| Author |
Message |
John Do'h (Combover)
Junior Member
Username: Combover
Post Number: 117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
Nebula: Art is right. Washington state is pretty liberal, though largely because the Supreme Court is dominated by justices from the West side of the state. For example, In California police can search your trash, in Washington they need a warrant to do so. Washington Supreme Court also ruled "pre-text" stops illegal even if there was a legitimate basis for pulling the car over. In Oregon, police undercover work was limited for a while due to a court opinion that DA's could have ethics charges filed against them because their "agents", the police, were misrepresenting themselves to the criminals (the ethics rules had to be changed, but it took some time) |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 502
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 2:12 pm: | |
See! I told you you would crush me on the argument!
I guess stating that Cal was more liberal than any other states was kinda offbase.
As for the Franken book, I'm sure he has a lot of facts. I'm sure that Coulter has a lot of facts. But they are both (probably) only presenting those facts that best help their side. For example, I could say that all left-wingers are bad because Stalin and Mao were communitsts, which is the base of left-wing politics. Now, that is a fact, but I know as well as you do that it is a weak fact based on anomalies.
Both Franken and Coulter probably use facts that, while powerful, do not represent the majority of liberal or conservative thiking. In my mind, the only political books worth reading are those written by non-biased, non-agenda pushing authors. Of course, that leaves me with virtually NOTHING to read, but I feel that is the only way to get a truely (fair and balanced) view.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2599
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
Nebula:
Don't read Franken's opinions. Read his facts, with the proof. It's all in his book. Disregard all but the factual arguments. When you've done that you can see that he has amassed a great argument regarding some conservatives who don't tell the truth.
As to California. I beg to differ: California is fairly conservative. Oregon, Washington, and several other states, including quite a few in the South have vastly more liberal judicial systems. California is larger, more affulent, and a bit louder than those other states, and therefore we make the most noise, but we aren't the most liberal by a long shot. The 9th circuit encompuses (sp) literally all of the Western USA, California, Oregon, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Wy, etc. We are about 30% of the USA's population and probably as much as 50% of its land mass (a guess on my part, but I bet a reasonably accurate one).
One of the interesting series of facts in Franken's book is the little game the conservatives have played with the terms Conservative and Liberal. It's interesting reading, and again its chock full of facts, not opinions in regards to that issue.
Art |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 499
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
And regarding venue - I understand that. I also understand that it's venue happens to be one of the most liberal states in the union.
I'm no expert, though, and you are, so you could easily crush me on this argument, but I would venture to guess that California appeals more decisions based on a liberal agenda than does any other state. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 498
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Art - Suprisingly, I LIKE Franken! Although he's of a totally different political slant than I, I think he's a smart and funny guy.
I take exception to the point that he is neither a professional political analyst nor trained in that arena. While that doesn't make his opnions or points any less valid, I feel that any comedian who intentionally slams any political position, right or left, has credibility in only one arena: entertainment. It's obvious that he has a liberal slant, and he's going to write his book that way.
The same goes for Coulter (sp?). While she may be of the same political persuasion, I'll bet she didn't take any liberal viewpoints into perspective when writing her 2 (or is it three?) books. I agree with her, but I also understand that her book cannot be read without also looking at other sources.
Just my 0.02 cents. I like Franken, I think he's funny, but I don't think it's appropriate to use the commentary of a professional comedian as serious political commentary. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2598
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | |
Nebula:
The 9th circuit includes California. If and when you start law school, you'll find that you will study something called Venue. That was the only place such a case could be heard. Period.
As to Franken:
See, you haven't even looked at the book, and youre making comments. I suggest that 1. He is a comedian, but he has documented (with copies in the book) of various lies told by conservate people and has documented with pictures the proof of the lie. The only person I heard saying he was wrong was O'Rielly, who said he (O'Reilly) had made a mistake, it wasn't intentional. Franken disproves that issue in the book also.
Art |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 495
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Yeah Art - I going to get my political facts from a COMEDIAN. I guess that's why your opinions are so damn laughable.
Just because the stats show a near identical amount of cases over turned, let's not say that there is nothing odd about them until we see some other facts. For example, how many cases are put forth? If the 9th has 4000 cases overturned each year, but the 8th only has 9, well then the stats don't really say jack. Also, let's look at the cases that have been overturned. Another example, if the Supreme Court immediately overturns rediculous decisions made by the 9th, bt deliberates for weeks over other circuit cout ruling, well then, again, we can't use the stats.
Bottom line Art - you and I both know that the ACLU wanted it to get to the 9th, because they knew that the 9th is sympatheic towards liberal cases.
I know you'll never admit that, though, Art.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2595
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
The 9th circuit is by far the largest appellate district in the US. I don't know for sure, but I believe it to be at least twice as large as the next largest circuit. From Rich's statements, there is a 1% difference between the 9th circuit and the other circuits. A statistical tie.
There has been a large outpouring of comments, all of which seem to describe the 9th circuit as some sort of renegade circuit, but the reality is that they are in line with the other circuits, and this entire commentary is untrue in the literal sense.
I strongly urge people to read Franken's new book, Liars. If some of the conservatives don't want to spent the money, I'll buy one or two and if you promise to read it, and pass it one. Any takers?
Art |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 8:15 am: | |
Judge Kozinski's opinions are a hoot, however, at least in the intellectual property area. As to the inclinations of the bench there, i guess you get what you pay for, and Californians tend to want their State (and taxpayers) to bend over for the disentitled. Although the federal judiciary is supposed to be detached, the climate there (political and geographic) tends to make people blithe, and, well, sometimes, just plain dumb. |
rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member
Username: Dino2400
Post Number: 614
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Jon, the point is that the Supreme Court overules other courts as often as the 9th. Also, do you have any evidence that illegals voted in elections in California?
Dave, they didn't declare the pledge of allegiance illegal. They said the inclusion of the words "under god" that were added in recent times was unconstitutional and that's not so far hard to believe. I think the founders of this country would agree with the 9th on that issue.
p.s. I'm no fan of Davis, but don't blame him for the entire mess - there are many people conspiring to rip off California and he and our legislature got suckered. Throwing them all out and starting over sounds fine to me. |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 2842
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Rich, Jon is 100% correct. And the 9th Circus IS a "bunch of weirdos way out of touch with real America", as you so aptly put it. They were the bunch of a$$clowns who determined that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, and also that it was legal & OK to drive under the influence of marijuana. Among MANY other laughable legal travesties.
Smart knows, and so does the rest of America, that they are indeed a "bunch of weirdos way out of touch with real America". |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
Rich,
There is a big difference. I can't quote statistics but I am sure my friend Art can give us some idea.
The Supreme Court has a larger record of overturning the majority of cases it hears because it only hears cases where it believes there is a possibility of substantial error or the case has a huge impact on society.
The Supreme Court (again I don't have the exact stats) turns down thousands of cases every year so it's is only presiding over a tiny portion of cases put in front of it.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hears nearly every case put before it.
I haven't read the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case on the recall but I am a conservative and on first view it appears that the court may have ruled correctly on the recall.
You shoudl still be pissed if you live in CA, because now Davis will have another few months to bankrupt the state further. I can't understand how that stupid idiot got re-elected in the first place, but I guess that is what happens when you let a bunch of people who can't read English vote as well as people who aren't even in this country legally (though they can still legally get a licesne).
The people of CA ought to be ashamed that their budget deficit is larger than some EU countries.
Regards,
Jon P. Kofod
1995 F355 Challenge #23
|
rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member
Username: Dino2400
Post Number: 611
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 9:43 pm: | |
I can't remember how many times I've heard conservatives dismiss the actions of the supposed liberal 9th Circuit court as being by "the court that is the most reversed in the country", in order to paint them as a bunch of weirdos way out of touch with real America.
Well, it turns out that the 9th circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 75% of the time. Sounds terrible doesn't it? Until you realize that the Supremes overturn 74% of all cases from all courts. Therefore the 9th isn't all that out of line, is it?
(but even if they were radically different from other courts, they should be: this is california and we have very little in common with a lot of the country - thank god). |
|