers proposed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 12,326
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4426043 - 07/19/05 11:07 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

How do we go about calling a Constitutional Convention?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4426130 - 07/19/05 11:22 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Im down.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4426134 - 07/19/05 11:23 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
These fucking ideologue judges (on the Left and the Right) are abominations to the legal system. We need some old-school judges who actually have read the Constitution, do what they can to uphold it, and who make no effort to inject their personal political beliefs into things.



Amen. I don't care if a judge swings to the liberal or conservative side. Their entire purpose is to interpret the constitution and that is all I want.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427134 - 07/20/05 04:38 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

> Unfortunately, the Constitution was thrown into the garbage a long time ago.

For the most part... simply ignored... because it is too difficult (paraphrasing a recent supreme court ruling).


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Vvellum]
    #4427413 - 07/20/05 08:45 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

bi0 said:
funny how right-wingers always complain about liberal "activist judges" but yet support nominations like John Roberts who clearly has an activist agenda himself.




and funny how the senate democraps will miss that point altogether...but there is a very faint glimmer of hope that the senate will be forced to bork roberts because of his position against abortion...or at the very least..if roberts is confirmed..that pro-choice voters will activate and vote the religious fundamentalists out of the senate in 2006...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4427735 - 07/20/05 10:34 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

It's so weird how so much of politics revolves around abortion. When a politician or potential Supreme Court Justice wants to get a position, they have to go through the abortion litmus test. "Are you pro-choice or pro-life".

I can think of at least ten other issues that are more important and that are affecting the U.S. more than abortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Vvellum]
    #4427821 - 07/20/05 10:57 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

unny how right-wingers always complain about liberal "activist judges" but yet support nominations like John Roberts who clearly has an activist agenda himself.




"Clearly"?

Why don't you list for us the items on his "activist agenda"?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Phred]
    #4427853 - 07/20/05 11:05 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4427871 - 07/20/05 11:08 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

So essentially, he's bought and paid for by the powers that be.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Phred]
    #4427872 - 07/20/05 11:08 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

oh, how about the overturning of Roe v Wade?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Ravus]
    #4427932 - 07/20/05 11:20 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
We need some libertarian judges, pure and simple.





That's what I was thinking, prior to the nomination. I'm more towards the Green side of things, but the judical branch of the government is more about a libertarian mindset. It really wouldn't matter to me whether s/he was Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever. Just so long as they had a working understanding of the Constitution and their role as a Supreme Court Judge.

Of course, it should be noted that part of being in the Supreme Court is to make decisions when there isn't a clear indication in the Constitution of how things should be settled.

It raises the question as to whether it would be possible to be on the Supreme Court without getting involved in the partisan aspects of it anyway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSycronica
Seeker
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 376
Loc: Inside my head
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Twirling]
    #4428033 - 07/20/05 11:40 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Wonder what way this guy will vote when they decide if bush gets a 3rd term :shake:


--------------------
Think for yourself. Question authority.

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLeftyBurnz
Mr. I Eat Butthole
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/21/05
Posts: 24,570
Loc: FL
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Ravus]
    #4428088 - 07/20/05 11:53 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
Screw that guy.

I doubt he'll win anyway.




yeah?? and i thought bush couldnt possibly win a second time... none the less a first. i think were going to be screwed for a while in this country...... shit like this makes me not even proud to be an american anymore :frown:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4428106 - 07/20/05 11:56 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
Quote:

Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.







This does not necessarily indicate his personal opinion on the matter, merely his client's. Do you think that lawyers only advocate positions they believe in? It is unethical and, I think, illegal for an attorney to torpedo with deliberate incompetence a client's case. And few criminal attorneys would make a living representing only innocent people.

He may hold that belief or not but you have not shown that to be the case with this citation. Further, given the body of law that exists, why do you think that it is extremist to argue that private citizens should not be allowed to sue the federal government? Legal arguments are strong on both sides. Do you know the case? Or just the characterization of the case? I'd be interested to see it. Frankly, there probably isn't an "extremist" side to the case at all. Just one you don't like. Then again, your side lost the election. Too bad. I could easily make the argument that anything you advocate is extremist because your positions are quite far removed from those of the vast majority of the American people.

If his position is that Roe v. Wade is overly creative and that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution then I agree with him. One can be created by Congress or by amendment, but I don't think it is in our Constitution as currently written. And I'll be damned if I think that any other nation's laws should ever be cited by a court that is to rule on our laws, as has recently been done. Not even a citation. They should have zero weight.

Don't get me wrong, I think Roe v. Wade was a brilliant piece of legislation and a right to privacy should be explicit in the Constitution. But it's not. We are supposed to elect people to make the laws we want, not appoint them. This is not an extremist point of view. It is widely held.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLeftyBurnz
Mr. I Eat Butthole
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/21/05
Posts: 24,570
Loc: FL
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Sycronica]
    #4428116 - 07/20/05 11:58 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Sycronica said:
Wonder what way this guy will vote when they decide if bush gets a 3rd term :shake:




if bush gets a third term im moving to canada.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #4428143 - 07/20/05 12:04 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

leftysurprise said:
Quote:

Sycronica said:
Wonder what way this guy will vote when they decide if bush gets a 3rd term :shake:




if bush gets a third term im moving to canada.




That's not up to him and don't let the door hit you on the way out.  Win an election and you will get to make laws.  Lose and you don't.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428164 - 07/20/05 12:09 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

> Why don't you list for us the items on his "activist agenda"?

I am not sure if this is what you mean, but he obviously has an agenda to end a womans right to have an abortion and overturn roe vs wade. He also has an agenda to allow religion back into public schools (and I would assume any other government funded program, building, or interest).

Again, I may have misread your meaning, so if I answered in ignorance, apologies.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Seuss]
    #4428302 - 07/20/05 12:35 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Actually, it is my opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade is anti-activist. Roe v. Wade was an activist decision. And I haven't seen anybody come up with any evidence that he does in fact wish to overturn it. As to public schools, I think they should largely be a local issue, with only federal demands of reasonable competence. As a militant atheist, I despise the idea of religion in schools. I also think that there should be a right to privacy. But I think that these things should be legislated by elected representatives of the people not imposed by an elite group of 9 unaccountable people. I prefer judges who agree with that.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Vvellum]
    #4428314 - 07/20/05 12:38 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

bi0 writes:

Quote:

oh, how about the overturning of Roe v Wade?




When has he said he wants to overturn Roe?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428335 - 07/20/05 12:43 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, given the body of law that exists, why do you think that it is extremist to argue that private citizens should not be allowed to sue the federal government?



Ignoring the emotionalism attached with the use of the term 'extremist,' the roots of tyranny are in great power with little fear of accountability or punishment. Private citizens should be allowed to sue government officials for the harmful effects of their actions while in office. To disallow this is to invite corruption, rapaciousness and incompetence to have a permanent bed and free meals in the houses of governance.

Quote:

If his position is that Roe v. Wade is overly creative and that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution then I agree with him. One can be created by Congress or by amendment, but I don't think it is in our Constitution as currently written.



You seem to misunderstand the concept of rights as it was understood by the authors of the constitution and the leaders of American movement for Independence. To sum up, rights are not created by governments, governments are created (in part) to secure rights.

The 4th amendment would seem to refer to a right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Of course, there is the conveniently forgotten 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBCBudJohn
Foolhardy

Registered: 06/27/05
Posts: 150
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4428369 - 07/20/05 12:54 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

This is frightening.


--------------------
Peace
John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Phred]
    #4428415 - 07/20/05 01:04 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

> When has he said he wants to overturn Roe?

Quote:

In a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan, for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.




Granted, I am assuming that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and haven't heard him speak those words. However, if he feels that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided, it is difficult for me to believe that he doesn't want to see it overturned. I don't think I am reading too much into this, but perhaps.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4428562 - 07/20/05 01:35 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, given the body of law that exists, why do you think that it is extremist to argue that private citizens should not be allowed to sue the federal government?



Ignoring the emotionalism attached with the use of the term 'extremist,' the roots of tyranny are in great power with little fear of accountability or punishment. Private citizens should be allowed to sue government officials for the harmful effects of their actions while in office.




The case was about suing the government, not government officials, and no they shouldn't and no they can't. Government officials who commit criminal acts can however be prosecuted. See William Jefferson Clinton in regard to perjury. And the point I make is that neither side in this case can be labelled extremist. Your "roots of tyranny" is cute but irrelevant.

Quote:


To disallow this is to invite corruption, rapaciousness and incompetence to have a permanent bed and free meals in the houses of governance.




Once again, cute but pointless

Quote:



Quote:

If his position is that Roe v. Wade is overly creative and that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution then I agree with him. One can be created by Congress or by amendment, but I don't think it is in our Constitution as currently written.



You seem to misunderstand the concept of rights as it was understood by the authors of the constitution and the leaders of American movement for Independence. To sum up, rights are not created by governments, governments are created (in part) to secure rights.

The 4th amendment would seem to refer to a right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."





It may seem that way to you but I sure don't see it. "Secure in their.... against unreasonable searches and seizures," has no application I can see to a right to privacy or abortion on demand. If it does, why would the court so tortuously rule on matters of trimester. I see nothing unreasonable in a particular state prohibitting abortion. Mine won't and I'm glad for it but it isn't in the Constitution and I don't want appointed judges making law. They are the would be unaccountable tyrants you speak of.

Quote:


Of course, there is the conveniently forgotten 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."




The operative phrase here is "retained by the people" not a small clique of oligarchs

Do not misinterpret my positions. I support a right to privacy. I just don't think it's there and to allow these 9 people to have the power to make shit up is very dangerous indeed. Far more dangerous than the roll back of R v.W.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428624 - 07/20/05 01:51 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."


? Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428735 - 07/20/05 02:21 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Perhaps you've read this portion of the Constitution before? Not to mention the 9th and 10th amendments as well as the 4th.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is abundantly clear not only from the Constitution but from the stated intent of its framers that government is here to protect our rights not create them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4428795 - 07/20/05 02:41 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think that Roe should be overturned. Late states decide if they want to kill babies. Utah probably wouldn't. Most every other state probably would. And we would rid our national elections of this devisive issue that takes up too much space. I don't think that the right to kill your children should be embedded in the Constitution.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4428887 - 07/20/05 03:00 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

A shread of hope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_french_fry

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Judge John G. Roberts' views on abortion may be murky, but there's no question where he stands on the issue of girls eating fries in a subway station.
ADVERTISEMENT

As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts wrote a decision last year upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who violated the ban on eating food on Washington's subway system, Metro.

But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl.

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," he wrote. "Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later ? all for eating a single french fry."

Still, Roberts agreed with a lower court ruling upholding the arrest

"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.

"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."

Two months after the arrest, and following a torrent of bad publicity, the transit agency revised its policy and said that children under 18 who committed minor offenses would instead be enrolled in a program run in cooperation with school authorities and other city officials.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4428896 - 07/20/05 03:02 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

John Roberts was quoted as saying, "They should have beaten the little hooligan".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4428963 - 07/20/05 03:20 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

No, he wasn't. Read the French fry decision. He followed established law and ruled that there was no basis for relief in the law. He didn't try to make law, he interpreted and followed law, which is what judges should do.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428979 - 07/20/05 03:23 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

joke Audio pronunciation of "joke" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jk)
n.

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal.
1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4429023 - 07/20/05 03:33 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
Perhaps you've read this portion of the Constitution before? Not to mention the 9th and 10th amendments as well as the 4th.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is abundantly clear not only from the Constitution but from the stated intent of its framers that government is here to protect our rights not create them.




And the right to privacy and abortion on demand is found exactly where in this? Please expound at your leisure. I don't think that the stated intent of the framers was to allow abortion, which was a possible, though much riskier, choice even then. And it does seem to me that the Supreme Court did indeed create a right to privacy that does not exist in the text of the Constitution. What exactly do you mean by "protect our rights not create them?" Our rights are what our government says they are. This is of course strictly from a legal standpoint. But the safety of legal surety is what government is all about. We cannot have every nitwit on the street declaring that he has a right to punch us in the nose. Then I will have to declare that I have the right to tie him up and make him watch me fuck his wife. If you want to argue in favor of anarchy, that's fine, if stupid. It is not a place I want to live in and I have zero interest in that particularly nonsensical argument. I don't want to live in an anarchy and you don't want to live in one with me, because I'm old and I'm mean when I need to be


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4429035 - 07/20/05 03:37 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
I like to lick the balls of vervet monkeys and ring-tailed lemurs because they have that delightfully musky scent that makes me shiver




This is not OTD


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4429081 - 07/20/05 03:48 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

If you want to create a thread about abortion or what defines a person's rights be my guest. I don't think this is the proper thread for those specific discussions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4430097 - 07/20/05 07:36 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
And the right to privacy and abortion on demand is found exactly where in this?



This was already answered in previous posts. The concept of natural rights had a large role in the crafting of the founding of our country. References to the concept are contained in the constitution and the bill of rights.

Quote:

What exactly do you mean by "protect our rights not create them?"



From The Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" The 9th amendment (again), "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quote:

Our rights are what our government says they are.



Wrong. I suggest that you educate yourself. Start by reading some of the documents of the founding of this nation and the works of those who influenced it. Pay careful attention to the terms "rights" and "natural rights," as these are key in your intellectual growth on the subject. Whether or not you agree with the concept of natural rights is a moot point when attempting to understand just what they are and what people mean when they speak of them.

Quote:

We cannot have every nitwit on the street declaring that he has a right to punch us in the nose. Then I will have to declare that I have the right to tie him up and make him watch me fuck his wife. If you want to argue in favor of anarchy...



Rights, as understood by the founders and those willing to educate themselves on the subject, have absolutely nothing to do with giving a person the right to punch another in the nose, tie another person up and fuck his wife, nor anarchy (in the sense of disorder or chaos).


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4434234 - 07/21/05 04:01 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are. In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is? I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434239 - 07/21/05 04:03 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Further, I think the concept of a Creator is for the weak of mind.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434371 - 07/21/05 04:24 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are.



Apparently you are unable to understand the 9th amendment, or the concept of original intent. Please quote The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any relevant document written by the founders to support your opinion.

Quote:

In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is?



We do not live in a democracy, the country was not founded as a democracy and you are totally ignorant of the definition of natural rights.

Quote:

I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.



You don't even know what they are! Attempting an intelligent discussion with you on this subject is like attempting the same discussion with a little child.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434432 - 07/21/05 04:34 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, I think the concept of a Creator is for the weak of mind.



Your opinion on the existence of a creator is irrelevant to the definition of natural rights as understood by those who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights. Just as your opinion would be irrelevant to the definition of sin by those who wrote the Bible.

The WHOLE POINT of Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of a subject rests on understanding the meaning of the document, the terms used and original intent. It is my understanding that the founders of the nation had a definition of rights which said that rights pre-exist government and it was their opinion that governments are instituted (in part) to protect these rights. If you have references from them which contradict this, please provide them. Thanks.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4434497 - 07/21/05 04:49 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are.



Apparently you are unable to understand the 9th amendment, or the concept of original intent. Please quote The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any relevant document written by the founders to support your opinion.




That would actually be the Bill of Rights. It's existence is a de facto validation of my position and repudiation of yours. It exists solely to , here we go, define our rights.

Quote:



Quote:

In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is?



We do not live in a democracy, the country was not founded as a democracy and you are totally ignorant of the definition of natural rights.




We live in a representative democracy. I do believe that I said our rights should be decided by those whom we elect to represent us, not appointed oligarchs and I will now add, who are not accountable to the will of the populace.

Quote:


Quote:

I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.



You don't even know what they are! Attempting an intelligent discussion with you on this subject is like attempting the same discussion with a little child.




I know exactly what they are, fairy tales.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434556 - 07/21/05 04:59 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That would actually be the Bill of Rights. It's existence is a de facto validation of my position and repudiation of yours. It exists solely to , here we go, define our rights.



WRONG. Read the way they're written. The first ammendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The rest of them are written in similar language. They are not an enumeration of rights at all, but rather restrictions on the government's ability to violate those rights.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4434595 - 07/21/05 05:11 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I was reluctant at first, but now I welcome this choice.

He's not a clearly good choice for Bush either- he could go either way. I don't know. So far, Roberts hasn't actually given his own opinion on anything through his actions...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4435236 - 07/21/05 07:28 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:

The rest of them are written in similar language. They are not an enumeration of rights at all, but rather restrictions on the government's ability to violate those rights.




I fail to see the distinction. In furtherance of my point that government defines rights I would point to all legislation. For instance, the government has granted certain farmers the right to receive money for certain actions, for instance, not growing certain crops. Your rights are what your government says they are. Here we can change the actors in our government if we don't like them, other places it is more difficult. That is irrelevant to the point. The man with the gun tells you what your rights are. Any other belief is childish.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4435559 - 07/21/05 08:45 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I fail to see the distinction. In furtherance of my point that government defines rights I would point to all legislation. For instance, the government has granted certain farmers the right to receive money for certain actions, for instance, not growing certain crops.



It is not my fault that you cannot differentiate between a right and a priviledge.

Quote:

Your rights are what your government says they are.



If that were true, then the term "rights" would lose all meaning.

Quote:

Here we can change the actors in our government if we don't like them, other places it is more difficult. That is irrelevant to the point. The man with the gun tells you what your rights are.



No, he tells you what rights he is willing to recognize. If he doesn't respect your rights, that does not mean that you don't have them.

Quote:

Any other belief is childish.



That's quite a childish attitude to have.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4435749 - 07/21/05 09:36 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

The point of this line of discussion is whether or not the government is legally obligated to avoid violating a right to privacy by the Constitution. You steadfastly ignore the concept of rights as embodied in the constitution, and in all the supporting documents of the era. You fail to give any rational consideration to the 9th amendment and it's explicit wording on the matter (as well as ignoring the wording of the other amendments of The Bill of Rights as Paradigm has pointed out). You have failed to provide ANY supporting references for your position, but instead rely on the fallacious argument of attacking the concept of natural rights instead. That you find the concept of natural rights childish is irrelevant to the interpretation of the bill of rights as written and as intended.

To understand natural rights requires that one use the faculty of reason in identifying conditions of human interaction. Natural rights can be identified by applying the following parameters to human action: everyone may do or refrain from doing as he damn well pleases, including protecting the exercise of his liberties from the transgressions of another as long as he does not interfere with another's freedom to do or refrain from doing as he damn well pleases. All natural rights can be identified in this manner. Therefore, there is no natural right to take another man's life, to force him to pay for farm subsidies, or force him to pay for your health care. Natural rights are not limited to what you may currently enumerate unless you are capable of imagining all possible non-aggressive actions a person may take. Anyone may identify what is a natural right by applying this reasoning, but this does not mean that he must believe that natural rights should be protected (if you were capable of understanding the concept I assume that you would fall into this category).

It must also be understood that the Constitution was a charter of the various states as representatives of the people which created the federal government and delegated to it certain duties it is to perform as an agent of the states and the people. In other words, the U.S. government was conceived as being a servant of the people as opposed to the European concept of the people being subjects of the government. You consistently argue in support of the mindset of Old Europe which the founders were seeking to leave behind. Hence the moniker, 'neocon' is quite fitting.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4435766 - 07/21/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best.

Quote:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.




Quote:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4435773 - 07/21/05 09:44 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

TJ was the man. :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4437847 - 07/22/05 11:47 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

You all seem to be arguing for some kind of "virtual" group of rights. I have no use for "virtual" rights. The only rights that exist are those which you can secure. Call them "practical" rights. All others are the product of useless navel gazing and merely intellectual masturbation. They bear no fruit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4437862 - 07/22/05 11:55 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

You have no clue what a right is. A right a liberty which is owed to someone. Whether or not someone respects that obligation is irrelevant.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephreedom420
Stranger
Registered: 07/08/05
Posts: 105
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4438205 - 07/22/05 01:37 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Annapurna1 said:
Quote:

bi0 said:
funny how right-wingers always complain about liberal "activist judges" but yet support nominations like John Roberts who clearly has an activist agenda himself.




and funny how the senate democraps will miss that point altogether...but there is a very faint glimmer of hope that the senate will be forced to bork roberts because of his position against abortion...or at the very least..if roberts is confirmed..that pro-choice voters will activate and vote the religious fundamentalists out of the senate in 2006...




I think we've seen who can "Activate" better, and we have the result now. The Congress, Senate and President were voted in, so whiny liberals don't get their say. Nanner Nanner Booby.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4438621 - 07/22/05 02:56 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
You have no clue what a right is. A right a liberty which is owed to someone. Whether or not someone respects that obligation is irrelevant.




You have no clue what a right is. If you can't exercise it it doesn't exist. It's "virtual" and thus imaginary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438639 - 07/22/05 03:00 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Paradigm said:
You have no clue what a right is. A right a liberty which is owed to someone. Whether or not someone respects that obligation is irrelevant.




You have no clue what a right is. If you can't exercise it it doesn't exist. It's "virtual" and thus imaginary.



Does a need exist if it's not fulfilled? Is my need for food "virtual" if I do not have food?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4438667 - 07/22/05 03:06 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Now you're being silly. Shit, I could argue that you don't need food you just want it and can certainly move on to another plane of (non-)existence. It is a requirement for life, however. Do you think that there are rights floating out there in the ether just waiting to be utilized? I say they don't exist unless you have them. You say they do, somewhere, somehow. We aint gonna get together on this at all. This is probably more S&P by now.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438678 - 07/22/05 03:10 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Ok...all of you have the right to make fun of me if I am wrong in my observations. I have only skimmed through the posts in this thread.

Zappa seems to be saying that rights are made up things that societies or governments grant and promise to uphold. Nowhere in Man's natural state is there any justification for or origin of natural rights. They are not real, they are created, and therefore they are not tangible. They are constructs that require some type of social or governmental contract in order to exist.

Paradigm and Prosp-whatever (Hippo guy) seem to think that rights naturally exist and governments only protect job is to protect them and to stop other people from violating these rights. They seem to think rights are natural and that privileges are what are granted by governments.

So are rights and their legitimacy inherent in Man or is it necessary for a social or governmental contract to create them?

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/22/05 03:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438703 - 07/22/05 03:18 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

One man alone on an island does not have any rights, in my opinion. He doesn't need them. Rights are only extant in a group where there might be disparate and conflicting desires and they form a code for settling those conflicts. It's all about practicality and utility for me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438731 - 07/22/05 03:24 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
One man alone on an island does not have any rights, in my opinion. He doesn't need them. Rights are only extant in a group where there might be disparate and conflicting desires and they form a code for settling those conflicts. It's all about practicality and utility for me.




I am torn on this one. I see where you are coming from and it makes sense. Rights are social or governmental contracts that are created to make things go smoother. They do not exist naturally. However, I do believe in a Creator which throws a monkey wrench into everything. I believe that the Creator not only made us but He has instituted right and wrong and a preferred set of conduct for us humans.

My philosophical leanings are a bunch of contradictory messes. I am going to get "nihilism" and "theism" tattooed on my arms I think.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438747 - 07/22/05 03:28 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I'm going to cautiously agree with zappa here. I don't think that rights exist outside of a social contract.

However, I disagree with his apparent position that government should continue to decide rights, create new ones and subtract old ones. Ideally, our Constitution defines our rights. The role of our legislature should be to simply color between the rights that the founders drew... I should add that if Congress wants to attempt amendments, they shouldn't hesitate. Far too few amendments get passed in this country.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438751 - 07/22/05 03:29 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Since I do not believe in a Creator (only out of respect for you do I grant it capitals) I don't have your conflict.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438767 - 07/22/05 03:32 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Or even if a Creator does exist, it's foolish for individuals - let alone entire governments - to think they could fathom what this Creator does, or does not, grant them. It opens the flood gates to all sorts of nonsense.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Gijith]
    #4438785 - 07/22/05 03:37 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Or even if a Creator does exist, it's foolish for individuals - let alone entire governments - to think they could fathom what this Creator does, or does not, grant them. It opens the flood gates to all sorts of nonsense.




Yes, it certainly has


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438801 - 07/22/05 03:40 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Since I do not believe in a Creator (only out of respect for you do I grant it capitals) I don't have your conflict.




My conflict is debilitating: I don't know what guidelines (if any) dictate reality and regulate human behavior. Is there a Creator? If there is has He instituted an order in our reality (a philosophical and ethical basis for human existence and behavior)? If He does not exist, then I don't see how there is any natural law that is the basis for everything else.

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. A Creator has made us and has instituted an order and expects us to follow it.
2. A Creator made us and has not instituted any order.
3. We humans came into being by pure accident and there are no natural constructs to guide our behavior. (i.e. existentialism)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438806 - 07/22/05 03:42 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

These nouns apply to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: ?I'm a champion for the Rights of Woman? (Maria Edgeworth). ?An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment? (Hugo L. Black). Privilege usually suggests a right not enjoyed by everyone: Use of the company jet was a privilege reserved for the top executives. Prerogative denotes an exclusive right or privilege, as one based on custom, law, or office: It is my prerogative to change my mind. A perquisite is a privilege or advantage accorded to one by virtue of one's position or the needs of one's employment: ?The wardrobe of her niece was the perquisite of her [maid]? (Tobias Smollett).




A right doesn't have to be established by law. A prerogaive would better fit your definition zappa.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Gijith]
    #4438811 - 07/22/05 03:44 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Or even if a Creator does exist, it's foolish for individuals - let alone entire governments - to think they could fathom what this Creator does, or does not, grant them. It opens the flood gates to all sorts of nonsense.




True. That is an unfortunate flaw that the Creator has left us with in my opinion. He has made us selfish, stupid, and unable to be strong-willed all of the time. Anything that He gives us will be perverted by us.

But, I still stand by my assertion that if the Creator did make us and He did institute an order, that this order is what we should follow.

Although, lately I have been leaning more towards existenialism in my "theism" vs. "nihilism" internal debate.

What a conundrum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438815 - 07/22/05 03:46 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

It's quite simple: A right is something owed to you. Actual possession of something has no relevance to it being rightfully yours. You may deny that rights exist, but to say that they are given by the government is to be fundamentally ignorant of what a right is.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4438816 - 07/22/05 03:46 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)


A right doesn't have to be established by law.


It doesn't have to be always established by law, but it must be agreed upon by a group of people. Whether it is a law or a social agreement, it is still an artificial construct that does not exist in the natural world and therefore has no natural legitimacy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4438836 - 07/22/05 03:51 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
It's quite simple: A right is something owed to you.





What is the justification that you are using when you say a right is something that is owed to you? You are taking what other men have said and created and you are saying that you have claim to it. These things that you lay claim to are not natural; they were created and agreed upon by other men. I can see no superceding order or natural law that gives these "rights" any legitimacy or natural origin. I have seen no proof that rights are naturally and inalienably granted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438856 - 07/22/05 03:58 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

To try and help you with your Creator dilemma, I will ask you one question. When has a belief in a Creator held any predictive value? And Paradigm I will go back to my statement that one man alone on an island does not have rights (quite brilliant I believe and strictly from my own mutant head). I do believe that RF was quite correct in asserting that they can also arise from a purely group dynamic, even though, for the purposes of the current debate, I was only referencing legal rights.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438869 - 07/22/05 04:01 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
To try and help you with your Creator dilemma, I will ask you one question. When has a belief in a Creator held any predictive value?




Predictive value? Never.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438873 - 07/22/05 04:02 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

You are taking what other men have said and created and you are saying that you have claim to it.

Exactly what are you taking from other people? The idea behind natural rights is that everyone is created equal. Because of this no one has any greater right to your body than you do. Since you own your body you are therefore the proper owner of the fruit of its labors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4438874 - 07/22/05 04:02 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Then why bother?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438889 - 07/22/05 04:06 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

With what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4438905 - 07/22/05 04:08 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
Exactly what are you taking from other people?





You are taking ideas that were created by other men in an unnatural, biased, and imperfect setting. Then you are claiming that they are the absolute truth and basis for human interaction. This reasoning is flawed in my opinion. There is no proof that Man has any claim to these "Rights" or that these constructs are natural or based on things that are natural.

Quote:

cb9fl said:
The idea behind natural rights is that everyone is created equal. Because of this no one has any greater right to your body than you do. Since you own your body you are therefore the proper owner of the fruit of its labors.




Just because it sounds good doesn't mean that it has any natural legitimacy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4438919 - 07/22/05 04:12 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
You are taking what other men have said and created and you are saying that you have claim to it.

Exactly what are you taking from other people? The idea behind natural rights is that everyone is created equal. Because of this no one has any greater right to your body than you do. Since you own your body you are therefore the proper owner of the fruit of its labors.




Only in the eyes of the law and only in America are all men created equal (just for now, let's avoid the "create" issue). Not in actual fact. There is quite a range of inequalities.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4438924 - 07/22/05 04:13 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
With what?




That was for RF


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438938 - 07/22/05 04:18 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

Then why bother

That was for RF






Why bother with believing in a Creator you ask? I don't choose to believe in Him. I just do. It is not a choice.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438945 - 07/22/05 04:20 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I would think that your beliefs are the one thing you can absolutely choose for yourself.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4438961 - 07/22/05 04:22 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I would think that your beliefs are the one thing you can absolutely choose for yourself.




I can't choose this one. No matter what I think or do, I believe and I always will.

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/22/05 04:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4439015 - 07/22/05 04:34 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I understand. I have a mole just by my eyebrow I call Cindy Crawford and no matter what the docs say I just can't bring myself to get rid of her.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4439191 - 07/22/05 05:14 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

This has gotten way off topic. And the whole "natural rights" issue has been covered over and over again in numerous other threads. I ask everyone to please address the topic of the thread from now on. But before I go, a VERY brief comment on this tangent regarding rights...

A man alone on a desert island does indeed have rights -- it's just there are no other men around to violate those rights, so in that narrow sense the fact that he has rights is a non-issue.

Rights are not magic beans handed out by one person to another, rights are as inherent in a man's existence as is his consciousness. The Founding Fathers got it right -- governments are not created to bestow rights to men, they are (properly) created to secure the rights men possess by their metaphysical nature. You as a human have the right to attempt to continue your existence, be it in solitude or in the midst of billions of other humans. No one "owes" you anything except in a negative sense -- they owe you nothing more than their non-interference with the actions you perform in your attempts to sustain your existence (with the reciprocal proviso of course that you do the same).

Back to John Roberts, please.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Phred]
    #4439802 - 07/22/05 07:57 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

"But before I go....."  The admonishment to get back on topic was certainly well deserved, but you couldn't resist could you :cool:  Just what right does the man alone have?  The right to enough coconuts?  I just can't get behind the idea that there are ethereal rights that exist in virtual-land.  They exist only as an agreement in interpersonal relationships, whether governmental (laws) or societal (mores) or even just between two people.

Now about that nice Roberts fellow, some snarky bitch has decided to critique his family's dress style
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18697/#comments
click on the little orange asterisk to read the column.  I sent you here because you should also see the picture you can click for of her snarkiness herself all dolled up with no place to go (and no date most likely)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklonokingpin
Stranger
Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 56
. [Re: DNKYD]
    #4439867 - 07/22/05 08:08 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

.

Edited by klonokingpin (03/10/06 08:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: klonokingpin]
    #4439945 - 07/22/05 08:20 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

What are you doing with that man's picture?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Phred]
    #4440101 - 07/22/05 08:58 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
This has gotten way off topic. And the whole "natural rights" issue has been covered over and over again in numerous other threads. I ask everyone to please address the topic of the thread from now on. But before I go, a VERY brief comment on this tangent regarding rights...





Phred basically said:  This has gone way off topic...but let me get the last word in anyway.  :lol:

Quote:

Phred said:
Back to John Roberts, please.





I wonder what John Roberts thinks about natural rights.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4440107 - 07/22/05 08:59 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I'm sure he believes rights granted to men can be found listed in the bible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4440423 - 07/22/05 10:08 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Feel free to bump one of the several dozen previous threads about rights if you don't want to see me get the last word. Or start a new one. I'll participate in it either way.

Back to the topic of Roberts:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4440554/an/0/page/0


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklonokingpin
Stranger
Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 56
. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4442256 - 07/23/05 10:33 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

.

Edited by klonokingpin (03/10/06 08:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: klonokingpin]
    #4442677 - 07/23/05 11:40 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Who isn't?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why Americans Must Vote for John Kerry
( 1 2 3 all )
Zahid 4,716 40 08/29/04 02:08 PM
by Zahid
* Confidence in Bush Slipping Xochitl 833 11 10/04/03 08:47 AM
by Learyfan
* .
( 1 2 all )
dr_gonz 4,219 30 02/16/04 05:02 PM
by Innvertigo
* Is Bush delusional? Skikid16 657 9 09/30/04 04:03 PM
by CJay
* Would Bush risk his own country for votes?
( 1 2 3 all )
Tasty_Smurf_House 2,782 57 07/21/04 03:50 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* BEYOND BUSH - Part I RonoS 1,457 12 07/02/03 03:07 PM
by Rono
* Bush, Kerry, and the CFR, It's All In The Family ekomstop 491 0 10/03/04 06:57 PM
by ekomstop
* John Kerry hates african americans. tak 944 4 09/21/04 10:56 PM
by DigitalDuality

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,726 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.058 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 14 queries.