CE9

[chrisfan]

DED, please don't make this anymore than it is. Yes, I've continued it ... so have you. You don't like that Doc got involved? Please consider that the next time that you decide to insert yourelf into an argument. You don't like that you were treated in a way you consider to be condescending? Well, I didn't really like the way I was insulted by Someone either. But I chose not to go into a multi-post tirade over it. Shit happens Move on.

[Galactus]

Oh I get the feeling we're going make alot more of this then already is. All of my posts after the seond one were in response to someone else. I will not drop this now just because you say I should. I didn't insert myself into shit. I asked a goddamn question. Period. You have tuirned this into what it is now. I'll be damned if I'm going to let you walk away from it. I don't mind Doc getting invlved in anything on this board. I don't think he needed to be demeaning though. I don't think Someone needed to be demeaning either but I have no control over her. This can end now. We can both apologise and be on our way or we can get evil. It's up to you.

[riley]

Is it bad that I'm curious to see what evil would look like?

[Galactus]

Sorry, riley. After putting my daughter to bed and cooling off a bit. I've realised how silly this is. Chrisfan won't apologise because she never does anything wrong and even if she, she probably phrase it in a way that I'd just tell her where to stick it. You guys have really reached new hieghts in hypocrisy today. I hope you're proud of yourselves. Not any of you will be upset but I'm going to leave the boards for few days. I was thinking about it anyway but today has convinced me. I'd tell say you should be ashamed of yoursleves but You wouldn't know what I was talking about. Later.

[shin]

I found a picture of DED:



And let this be a lesson to you all. Don't mess with the best.

[ken]

I think there's way too much culture of death in these boards, and not enough lovin'.

[riley]

if that's some clever ploy to lure me into a game of bum darts again Ken, it's not going to happen. back off.

[ken]

Ha, bum darts. I don't know, dude, I rather fancy someone right now. It's not that you're not good looking, it's just...

[strat-0]

What do you mean, "You guys," DED? I hope you don't stay away, though. There aren't a lot of us Southern boys left around here...

[shin]

Author Of Schiavo Memo Steps Forward
Sen. Martinez's Counsel Cited Upside for GOP

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A01

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.

Martinez said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."

Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of housing and urban development for most of President Bush's first term, said he had not read the one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who had worked with him on the issue. After that, other Senate aides gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and The Washington Post.

Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore the Florida woman's feeding tube. "He said these were talking points -- something that we're working on here," Harkin said.

The mystery of the memo's origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of a brain-damaged woman.

For the rest of the story: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32554-2005Apr6.html

[ken]

Obviously a lie.

[shin]

Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions
'Unaccountable' Judiciary Raises Ire

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A07

Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable.

In a Senate floor speech in which he sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty, Cornyn (R-Tex.) -- a former Texas Supreme Court justice and member of the Judiciary Committee -- said Americans are growing increasingly frustrated by what he describes as activist jurists.

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."

Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. DeLay (R-Tex.) rebuked federal and state judges who had ruled in the Schiavo case, saying, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said last night that Cornyn, "like Tom DeLay, should know better. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the senator's remarks "an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are 'unaccountable' to the public."

Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart declined to speculate on what instances of violence the senator had in mind. "He was talking about things that have come up and concerned him," Stewart said.

In his speech, Cornyn criticized the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on March 1 that said it is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. "In so holding," Cornyn said, "the U.S. Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to leave this in the hands of jurors. We do not trust jurors. We are no longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the people of the respective states."

In a recent New York Times article, John Kane, a senior judge in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, wrote: "Since 1970, 10 state and federal judges have been murdered, seven of them in job-related incidents. Those who threaten judges are almost always disturbed individuals seeking revenge. . . . Of the three federal judges killed in the last quarter-century, all were killed by men disgruntled with their treatment from the federal judicial system."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html

Hmm...if there's no recent murder of a judge for political reasons...perhaps he's talking about the possible future murder of a judge...and perhaps he's trying to, you know, try and help the judges stay on these people's good sides? You know, a little "friendly help".

www.stopactivistjudges.org

[someone]

Chrisfan said:

DED, please don't make this anymore than it is. Yes, I've continued it ... so have you. You don't like that Doc got involved? Please consider that the next time that you decide to insert yourelf into an argument. You don't like that you were treated in a way you consider to be condescending? Well, I didn't really like the way I was insulted by Someone either. But I chose not to go into a multi-post tirade over it. Shit happens Move on.

My post was very emotional. I was still reeling over the knowledge that I was a merchant of death living in a culture of death. My emotions overtook me, my insulting tone is of course excused now.

[Mary]

RocDoc said:

I can present a possible reasoning for why John Paul II could've been presenting this 'Social Doctrine' of attempting to control the overemphasis on wealth and personal possessions....consider the socialist/communist matrix which he spent years living under AND his knowledge that when it breaks down(with his incredibly ingenious and ballsy 'encouragement' with the construction of the 'Ark Church' and the encouragement of the Gdansk strikes)that vacuum will definitely be filled with something.

And one small taste, to someone who's been denied in most ways (unless they were party bosses or KGB), is not going to be enough.

I can easily postulate he was referring first of all to his very own country, NOT wanting see it implode with greed and corruption for which this renewed freedom would create extremely fertile ground...something for which all the Polish/ Russian party bosses/apparatchiks had already provided him a cautionary tale...

This would perhaps be compelling were it not for the fact that Pope John Paul II was merely following the very same Catholic social doctrine promulgated by the Church for over a century, if not longer... (Drum? can ya dredge up those Catholic schoolboy years for us again? ) I wasn't trying to make a point exclusively about John Paul II, though the article Drum posted was about him - I was trying to point out that modern Catholic social teaching in general - dating back at least to the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII in 1891, but probably earlier if I actually knew much about Catholic history - has interpreted economic issues as a matter of social justice which stands in considerable tension with modern neoconservative views of the "free market" and laissez-faire capitalism. Pope John Paul II was following in this tradition, but it has deep roots in Catholicism and can't be explained away as a reaction to the fall of communism. Now I don't want to overstate this by any means or turn Leo XIII into some kind of socialist - he explicitly rejected Marxism in the same encyclical and defended a limited and qualified right to private property. But the "limited" and "qualified" part is the essential point for anyone interested in Catholic social teaching as a possible basis for struggles against economic injustice.

In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued the Mater et Magistra encyclical, which was interpreted by nearly everyone (though there were some dissenters) as economically left-wing, even sympathetic to moderate forms of socialism. This was followed in 1967 by the high water-mark for lefty followers of Catholic social teaching, Pope Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, which was outspoken and scathing in its criticism of both capitalism and colonialism - both of which were seen as interconnected (it was partially inspired by a famous meeting with Latin American bishops in 1966, and became hugely influential in the development of liberation theology - despite its rejection of marxism)

John Paul II, actually, when compared to predecessors like Paul VI, was quite disappointing to leftists who were excited about the Catholic Church's encyclicals in the 1960s. I won't bother getting into all this - my knowledge is pretty hazy about it to begin with. I just wanted to point out that, to whatever extent John Paul II retained a qualified criticism of pure capitalism, it was hardly a sudden turn within Catholicism conditioned by Polish politics. Rather, the critique is embedded within Catholic social teaching for almost as long as capitalism itself was a serious category of historical and philosophical analysis.

Cheers,
M

[pissin2]

I hope you jerks are proud of yourselves.