I'll give a resounding NO if asked whether the republicans will allow the democrats to have the keys to Abu Ghraib or the keys to Camp Delta in Gitmo. Why would they ever let the dems have the power to look inside those dungeons in their native forms, surely resulting in bringing war crimes and crimes against humanity charges to many of the criminals in the Bush administration.

Nor will the republicans hand over the wiretapping, email-tapping, text-messaging-tapping, hard-drive-snooping powers that the republicans use to hold the dems in line. No way will they hand those powers to the dems so they can use them against the republicans.

Nor will the republicans allow a dem in the White House along with the majority in both chambers, resulting in, if necessary, the impeachment of some of the SCOTUS members if they decide to go rouge on the constitution and rule the country based on agenda, mainly neocon agenda.

And it won't be hard for the republicans to keep the power. The dems appear to be ready to nominate a weak, immature, naive, amateur which they allowed to be chosen by the republicans through the infiltration of caucuses and open primaries, disenfranchisement and mouth pieces such as Drudge and turncoat Keith Olbermann who lately resembles a dog humping a bone when he spits out his hatred for the Clintons.

It appears to be McCain's to lose.

Sorry for raining on the dem's parade but idealism, whether objective, subjective or transcendental is what gets the party in trouble nearly every time and now they're doing it again.

I have to hand it to the GOP -- they know how to game the system and certainly know how to PUNK the dems.

I have to hand it to the GOP -- they know how to game the system and certainly know how to PUNK the dems.
This is true. To me, the Democratic Party seems quite disorganized. We should have had a Democratic president in 2004, and everyone thinks we're going to get one this year, but I would say that we shouldn't underestimate the Dems' ability to screw things up for themselves.

You think John Kerry was a good candidate?

You think John Kerry was a good candidate?

Kerry ran a terrible campaign for a couple of reasons ...

he let the GOP and the media define him as an elitist
he didn't respond quickly enough to the swift boaters.
he let Ohio slip away with little to no fight.

so, it's impossible that he WASN'T an elitist? I agree he ran a bad campaign, but don't go blaming the mean ol' republicans for foul play.. both sides smear each other, and use anything they can to instill stigmas on each other.

The bottom line: Don't pass the buck for John Kerry.

so, it's impossible that he WASN'T an elitist? I agree he ran a bad campaign, but don't go blaming the mean ol' republicans for foul play.. both sides smear each other, and use anything they can to instill stigmas on each other.

The bottom line: Don't pass the buck for John Kerry.

and I'm not passing the buck ...

Kerry made some bad moves which opened the door for being tagged as an elitist. Like ... er ... his windsurfing act ... what was that all about? He would have been better off displaying his macho side by volunteering at one of those sites that builds homes for the poor or whatever.

How many people can associate with windsurfing?

On edit: a quick congratulations to the hard working folks at the University of Arizona for the successful landing of the Phoenix Mars lander.

How many people can associate with windsurfing?How many people can associate with being a senator?

People should know by now that presidential candidates aren't going to be your Average Joe Sixpack.

How many people can associate with being a senator?

People should know by now that presidential candidates aren't going to be your Average Joe Sixpack.

but that doesn't mean that a senator won't be the average Joe sixpack or at least try to not flaunt the good life style (probably on the tax payers buck too).

FWIW: I make more than a senator. :D

I'll give a resounding NO if asked whether the republicans will allow the democrats to have the keys to Abu Ghraib or the keys to Camp Delta in Gitmo.

LOL.

One problem is that the Dems (many of them) were in on it.



Why would they ever let the dems have the power to look inside those dungeons in their native forms,

The RepubliFascists have complete control. They do not do anything that they do not want to do.

......surely resulting in bringing war crimes and crimes against humanity charges to many of the criminals in the Bush administration.

The reason that the individuals in the highest echelons of RightWing power can never be brought up on war crimes (which they commit daily) and crimes against humanity (which they are committing in Iraq as we speak, and have been for years) is that fully half of the voting Public actually approves of the murderous, despicable, traitorous actions the Republican bastards are perpetrating.

Nor will the republicans hand over the wiretapping, email-tapping, text-messaging-tapping, hard-drive-snooping powers that the republicans use to hold the dems in line. No way will they hand those powers to the dems so they can use them against the republicans.

Of course not. They don't want to go to prison.

Nor will the republicans allow a dem in the White House along with the majority in both chambers, resulting in, if necessary, the impeachment of some of the SCOTUS members if they decide to go rouge on the constitution and rule the country based on agenda, mainly neocon agenda.

You're a tad late with that conjecture, old friend.

The SCOTUS went *rogue* 8 years ago when they appointed the goddamned loser of the election to be pResident.

And it won't be hard for the republicans to keep the power.

No, it won't. They seem to me to have a virtual lock on it.

The dems appear to be ready to nominate a weak, immature, naive, amateur which they allowed to be chosen by the republicans through the infiltration of caucuses and open primaries, disenfranchisement and mouth pieces ....

Yep.

If there is any act more indicative of a Party committing political suicide than their nominating a Negro, whose father was a Muslim, whose middle name is Hussein, whose preacher has screamed *God Damn America* , I cannot possibly imagine what it might be.




It appears to be McCain's to lose.

Sorry for raining on the dem's parade but idealism, whether objective, subjective or transcendental is what gets the party in trouble nearly every time and now they're doing it again.

True.

I have to hand it to the GOP -- they know how to game the system........


Sorry.........but that just isn't the case.

That's akin to saying something along the lines of-- "Gosh, those casino owners sure know how to make smart gambling decisions! Just look at how often they win!."

They 'win' continuously because the system is set up in such a way that they cannot lose.

There is no gamble involved in it for the owners/operators, and no talent for *gaming* the system is required when you own the game and when you run the system using your own predetermined set of rules that the suckers are forced to play by..............whether it be a casino or a political system.

Sorry.........but that just isn't the case.

That's akin to saying something along the lines of-- "Gosh, those casino owners sure know how to make smart gambling decisions! Just look at how often they win!."

They 'win' continuously because the system is set up in such a way that they cannot lose.

There is no gamble involved in it for the owners/operators, and no talent for *gaming* the system is required when you own the game and when you run the system using your own predetermined set of rules that the suckers are forced to play by..............whether it be a casino or a political system.

That's another, more detailed way of saying what I said (implied) so I accept it. Of course, the real power for the republicans is the media, which they own and control 100%.

Of course, the real power for the republicans is the media, which they own and control 100%.

EXACTLY.

The absolute bedrock of the entire scam is controlling what and how the masses think.......and THAT is accomplished through the control of the dissemination of information........and that is accomplished through Media ownership and domination.

Leo Strauss laid the foundational work for what was to come with the Corporatists (IOW, the ConservaFascists) and their ironclad control of the running of the country.

Strauss knew --and taught his numerous Neo-Con pupils-- that the sheep were but stupid herd animals who had to be led by the 'wise' men of society; i.e, the wealthy and powerful.

Strauss was profoundly hostile to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was necessary to lead the masses into doing the bidding of a controlling cabal, using subterfuge when necessary, and outright lies when the subterfuge failed. IOW, the exact agenda of the modern day RightWing that now runs the country.

if the republicans control everything.. as FT claims... then why is there a democrat-ran congress?

if the republicans control everything.. as FT claims... then why is there a democrat-ran congress?
Actually, I think FT's post implying control of the media solely by the GOP was probably due to a miscommunication, given what I've read from him previously. I believe he claims, and I agree, that the duopolistic political system in the United States right now (98% of the Senate and 100% of the House are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans) greatly influences the media, and has a vested interest in preserving such a duopoly. I don't agree that corporations are to blame, per se; sc. there is nothing intrinsically bad about corporations. But the two-party system is a major flaw in American politics. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two political parties control the media, but they (and, by extension, the current political system in this country) certainly influence it.

I could be wrong, maybe FT does think that only the GOP controls the media, but I think he meant to say that the GOP and the DNC control the media. My apologies to him if I misinterpreted.

Actually, I think FT's post implying control of the media solely by the GOP was probably due to a miscommunication, given what I've read from him previously. I believe he claims, and I agree, that the duopolistic political system in the United States right now (98% of the Senate and 100% of the House are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans) greatly influences the media, and has a vested interest in preserving such a duopoly. I don't agree that corporations are to blame, per se; sc. there is nothing intrinsically bad about corporations. But the two-party system is a major flaw in American politics. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two political parties control the media, but they (and, by extension, the current political system in this country) certainly influence it.

I could be wrong, maybe FT does think that only the GOP controls the media, but I think he meant to say that the GOP and the DNC control the media. My apologies to him if I misinterpreted.

Who knows what FT actually meant, but I definitely agree with what you said. I think we need at least one more party with decent support to stop the republican/democrat circle jerk and make them have to work to retain their status as the top two political parties.

Who knows what FT actually meant, .
Actually I think Borg pretty much nailed it.....

FWIW,i think Freethinkers views,as extreme as they are, are all pretty much clear to deciepher. I might not agree with a large portion of them,but he is very consistent,has a clear message,and in alot of issues,such as the one we are currently talking about, he is right on the money.

if the republicans control everything.. as FT claims... then why is there a democrat-ran congress?

Republicans do not control everything, per se.

But Corporatists --extreme Rightwingers-- do control what goes on in this country and determine how it is run. They own all the major outlets for the dissemination of information and what passes as "the news".

And the lackeys of the Corporatists come in both Republican and Democratic varieties.

And it won't be hard for the republicans to keep the power. The dems appear to be ready to nominate a weak, immature, naive, amateur which they allowed to be chosen by the republicans through the infiltration of caucuses and open primaries, disenfranchisement and mouth pieces such as Drudge and turncoat Keith Olbermann who lately resembles a dog humping a bone when he spits out his hatred for the Clintons.
1. Neither Democratic candidate is a "weak, immature, naive, amateur." You are buying into Republican frames which have no basis in reality.

2. The Republican's infiltration ("operation chaos") was about getting people to go vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses, yet you are citing their frame for Obama.

I don't agree that corporations are to blame, per se; sc. there is nothing intrinsically bad about corporations.
You are underestimating the power and influence of corporations.

1. Neither Democratic candidate is a "weak, immature, naive, amateur." You are buying into Republican frames which have no basis in reality.

2. The Republican's infiltration ("operation chaos") was about getting people to go vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses, yet you are citing their frame for Obama.

Obama has 3 years of national service as a junior senator, has never sponsored a bill that was meaningful, votes 'present' 90% of the time, has yet to define what he means by 'change', has sponsored gun laws while in the state legislature (wait until the NRA runs some 527's on that one), hangs with a preacher that hates whites and America and then lies about it, hangs with Rezko and the dude from the weather underground, has a wife that makes hate filled remarks about America and IMHO racists remarks ("get more whites in the audience" when she noticed a lack thereof while setting up for one of their rallies) ... this guy is a total lightweight.

Then there's the Bradley effect, the middle name, his heritage, the fact he, his wife and his campaign has practically labeled all Hillary supporters as either racists or assassins (sure thing, we're gonna forget that real soon) ...

So explain to me just how Obama is not weak, immature, naive and an amateur. In fact, tell me just what he is going to do in explicit terms ... not just more of his standard stump rhetoric "we're gonna have change" ... give me some precise context on what he is going to change, who it affects and how it will be paid for ... start by explaining how his health care is going to be any better than what we already have, what he will do for the vets and not just the Iraq vets - all vets, past, present and future, how many jobs will he allow to go offshore (currently we average 88,000 per month), how he will make higher education affordable for everyone not just the underprivileged, what is his exact plan for sealing the border and handling the 20 million illegals that want amnesty ...

His problem (with me (one of them anyway)) is not coming clean on issues other than "we're gonna have change" ....

Well here's a bulletin for your guy ... either tell us what you have planned or move out of the way.

Rush didn't start operation chaos until well after South Carolina. Previous to that, Obama was crushing Hillary in cross-over voting. Even during Operation Chaos, he got more republican votes than Hillary.

Well I've tried to ask FT multiple times on here exactly what the process is that newspaper headlines and reporters are controlled by corporate big wigs.. but he has never answered, probably because he doesn't HAVE an answer, and just like to smear what he doesn't theoretically like.. and if all of this corruption wasn't going on, his life would be too boring.

I think there is massive corruption among politicians.. but I don't think corporate CEO's write the NY Times.

And I agree that we need more parties to better represent the people of the united states. Unfortunately, the 2 parties have made sure that this can't happen.. which is pretty much against the 1st amendment all together.

I guess that this is another thread of expert predictions. But rather than just seeing it for what it is, I'll play the game and add my two cents.

So in my crystal ball, I gaze upon two alternatives. A McCain presidency will only seem to guarantee that we will never see an end to the conflict in Iraq and no end to spending on it. Wanting to be even handed, we can't let the Democrats off of the hook because they ran in 2005 to end this war and now that they are the majority in Congress, they have nonetheless permitted the war to continue.

A McCain presidency will also guarantee future generations mountains of debt: generated by tax cuts for the rich and corporations that haven't been paid for.

A McCain presidency will also guarantee a court composition that will further strengthen executive branch fiat and weaken efforts to make government more transparent. This court composition will also, in a McCain presidency, further erode reproductive and privacy rights.

A McCain presidency will offer the same incompetency on the economy as the Bush administration. American corporations will be rewarded with tax cuts to ship American jobs overseas.

A McCain presidency will seek to halt any increases in the minimum wage. Right now the dollar is struggling but this is more because of inflation that has raised gas and food prices. We can probably look for states to take the lead on the minimum wage issue. For instance, the wage rate is higher in Massachusetts and California; in Florida, the wage is set to a yearly inflation/cost of living index.

A McCain presidency will talk about the threat of global warming but it is unclear if he will compel industries to cut their carbon emissions. It is also unclear if he would be ready/willing to invest money in the development of alternative fuels. (note: Iraq war spending from above).

An Obama presidency is somewhat of an X factor. If he sticks to his principles, I believe the following will characterize his presidency:

Not an end to the war but at least a credible plan for getting us out. Any plan to get us out must recognize that we are right now policing what is really a civil, ethnic conflict. We must be even willing to consider that it might be better for Iraq to separate into nations as opposed to maintaining a centralized state ruled by Shias. Syria and Iran must all be involved in the process to rebuild this region. Given Obama's desire for uniting people, he would certainly make more headway instead of by toeing the status quo: which is of course having no diplomatic relations at all with Syria and Iran.

Investment in alternative energy. Green jobs. We've always prided ourselves in being an innovative country yet we seem to sometimes become slaves to our own technology. Oil/gas/automobile dependency will be addressed by an Obama administration and I imagine that there will be more investment in our infrastructure (e.g., railway systems, roads, etc) which will also create more jobs.

Court appointments that will not divide people on cultural issues. But such appointments will seek to restore reproductive and privacy rights. While Obama has expressed a commitment to fighting the terrorists, he does not see that there is a conflict between protecting our security and personal freedom. But with reference to fighting the terrorists, he believes we need to fight them where they actually are (i.e., Afghanistan and Pakistan). There was no Al Queda in Iraq until we invaded.

More investment in education (or a return to an innovation economy and not a military industrial one). Investment in veteran's education. Service scholarships or reduction of student loans for graduates who teach in low income areas.

Taxes. This will be a thorny issue. The problem right now is that they will either come now or later because tax cuts pretty much amount to passing the buck along to the next generation. States are already raising taxes in certain areas. Florida which has no state income tax has tried raising property taxes to account for budget shortfalls but the voters are against it. The university system has suffered: cutting back classes and aid to needy students. So now it's a bit easier for states to raise sales taxes. While there is no sales tax on grocery items in Florida, there is a tax other items which has just gone up to close to 7%. That's pretty high.

Well now there's smoke in the crystal ball. I can't see a thing now.

Obama has 3 years of national service as a junior senator, has never sponsored a bill that was meaningful
If you're voting based on "experience", then you must support McCain. But I think experience can also be a huge negative, because spending a lot of time in politics can certainly corrupt people, if they weren't already corrupt.
votes 'present' 90% of the time
Obama has missed 21% of Senate votes, McCain 17%, and Clinton 9%. I would guess that a large number of those missed votes, for all three candidates, came while they were campaigning in 2008 (and McCain also in 2000).
his wife and his campaign has practically labeled all Hillary supporters as either racists or assassins (sure thing, we're gonna forget that real soon)
Clinton's campaign has also labeled its detractors as sexist.
So explain to me just how Obama is not weak, immature, naive and an amateur.
That's an opinion, not subject to facts and not something that is going to change in many people's minds. I'm not going to be voting for the guy (even though I voted for him in the primary) for numerous reasons, but they are ideological compared to many of the non-issues you've brought up. And really, when Hillary and Obama are pretty much clones of each other, ideology-wise, how else are you going to rationalize liking one and disliking another?

Kerry ran a terrible campaign for a couple of reasons ...

he let the GOP and the media define him as an elitist
he didn't respond quickly enough to the swift boaters.
he let Ohio slip away with little to no fight.

Kerry lost because he acted goofy throughout his Campaign,
windsurfing and bicycling and even gettin a Duck hunting license
and actin the hunter with his very new Ducky digs.
He pandered too much for votes.Shot his mouth off too much
and then didn't defend against The Swiftees { who were merely
assessing the facts } with as much quick vigor.
He played the wrong card again at his Convention by coming on
stage and saluting and sayin - Reporting for Duty -.
He made far too mush of his Military service.It backfired and
bigtime.Proilly lost most of the Vietnam Vet's votes.

Kerry lost because he acted goofy throughout his Campaign,
windsurfing and bicycling and even gettin a Duck hunting license
and actin the hunter with his very new Ducky digs.
He pandered too much for votes.
Nah. Kerry lost simply because he was a boring douchebag.

Nah. Kerry lost simply because he was a boring douchebag.

Goot tink I ain't dat ...Eh ?

If you're voting based on "experience", then you must support McCain. But I think experience can also be a huge negative, because spending a lot of time in politics can certainly corrupt people, if they weren't already corrupt.

we're at war ... experience counts.


Obama has missed 21% of Senate votes, McCain 17%, and Clinton 9%. I would guess that a large number of those missed votes, for all three candidates, came while they were campaigning in 2008 (and McCain also in 2000).

Not talking about the U.S. senate ... In the Illinois senate he voted present nearly all the time ...

Clinton's campaign has also labeled its detractors as sexist.

sexism will never get you banished to the great neverneverland ... racism will.


That's an opinion, not subject to facts and not something that is going to change in many people's minds. I'm not going to be voting for the guy (even though I voted for him in the primary) for numerous reasons, but they are ideological compared to many of the non-issues you've brought up. And really, when Hillary and Obama are pretty much clones of each other, ideology-wise, how else are you going to rationalize liking one and disliking another?

Sorry but I can't call totally unqualified a non-issue when a person is applying for the most powerful position in the world.

and yes, they pretty much are clones.

Obama has 3 years of national service as a junior senator,
Thats 3 years of legislative experience plus 6 years in the Illinois Senate, which makes 9 years of legislative experience. (which in my opinion doesn't mean much because the only experience you can have to prepare you to be President is to be President, which nobody has until they are elected so this issue is just a red herring anyway).

Obama is no ameteur. He beat the supposedly "inevitable" nominee.
Just like he is going to beat McSame.


hangs with Rezko and the dude from the weather underground,
That is a lie.
He served on a board with him once.
That is hardly "hanging" with him.


has a wife that makes hate filled remarks about America
That is another lie.
Jerry Falwell and John Hagee made Hate-filled remarks about America. Michelle Obama did not.



and IMHO racists remarks ("get more whites in the audience" when she noticed a lack thereof while setting up for one of their rallies)

If you think that is racist then you don't know what real racism is.



Then there's the Bradley effect, the middle name, his heritage, the fact he, his wife and his campaign has practically labeled all Hillary supporters as either racists or assassins (sure thing, we're gonna forget that real soon) ...

Hillary was the one bringing up assasins when talking about Obama last week, which caused another 12 delegates to go over to Obama. She really does not know when to shut up. That is a huge problem for someone who wanted to be President.



His problem (with me (one of them anyway)) is not coming clean on issues other than "we're gonna have change" ....
If you don't want change, then by all means vote Republican.
Democrats don't vote for a King who will impose his will. That is what Conservatives want, but that is not how a Democratic Republic is supposed to work.


Well here's a bulletin for your guy ... either tell us what you have planned or move out of the way.
Move out of the way of what? The status quo?
Get real.

Question dop, are you a Hillary or McCain supporter?
I can't tell which from these posts where you are parrotting Republican talking points.

we're at war

No, we are not.

We WON the war in Iraq years ago.

No, we are not.

We WON the war in Iraq years ago.

we will be at war with either Iran or Pakistan -- better?

Well I've tried to ask FT multiple times on here exactly what the process is that newspaper headlines and reporters are controlled by corporate big wigs.. but he has never answered.....

Again, you are a liar.

I have answered you in detail on this topic on more than one occasion.

This makes several times that I have caught you in a blatant lie concerning something you claim that I have said or posted or have not posted. You are ---flat out-- a fucking liar. A pathological one, it seems.

I am growing very tired of explaining the situation with the Corporate-owned mainstream Media to a person who not only will not listen, but who is an imbecile to boot.

It does not take much digging to see or to understand that the editors and managers -who determine the overall content of the various newspapers, magazines, dailies and television shows- (iow, the very media that the vast majority of Americans get their "news" from) are very heavily influenced -to put it mildly- by what their advertisers (and *advertisers* = the huge corporations who pay to have their goods and services hawked) tell them to report/print/say.

Again, you are a liar.

I have answered you in detail on this topic on more than one occasion.

This makes several times that I have caught you in a blatant lie concerning something you claim that I have said or posted or have not posted. You are ---flat out-- a fucking liar. A pathological one, it seems.

I am growing very tired of explaining the situation with the Corporate-owned mainstream Media to a person who not only will not listen, but who is an imbecile to boot.

It does not take much digging to see or to understand that the editors and managers -who determine the overall content of the various newspapers, magazines, dailies and television shows- (iow, the very media that the vast majority of Americans get their "news" from) are very heavily influenced -to put it mildly- by what their advertisers (and *advertisers* = the huge corporations who pay to have their goods and services hawked) tell them to report/print/say.
I'm curious. What's your take on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report? I know they're on cable, which I suppose isn't quite as corporate as the big news networks, but I'd still be interested to hear your take on those two shows.

I'm curious. What's your take on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report? I know they're on cable, which I suppose isn't quite as corporate as the big news networks, but I'd still be interested to hear your take on those two shows.

They're comedies.

Lighthearted banter that is essentially meaningless...but that does serve the very important purpose of letting some of the remaining progressive folk in the country revel in the humorous notion that -- "Ooooooh....look! We're really sticking it to The Man! We're really exposing the powers-that-be for what they are! NOW the People will see how they're getting screwed over. NOW things will change!"

The reality, however, is that nothing will change. I does not matter which of the three toadies of the Corporatists is eventually elected (or appointed by the Supreme Court to serve) as our pResident.

Halliburton and General Electric and Raytheon and General Dynamics will continue to rake in billions in sweetheart government contracts. The endless wars will continue.

The American Empire will continue its long slide into oblivion, with the mindless sheep cheering and waving their little fucking flags and singing praises to Juheezuus even as the ship of State sinks beneath the waves forever.

optimism at its finest..

and why do you always have to bring in the christian God into it?

optimism at its finest..

and why do you always have to bring in the christian God into it?

WHAT?!?!?! We all know how much cable TV has to do with the evil Xtain sky god! or maybe he is jealous of the great Juheezuus

1. Nor will the republicans hand over the wiretapping, email-tapping, text-messaging-tapping, hard-drive-snooping powers that the republicans use to hold the dems in line.

2. .... the impeachment of some of the SCOTUS members if they decide to go rouge on the constitution and rule the country based on agenda...

3. .... Keith Olbermann who lately resembles a dog humping a bone when he spits out his hatred for the Clintons.

1. Are you referring to the Dems who had obtained 800 FBI files last time they were in the White House, controlled Bimbo eruptions through blackmail and tapped Newt Gingrich's cell phone?
Those Democrats?

2. You mean like Ruth Bader Ginsberg who used "international law" to decide a case that wasn't addressed in our constitution?

3. That would be an example of evolution in his case.

FWIW: I make more than a senator. :D
They don't make much, but many retire as multi-millionaires.

1. Are you referring to the Dems who had obtained 800 FBI files last time they were in the White House, controlled Bimbo eruptions through blackmail and tapped Newt Gingrich's cell phone?
Those Democrats?
Those Democrats only exist in your imagination. :rolleyes:

They don't make much, but many retire as multi-millionaires.

Which is why we need public financing of elections.

:thumbs:

Those Democrats only exist in your imagination. :rolleyes:
The Clintons, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Jim McDermott are real.
The Clintons admitted to having the files.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/14/hillary/

Ruth Bader Ginsberg admits to considering international law when deciding cases.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/scotus.threat/index.html

McDermott got fined $700,000 for leaking a taped cellphone conversation (between Gingrich and John Boehner) to the NY Times.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002895236_webmcdermott28.html


Anything else?

Kerry ....he let the GOP and the media define him as an elitist
he didn't respond quickly enough to the swift boaters.
he let Ohio slip away with little to no fight.

[On Obama]: "The dems appear to be ready to nominate a weak, immature, naive, amateur"

What's really frustrating in dealing with you guys (not just you, Dop) is that you are sometimes more agenda-driven than candid.

I'm pretty certain that if Hillary's people hadn't fought Obama so hard during this process, and it was just McCain vs. Obama, you wouldn't be admitting any of this stuff about Obama.

Similarly, the Obama people are finally admitting what the right has been saying about Hillary for over fifteen years. Where were they then???

And I'm sure that if Hillary were running against Kerry right now, you'd be more candid about Kerry than you were when he ran against Bush.

The Clintons, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Jim McDermott are real.

The Clintons admitted to having the files.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/14/hillary/

Ruth Bader Ginsberg admits to considering international law when deciding cases.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/scotus.threat/index.html

McDermott got fined $700,000 for leaking a taped cellphone conversation (between Gingrich and John Boehner) to the NY Times.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002895236_webmcdermott28.html

Thank you for providing links.
The story you gave for the Clintons does not back up any of the claims you made. It doesn't even say they did anything illegal.

I don't have any problem with Justice Ginsburg's ruling. International law has always been taken into consideration in American law. We have to consider international law in order for treaties to work.

As for Jim McDermott, the issue seems to have been with him sharing the tapes with the media, not making the tapes.

I find it interesting that you seem to object to wiretapping only when a Republican is the target. How do you feel about the guy in Orrin Hatch's office who hacked into a computer in Teddy Kennedy's office (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/)?




Anything else?
yes, do you think your attempts at counter-accusations excuse the more recent behavior by the Republicans?

What's really frustrating in dealing with you guys (not just you, Dop) is that you are sometimes more agenda-driven than candid.
Pot...kettle...black...

Pot...kettle...black...

***Nominated for the most hypocritical post of all time

Again, you are a liar.

I have answered you in detail on this topic on more than one occasion.

This makes several times that I have caught you in a blatant lie concerning something you claim that I have said or posted or have not posted. You are ---flat out-- a fucking liar. A pathological one, it seems.

I am growing very tired of explaining the situation with the Corporate-owned mainstream Media to a person who not only will not listen, but who is an imbecile to boot.

It does not take much digging to see or to understand that the editors and managers -who determine the overall content of the various newspapers, magazines, dailies and television shows- (iow, the very media that the vast majority of Americans get their "news" from) are very heavily influenced -to put it mildly- by what their advertisers (and *advertisers* = the huge corporations who pay to have their goods and services hawked) tell them to report/print/say.

okayyy what do we have here.

Posturing.. smear smear smear... back peddling... AH, we get to the point!

So advertisers tell magazines and news programs what to report? What is your proof? What do you base this off if? Your need for a conspiracy?

and why do you always have to bring in the christian God into it?
http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html

http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html
wow:eek:

An interesting read Borg. Thanks for posting it.

Just to clear things up, I take no pride or get no happiness from other people being "wrong" or suffering from anything. That link describes a FT to a tee, but it doesn't make me, or anyone else, better than him. I think FT enjoys being different, and enjoys stirring the pot. He likes the conflict, and tries to pull professed christians down to a level of hate. Many "christians" bite on the nice, big, juicy, fat worm... I sure don't. Politics has no business with religion. My political views are mostly separate from my religious views. What I think is best for a country is different than what I think is best for humanity. What comes first? My religion, of course. While I disagree, and have at times ridiculed and committed murder on the name of others in the forum, I have never "hated" them. At least I sure hope I havn't.

optimism at its finest..

and why do you always have to bring in the christian God into it?

Because instilling very strongly held superstitious belief (the Christian religion being the chosen method) in the gullible masses is a huge factor in keeping the herd under control, keeping them docile, keeping them submissive, keeping them unquestioning and obedient, so as to guarantee the ruling powers a very large pool of dependable laborers to do the work of industry.

The story you gave for the Clintons.... doesn't even say they did anything illegal.

I don't have any problem with Justice Ginsburg's ruling. International law has always been taken into consideration.....

As for Jim McDermott, the issue seems to have been with him sharing the tapes with the media, not making the tapes.

You've changed your argument, Drama.

I described Democrats who have used international law on the Supreme Court, who held FBI files and who taped phone conversations, to which you replied "[t]hose Democrats only exist in your imagination."

Then when I link the stories, you respond by saying doing those things aren't so bad.

Doing what, those "imaginary" things?

1. The story you gave for the Clintons does not back up any of the claims you made. It doesn't even say they did anything illegal.

2. I don't have any problem with Justice Ginsburg's ruling. International law has always been taken into consideration .....

3. As for Jim McDermott, the issue seems to have been with him sharing the tapes with the media, not making the tapes.

1. I didn't say it was illegal. Just as Bush's firing of the justices wasn't.
You just didn't like the way it smelled.

2. If a case before the Supreme Court cannot be overruled within the framework of the constitution, the prior court's ruling stands.
Could you please give me one of your examples of where a Supreme Court Justice utilized international law?

3. Read up on the case.

Pot...kettle...black...
What's so idiotic about this response is that the person is admitting that what is being said about him is true.

http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html

Interesting.

Let's examine it and see if it applies.

A few psychologists have suggested that the village atheist syndrome could be classed as a form of obsessive compulsive behavior.....Appearance -----We first became interested in the syndrome from our mutual experience on boards and committee meetings of humanist and free thought organizations. Once our interest was aroused we noted that sometimes in such settings, the individual becomes so dominating, we might even say irrational, that the proceedings are totally disrupted. We also have noted that certain words, for example "God" or "religion," seem to set them off, sometimes the reaction is so severe that it seems to be an apoplectic attack.

I am 55 years old, and there are around 5 people on the planet (two of whom are my wife and son) who know me in person who are --even in the slightest sense-- aware that I hold no belief in god or gods.

IOW, virtually no one who knows me knows that I am an atheist.

Making the excerpt above --in green-- about as antithetical as is possible to the way that I present myself to the world.

Early Symptoms and Progressive Stages --- Perhaps the most obvious symptom is an inability to compromise, to get along with others. This is first noticed in board meetings of humanist and free thought groups where the village atheist is attempting to get his/her way. We should state that though the condition most frequently appears in males

When I communicate on these boards, my attitude can admittedly be said to be one of -- "I do not have to bow down to you who post here and follow your commands, nor am I required to acquiesce to you in every aspect of political discussion and on political issues, nor am I required to share in and conform to the irrational taboos and superstitions of the religionists who post here. So, I will state my honest opinions freely and straightforwardly with no dissembling."

When I communicate with people in person, none of this ever comes into play, because I never discuss politics or religion with people in social situations. There is no point in my doing so. Outside of maybe three people that I know, no one would have the slightest clue where I am coming from, or could bear to hear my viewpoint, a viewpoint that will invariably be very strongly opposed to the God/Country/MomandApplePie/Flag/MilitaryMight mindset which the vast majority of the citizenry has had drilled into them 24/7 from the moment of their birth.

Making the excerpt above --in blue-- about as antithetical as is possible to the way that I present myself to the world.

Apparently when the individuals with a proclivity for the syndrome find themselves among what they had believed to be like-minded free thinkers, they are both shocked and appalled to find that others disagree with them,

This in no way applies to me, as I have never in 55 years of living been among a group of people that gave even the slightest hint of being within a million miles of being 'freethinkers'. Do such groups of 'freethinkers' exist? I have no doubt that they do. Somewhere. It's just that I have never --and I do mean never-- been in the company of such a group.

This disagreement is marked by what can be only called anti-social behavior, a clear mark of the village atheist syndrome.

Again, if *anti-social* behavior is a true mark of the village atheist syndrome, then I am about as far removed from it as is humanly possible, since shouting, arguing, nitpicking, dissenting or insisting that I have "my way" -- in any social setting I have ever been in-- is absolutely and totally foreign to me.


Pathogenesis -- In talking with individuals whom we believe have strong symptoms of the syndrome, and making notes of our conversation, we believe that there are many similarities in their backgrounds. Often in the communities in which they live, they are the only professed free thinker.

In my case, this is correct. (although I am a freethinker, but not a professed freethinker)

Many have gained a reputation for their free thinking, and while the locals cannot understand how they believe as they do, their place in the community as a dissident is recognized.

In my case, this is absolutely 0% correct. I have no reputation whatsoever as a freethinker, and I can safely say that no human being on this planet who has ever known in person me would characterize me as a *dissident*, in any way shape form or fashion.

Do I dissent in my written opinions, or on the major issues of the day, and in my own heart and mind? Yes.

Do I do so in person? No. If there were the slightest chance of making the dissent felt, or in creating positive change, it would be different. In my current situation however, it would be akin to 1000 people being in a boat, with 999 of them rowing one way, but with one person who feels that the boat should be traveling in the opposite direction. After the second or third dip of the oar in the water, it becomes quickly apparent that trying to buck the prevailing direction --by overcoming the force of 999 to 1 against you-- is useless.

I do not come here to change anyone's mind. It seems laughably impossible to me to do so. In the case of those of a political bent, I simply try to tell them what is --IMO-- actually happening in the United States with regards to how the country is being run and what the agenda is of those who run it. In the case of the religionists, I enjoy poking holes in their insane and irrational belief system.

There are other factors also involved. We have found that a significant percentage of those with the village atheist syndrome were born into religiously orthodox religious traditions.

True in my case.

Usually they themselves were very religious, until in their teens or in their twenties, they began questioning the tradition they grew up in and had accepted.

It's true that I did (at the insistence of my grandparents) attend the church regularly, but was not really what could be called 'religious'. From my earliest memories I knew inside that what was being fed to me --the talk of Satan and God and angels and the dead rising from graves and floods that covered the entire earth-- did not make sense.

As they did so, they found more and more errors and superstitions in it,

Absolutely correct.

Rejecting religion, however, was usually not an easy thing for the village atheist since it meant breaking with their family and loved ones. In many cases the trauma is so severe that the break with the family remains irreparable. Since they are so conscious of what their own commitment to free thought has cost them, they find it difficult to accept those who arrived at a free thought pattern more casually, or at least without the trauma they feel they suffered.


There was never --for me-- any break with those in my family --my aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc-- at all. They still do not --outside of my wife and my son-- have any idea that I hold zero belief in any 'god'.

Many naively believed that once they presented the truth to their loved ones, they too would believe as they did. When this did not occur, hard choices had to be made and often peace was kept by not talking about such things at home. It seems quite plausible that forced to keep quiet at home about such issues, they often became embittered about religion, taking out on religion and the religious the antagonisms they feel to their own spouse. The situation is even worse if children are involved and the free thinking individual is unable to communicate his or her own ideas effectively to them.

My wife and I have a very loving, caring, stress free relationship. She still --deep down-- cannot help but feeling that there is something bigger, some force larger than we humans that exists in the universe. I do not. We feel no need to quibble over the fact that she "believes" and I do not. She does not attend church, but if she wanted to I would have no problem whatsoever with it as long as she did not try to coerce me to accompany her.

...the village atheist..might well compromise in their communities, holding their tongue, and giving nominal lip service to community customs, but when in free thought groups, they expect more from their fellow non believers.

The first part could not be more true. I absolutely do --not that I have much choice-- compromise in my community. I hold my tongue, I stand (even though I despise doing so) when they play the national anthem, I bow my head (even though I have a very hard time not bursting out laughing at the ridiculousness of doing so) when prayers are offered up before meals to the unseen metaphysical entity that supposedly 'created' (ROTFLMAO)the universe, and I observe all manner of other community customs that I -in my heart-- do not feel any allegiance to or respect for at all.

The situation is eased somewhat in some of the larger cities where they can perhaps find like-minded people.......


I have often thought that that might be the case. But *big cities* do not have any rice fields, and my profession is rice scout.

Borg, I don't know where you found that, but it is fantastic, almost eerie.

"When such a person finally meets and joins with a group of like-minded free thinkers, he is not at all sure how to act. At last, he or she thinks believes to have found like-minded individuals. The difficulty comes when the individual finds disagreement with his viewpoint (on almost any kind of issue) among his or her fellow free thinkers. Once you have disagreed, let alone opposed such a person on an issue, even if you think it was a minor disagreement, it is almost impossible for him or her to trust you again. You, in short, are not different from those people they have been struggling against all their lives. In a group of non-conformists, and this is what humanists and free thinkers are, the village atheists are denied the position of non-conformist they held in their own communities, and so have to resort to ever more outrageous behavior to achieve it."

Then when I link the stories, you respond by saying doing those things aren't so bad.

Actually, as I pointed out, your ravings about the Clintons were not backed up by the link you posted.

As I said, these "evil" Democrats are all in your imagination and has nothing to do with the original post about Republican criminal acts.

1. I didn't say it was illegal. Just as Bush's firing of the justices wasn't.

Actually that depends on the next attorney general. :thumbs:
Don't count your chickhawks yet.

You just didn't like the way it smelled.

Nobody with an ounce of integrity does, which may explain why you don't see a problem with it. :rolleyes:


2. If a case before the Supreme Court cannot be overruled within the framework of the constitution, the prior court's ruling stands.

Actually that is an incorrect assumption on your part about the scope of the Supreme Court's powers. Interpreting the constitutionality of something is not the Supreme Court's only function according to the Constitution. In fact, that is never enumerated in the Constitution at all. That is a more recent function that evolved, but it is not their primary function.

In reality, considering and interpreting international law in relation to US law is a core function of the Supreme Court.

From the Constitution:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.




3. Read up on the case.

Been there, done that.

I accept your acquiescence.

From the Constitution
Thanks for cutting and pasting that for me.

I was thinking that since you let me know that "International law has always been taken into consideration in American law" and I requested "Could you please give me one of your examples of where a Supreme Court Justice utilized international law?" that you might do just that.

"American Law", as you said.
Not treaties.

"American Law", as you said.
Not treaties.
Lesson #1.

Treaties ARE American law.

Refer to my previous quote from the Constitution.

Could you please give me one of your examples of where a Supreme Court Justice utilized international law?

I will give you three:
Dred Scott vs Sanford, Reynolds vs United States and Roe vs Wade.

Since I know from experience you won't believe me when I say it, here is a paper by two professors from Northwestern (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700176)who show that the Supreme Court has been citing foreign laws for years and that they are most justified when they are asked to judge whether a law is "reasonable" or "unusual", as in challenges to the 4th or 8th amendments, but least justified when they are asked to judge whether a law is rooted in American tradition. They happen to agree with Scalia that the court shouldn't do it as often as they do, but they demonstrate clearly and unequivocally to any reasonable person that they court has done so for a very long time and it is not a new practice at all.

Our analysis of the Court's practice leads us to several conclusions. First, we believe those who say the Court has never before cited or relied upon foreign sources of law are clearly and demonstrably wrong. In fact, the Court has relied on such sources to some extent throughout its history.

So essentially, when you said:

2. You mean like Ruth Bader Ginsberg who used "international law" to decide a case that wasn't addressed in our constitution? *GASP*:rolleyes:

it is just more "melodhramatic" bullpucky from someone trying to push an anti-democratic agenda.



:thumbs:

1. Lesson #1.
Treaties ARE American law.

2. I will give you three:
Dred Scott vs Sanford, Reynolds vs United States and Roe vs Wade.

3. it is just more "melodhramatic" bullpucky from someone trying to push an anti-democratic agenda.

1. A treaty is not American Law.
"A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations."
"In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

2. I couldn't find anything saying that Roe vs. Wade was settled based on international law. There was a lot about the Fourth Amendment, but nothing on international law.
I could be wrong, but I couldn't find anything.
Ditto for Reynolds

Justice Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case used the phrase "international law" pretty often, but only to state that our already existing laws didn't violate the precepts of international law

"First. The rules of international law respecting the emancipation of slaves, by the rightful operation of the laws of another State or country upon the status of the slave...... are part of the common law of Missouri, and have not been abrogated by any statute law of that State.

Second. The laws of the United States, constitutionally enacted, which operated directly on and changed the status of a slave coming into the Territory of Wisconsin with his master, ...... is in conformity with the rules of international law that this change of status should be recognised everywhere."
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=540


3. I have nothing against democracy.

1. A treaty is not American Law.
Sorry-no.
Now you are just being ridiculous and needlessly argumentative.

You are clearly and demonstratably wrong.
A treaty is American law. It is as much a part of our legal system as any domestic bill passed by congress. Article I of the Constitution states that Congress must ratify any treaty, just as they approve domestic bills.


"A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations."
"In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
Obviously you do not understand what you just quoted.

The reason American law does not recognize a "sole executive agreement" is because Article II of the U.S. Constitution says that 2/3rds of the Senate must ratify any treaty the President signs in order for it to be legal.

That does not, in any way, say that treaties entered into by the United States of America do not have the full force of law.


I couldn't find anything saying that Roe vs. Wade was settled based on international law. There was a lot about the Fourth Amendment, but nothing on international law.
I could be wrong, but I couldn't find anything.
Ditto for Reynolds
Thats nice but just because you claim you "couldn't find anything" doesn't change the fact that those cases all cited international law in their decisions.

The point stands: taking international law into consideration in supreme court decisions is nothing new.

If you aren't even going to read the links and evidence I provide to support my arguments, that makes you an unreasonable and irrational zealot and I see no reason to waste my time discussing anything further with you.



.

1. You are clearly and demonstratably wrong.
A treaty is American law.

2. Thats nice but just because you claim you "couldn't find anything" doesn't change the fact that those cases all cited international law in their decisions.

The point stands: taking international law into consideration in supreme court decisions is nothing new.
1. It's not.

2. So these two professors feel that the Supreme Court does that, and as proof you cite three case, none of which seem to do that.

I think a quick read of the Dred Scott case by you lead you to that conclusion.
But it, like the other two cases, don't support your argument.

(And I did read your link)

So these two professors feel that the Supreme Court does that, and as proof you cite three case, none of which seem to do that.


Hmmmm, lets see... on one hand we have the word of two law professors from Northwestern University... and on the other hand we have... your opinion.

...I wonder who I believe? :rolleyes:


.

Hmmmm, lets see... on one hand we have the word of two law professors from Northwestern University... and on the other hand we have... your opinion.
...I wonder who I believe? :rolleyes:.
And if I cite a professor with whom you disagree you just roll over and accept it, right?

Besides these two professors, I can't find much else that makes that claim (I'm also presuming you looked for a while yourself).
Even the specific cases you cited didn't pan out.

The real point is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to do this. Even the professors who claim it happens feel that way.

So Ruth Bader Ginsberg, by acting extraconstitutionally, is wrong.

And if I cite a professor with whom you disagree you just roll over and accept it, right?

Can you find two who say that the Supreme Court has never done this before?



The real point is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to do this.

You keep saying this, yet saying it alone does not make it so.


So Ruth Bader Ginsberg, by acting extraconstitutionally, is wrong.

I have already proven she did not act "extraconstitutionally".

All you could summon for a rebuttal was "thanks for copying and pasting that for me."


Pathetic.

:slap:

1. Can you find two who say that the Supreme Court has never done this before?
2. You keep saying this, yet saying it alone does not make it so.
3. I have already proven she did not act "extraconstitutionally".

1. That would be me attempting to prove a negative.
The onus is on you in this case.

2. To make it simpler:
The legislative branch writes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets those laws.
For you to believe that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret international law, you'd also have to believe that the legislators are supposed to write it and the president is supposed to enforce it.

Even the two professors don't think the Supreme Court should be doing that.

3. If she utilized laws not in the constitution, that's extraconstitutional
(Extraconstitutional: Beyond what is provided for in a constitution.)

I remember the controversy, but I can't remember the case off the top of my head. As I recall, though, the case didn't involve a treaty - Ginsberg was referencing international law rather sua sponte.

It was the Georgia sodomy case. She clearly had her own opinion on it and went shopping around to justify her position.

I can't believe there are still sodomy laws on the books... I read that something like 96% of college students who have engaged in vaginal sex have also engaged in oral sex - whoops, let's arrest 'em all!

I can't believe there are still sodomy laws on the books... I read that something like 96% of college students who have engaged in vaginal sex have also engaged in oral sex - whoops, let's arrest 'em all!By the time a case like this gets to the Supreme Court it may come down to something like whether or not a state legislature may overrule a local governing body if the law was passed on a referendum that contradicts the technicality but not the spirit of the original intent of the local law.

This one just happened to be about sodomy.

I can't believe there are still sodomy laws on the books... I read that something like 96% of college students who have engaged in vaginal sex have also engaged in oral sex - whoops, let's arrest 'em all!
I don't think there are any sodomy laws left on the books, after Lawrence v. Texas. If there are, they're in conflict with precedent.

I don't think there are any sodomy laws left on the books, after Lawrence v. Texas. If there are, they're in conflict with precedent.

I bet there are - there are all kinds of completely unenforceable laws on the books. Mostly due to laziness but also, I imagine, not many legislators want to attach their name to a bill appearing to legalize sodomy if they don't have to.

It was the Georgia sodomy case. She clearly had her own opinion on it and went shopping around to justify her position.

As I already showed, referencing international law is most justified when the S.C. is asked to judge whether a law is "unusual" or "reasonable".

If she utilized laws not in the constitution
Perhaps you could list some of the "laws" enumerated in the Constitution?

As I already showed, referencing international law is most justified when the S.C. is asked to judge whether a law is "unusual" or "reasonable".You showed that?

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret laws.
The laws written by the legislators.

And define "referencing" in this case.
If that's all you meant all along you should have said so.

If you did and I missed it, then it's my fault.

Perhaps you could list some of the "laws" enumerated in the Constitution?There are none.
Looks like I confused "laws" with "rights"

But to answer your question from the other thread:
"Brooks, did you ever answer my question about exactly what "rights" you were referring to that are supposedly listed in the Constitution?"
Check the amendments.
They're loaded with rights.

Is that what you meant to ask, or did you confuse "laws" with "rights"?

There are none.
Looks like I confused "laws" with "rights"

Yes, which invalidates your argument about her decision being "extra-constitutional" for not citing laws in the constitution.


Is that what you meant to ask, or did you confuse "laws" with "rights"?

Yes, I misspoke. You had said "laws".

1. Yes, which invalidates your argument about her decision being "extra-constitutional" for not citing laws in the constitution.
2. Yes, I misspoke. You had said "laws".
1. One word was wrong (like your sentence).
The concept was still sound (unlike your sentence).

2. Yes, it's my fault you misspoke.
Sad.