FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) The Gorelick story has been debunked. He did argue that case, but it was rejected and the Clinton administration did not act on it. And there's also a big difference between Aldrich Ames and eavesdropping over thousands of random citizens who might be tied in to someone who might be tied into someone. In either case, if the Ames case is true, the Clinton adminstration was just as wrong. The question would be who in the FBI authorized that search. Did that go up all the way to an executive order? Because the administrations actions regarding wiretapping did. I love the "They all do it" defense, because it's so four year old in nature. It's OK for you to do the wrong thing, because everyone else did! Abu Gonzales was equally uninformed on the Ames issue during the Larry King interview from which this comes. The Aldrich Ames home search occurred in 1993. As such, it could not have been done in violation of FISA because FISA was not espanded to include physical searches until 1995 (by Bill Clinton).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 04:32 AM) You mean to tell me that Soxtalk has been cleansed of Anthrax's presence?! HAPPY DAYS!!!! Im so glad I stayed out of that stupid thread. You and me both.

Heh, the umbrella drink in front of Teddy is cute.

For my part, I really don't care one wit about CAP any more than I care about any other discriminatory college campus organizations. They are going to continue to exist regardless, and as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others they have a right to exist. The whole point has been that it has been hard to follow why Sam Alito flaunts his association with te organization while brown-nosing Ed Meese, then completely forgets he was ever associated with the organization, and then when pressed selectively recalls that for him it was all about getting ROTC reinstated at Yale. There is still a chance that Alito's mentioning CAP in the application with Meese in 1985 reflects a rekindled relationship with teh organization beyond that from the 1970s. Maybe he in fact was giving CAP and D'Souza some legal counsel over the outing of the coed and/or other matters. Do I think that this, if true (and it's just conjecture) is even close to being enough to scuttle the nomination? No. But if it turns out that this - or something like it - is why he's been evasive on the issue, then it continues to say a lot about what the guy is all about. He's very likely on the road to teh SCOTUS, but it doesn't make him any less of a mealy-mouth who has a history of saying anything to land a gig. Until now, of course, when it's hard to get him to say anything.

Here's hoping. These reports seem to be more substantive than the last ones to me, and they were not so quick to surface. Maybe it's true.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:45 PM) Dude, you're grasping for straws here. Wait. what am I not following here? Part of what led to the demise of the group was the public and legal pressuere brought upon the group and it's publication during Dinesh D'Souza's editorship over calling a girl's mother (she happened to be hispanic) and telling her that her daughter was using birth control, and then publishing that same information along with the girl's identity in their campus rag. The story made national news at the time, either in a story in Newsweek or Time (I can't remember which). Evil, do you know the year ROTC was banned from campus? I don't. But while saving the ROTC program may be Alitos; stated goal in interacting with the group, it is not even a blip on the radar in their first decade of activity.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:57 PM) The supposed all male and white club had female and minority members. Its stated goals were to bring ROTC back to the campus (their building was burned by some protestors, and they weren't given a new or substitute building to use),and to end the LOWERING of admission standards to meet an informal quota system set up by some more liberal members of the administration. Wanting to make sure people don't get in BECAUSE they are black or women is alot different that not wanting them in at all. And outing a co-ed using birth control to the campus and to her mother did what exactly to help the ROTC or admissions situations?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 06:32 PM) That might be true because the precedence had already been set, if you know what I mean. I think this has been done for 20 years or more, and was just now blown out of the water because Bush is the man they want to take down. JMO, of course. You do understand that the documents show that the NSA began its new policy of holding onto the names and numbers of US citizens they tapped shortly AFTER Bush took office, right? And if so, I'm confused as to what precident for bypassing judicial review to conduct warranrless spying ypu are referring to.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 07:11 PM) i dont even care about any of this, man. get off clinton's (and his shody administrations') balls, for god's sake! Who-ee, we're having some fun now. :rolly

But the outcry has not been just from the left, from the very outset. The day the story broke, Specter took issue with the president's apparent overreach even befor Russ feingold did. And are all the FISA judges who demanded a review to be let in on why they were sidestepped all left wing extremists? And finally, if it turns out that the NSA surveilance was in place well before 9/11 with Bush's blessing, there simply is no question of constitutionality because the 9/14/01 Joint Resolution the Justice Department is building it's house of cards on becomes entirely irrelevant.

Time for another of my semi-occassional story updates. • The first item is a good challenge to Kap, who has suggested that there are as many legal/constitutional experts who think the "any means necessary" 9/14 Joint Resolution justification holds water as think it is hogwash. Let's start keeping count. 12 recognized experts have drafted and signed on to a letter just sent to Congress woicingh their considered opinion that the White House failed to identify "any plausible legal authority for such surveillance." Here's the link to the full letter http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650#fnr14 and here are some relevant extracts, as pulled and annotated by the folks at Truthout: Thr whole letter is worth reading. As for the credentials of the authors, here is the list. - Curtis Bradley, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office - David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center - Walter Dellinger, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General - Ronald Dworkin, NYU Law School - Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution - Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney General - Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ - Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ - Beth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel - William S. Sessions, former Director, FBI, former Chief United States District Judge - Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law and former Provost, University of Chicago - Kathleen Sullivan, Professor and former Dean, Stanford Law School - Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School - William Van Alstyne, William & Mary Law School, former Justice Department attorney • Laurence Tribe, from the list above, is a recognized constitutional authority. He's the one who earlier this week referred to the BushCo legal justification for nSA surveilance as "poppycock". • Former Clinton era General Counsel for the CIA Jeffrey Smith just sent his own 14-page letter to the House Select Committee on Intelligence asking to be allowed to to testify at hearings that Bush overstepped his authority and broke the law. I saw links to this story testerday but can't fine them now. • The NSA has warned whistleblower/patriot #1 Russell Tice not to testify before Congress. Why would that be? • Oh yeah, it turns out that the "any means necessary" 9/14 Joint Resolution justification may be an even bigger load of crap than previously believed. Seems now as if Bush authorised illegal warrantless wiretaps BEFORE 9/11. How about that? The link is to a Kos entry, and there are links to a Truthout story as well as the declassified document showing this, so if you are not a fan of the evil liberal blog sites you need not click. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/13/103350/780

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) Awww, I thought we were tight. I see how it is now Meh, when you were mistakenly called out as the self-identified "recovering Catholic" and didn't say, 'No, wait, that's Flaxx, I got the picture.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) If only. It'd go right next to my Best of Maude DVD. Best of Maude? What do they do with all the BLANK SPACE left on that disc?? Actually, let me tryy this FROM MEMORY: Lady Godiva was a freedom rider - she didn't care if the whole world looked. Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her - she was a sister who really cooked. Blah blah was the first blah blah (never got those words as a kid) - and we're glad she showed up. And when the country was fallin' apart - Betsy Ross got it all sewed up. And then Came Maude. . . Anything but tranquilizing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:20 AM) My idea. I felt any religious topic was best back here. I'm just guessing that religion may prove to be a hot topic. Of course it hasn't so far You'll notice that I have so ffar managed to stear well clear of the current religion kerfuffle. Seems some people are giving us atheists a bad rap over there.

I see the thread has been filibusterized. That's cool, but I posted it more as a news item and to get people's opinions on it, not to politicize it in any way. NorthSideSox72, I assume your opinion is very much the opinion of mainstream RC. But the question remains as to whether Judas' will, or Peter's, Pilate's, etc., was really free if their actions were foretold and pretty much had to take place to further the events of the Jesus Saga. This question is more one of a theological/philosophical nature than one of the historicity of New Testament events. But I think that, without having to formalize tthe thoughts, a lot of Catholics see Judas a a sympathetic character caught up in events much larger than himself.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:47 AM) :headshake 1 Corinthians, by the way. They make darn good leather.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:32 PM) 3rd straight? Alito will be sitting on the court here soon and he's crashing and burning? I took Evil's hypothetical of GWB getting another crack at a nomination as entering a scenarion in which Alito was not confirmed. That seems the logical jump since his response was to my post urging a filibuster, and since I do not see any other Justices retiring in the next three years. As I'd noted earlier, Alito's eventual confirmation is, unfortunately, likely. Hopefully it does not happen without the Dems showing some backbone in opposing him first though.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:31 PM) God forbid a mans wife gets upset when her husband is subjected to unfair and unduly harsh criticism from a bunch of leftist no-nothings. Aren't liberals the one preaching compassion for others? Leftist hypocrasy number 53245124512. Did Mrs. Alito's coaching not cover the fact that her husband might actually be asked to explain how his documented history as a conservative idealogue and basically someone who will apparently say anything to get a job leaves him qualified to sit on the high court?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:26 PM) I think if Bush gets another chance to nominate someone maybe he should nominate Teddy himself! Ah, if only that ever could happen. That woule be the third successive GWB SCOTUS nominee to crash and burn, and that woudl be so much bigger than any attempt to embarass any single man on the stand.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...-RSS&attr=World Pretty much how Rice and Lloyd-Webber portrayed him 30+ years ago? The Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern of the Jesus Saga, with little say as to the role into which he was cast?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) So the wife of a man being grilled by alot of very inept Senators leaves in tears over the anguish her husband is experiencing, and it MAY be a political ploy. However, the grieving mother of a war veteran uses her 15 miutes of fame to become a shill for all things liberal and she is merely 'expressing her grief'? Hmmm. I understand that you understand the orders of magnitude difference between losing your son and watching your husband get a Senate beatdown, so I won't even dwell on that. But, don't you think Mrs. Bomgardner/Alito expected that her husband was going to be put on the spot during the confirmation hearings? I very much suspect the outburst was for effect, to paint the Dems as big bad bullies for doing their job. Especially when interview opportunities were being lined up with associates of hers within an hour of the incident. Mrs. Alito may have received some coaching as well I'd guess. Regardless of the outcome, and despite the MSM saying quick confirmation is iminent, the Dems should filibuster. Alito failed to substantively engage his record during the hearings, and so failed to sway anybody that he is anything more than an extreme conservative idealogue. I think if the Dems filibuster and ultimately Alito is confirmed anyway(likely), that is still far preferable to letting the nomination go unchallenged. During the filibuster, lots of time can be given to spelling out not only Alito's character and positions, but also the executive abuses that have come to a head in the NSA affair and the fact that that sort of consolidation of power in the executive suits Judge Alito just fine. Throw in several re-readings of the Constitution, especially the 4th amendment, and have every Democratic Senator note that they in no way intended for the 9/14 Joint Resolution for the use of force in Afghanistan to extend the executive authority to conduct warrantless surveilance against US citizens. The MSM will be unable to ignore all of that and will finally have to explain the facts of some of these issues to the public.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) No, this was before James Evans died and in the episode he temporarily lost his job at the loading dock because the FBI were snooping around to see who was getting Cuban propaganda. Velona wasn't in this episode and I wonder if she was even on the show yet. You've got the Good Times Collector's DVD s Set, don't you?

I very much enjoyed seeing this news story the other day.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) If that case were overturned, then why would they need a constitutional ban? It'd be a lot harder to pass, it'd take a lot longer, and it probably would in fact fail. They could do it very simply with just a simple majority in both houses by passing a law. I guess, but why not go the same route with gay marriage if they really ever intended for it to get anywhere?

If he's corrupt (and it sure seems like he is), hopefully he gets nailed on it.