This is a travesty of the law.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30372prs20070706.html

Our wonderful, ethical, acting in our best interests, administration has corrupted the process of law to the point where we see due process impeded!

Now, where are the conservative cries of "Activist Judges?" No matter your ideology, if you are an American, and value your rights and responsibilities and EQUALITY under the law, then this decision should just flat piss you off.

Did I mention Bush sucks?

Sorry, he really sucks ass.

Oh but KSKD, didn't you know that he was going to appoint judges that "uphold the Constitution"?? Never mind that he seems to think of the Constitution as something to use to wipe his arse after his daily Constitution?

Two Presidents come to mind to me as ones who did some circumventing of the Constitution, one rather successful (FDR) and one a colossal failure (Dubya).

Yeah it's all really twisted. The worst is yet to come though.

These legal circumventions and distortions of both the spirit and literal intent of the law have ramifications going forward. Not only do these asses pervert the law for their own good, but set an example --with teeth no less, for defense attorneys everywhere to employ similar means and methods to get their respective scumbags off too.

"Never mind that he seems to think of the Constitution as something to use to wipe his arse after his daily Constitution?"

The sad thing is that it is going to take YEARS to get all the sh*t off the Constitution after he leaves office.

Whine on.

Your leftist buddy Ted Kennedy 'Borked' one of the most qualified judges around.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Herb

Don't you have a better response than that Herb? Something that happened over 20 years ago? Reagan also didn't circumvent the Constitution like Dubya has. He didn't try and rid us of Habeus Corpus, nor did he allocate wiretapping of people that "might look guilty" ... he didn't invade a soverign nation under false pretenses and shoddy intelligence, only to change his tune on why we invaded once it was proven that the intelligence was shoddy.

This isn't about Robert Bork. This is about George W. Bush doing everything in his power to turn the United States of America into a dictatorship, which is EXACTLY what he is trying to do. To suggest otherwise ... is a lot of ham-fisting.

Just to UNDERLINE the troll's hypocricy, here's some recent news on Bork:

Tort reformer Robert Bork sues Yale Club.

Claiming the Yale Club of New York City “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide easy to climb staging, conservative uber-activist Judge Robert Bork is suing the club for $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages from a fall Bork sustained while mounting the dais at the club for a scheduled speech. Bork, an infamous tort reform advocate, hasn’t always been such a fan of suing for punitive damages, at least when other people do it.

The point is this: The troll isn't engaging in discussion here, he's distracting us by shooting off random bits of data from his hips. Further, if one was to smartly distract us, they'd at least check to make sure the data wasn't corrupted. Bork has revealed himself to be a first class hypocrite -- a person of no further use to the GOP, but this didn't stop the troll from committing hara kiri to his own party.

"while mounting the dais at the club for a scheduled speech"

What a pervert!

"The chickens have come home to roost."

Dude, I'm in the room. I can hear you.

"The chickens have come home to roost."

Dos that mean " This is payback!"?

Yeah, nice to know a significant percentage of our leadership buys into elementary school tit for tat bullshit.

No wonder our foreign policy is in the toilet. Nobody likes these types. There are reasons for this, escalation being the primary one.

If nobody chooses to take the higher ground and end conflict, then all we end up with is endless conflict. This is a basic, human thing.

Perhaps we are dealing with sub-humans. Retarded somehow.

"Dos that mean " This is payback!"?"

Not at all.

But it does mean that you reap what you sow.

Herb

And what is it that we have reaped? Who sowed it? Specifically.

Seriously - spell it out. I'm really interested in your take past the bumper-sticker speak.

"And what is it that we have reaped? Who sowed it? Specifically."

Try to deny that "Borking" was not political quashing of an excellent jurist.

When your agenda eliminates excellent legal minds, you get less than excellent results.

What's especially surprising is how leftists are shocked that their under-handedness results in less than positive results.

Herb

troll: "excellent jurist [Bork]"

evidence: "yale lawsuit" ["Bork, an infamous tort reform advocate, hasn’t always been such a fan of suing for punitive damages, at least when other people do it."]

Conclusion: Hypocrite. [both the troll and bork]

Young Mary Jo Kopechne dies at the hands of Ted Kennedy and he's in a position to judge Robert Bork?

Glad we're clear on twisted leftist 'values.'

Herb

Man, you just are so deep in the spin cycle right now.

Can you or can you not spell out what you meant when you said " You reap what you sow."?

Who is reaping what? Spell it out.

And WHO sowed that?

I think that you avoid going into any second stage of talking ( you just like to stick to a slogan or a catch phrase ) because you know how absurd it would sound to actually say, out loud, what your positions are...AND HOW YOU GOT THERE. I think you know they are often indefensable and are devoid of logic. But because they make your gut feel good - your head be damned, eh?

"Young Mary Jo Kopechne dies at the hands of Ted Kennedy and he's in a position to judge Robert Bork?"

That is an absolutely beautiful non sequitur, in the way that the first action sounds initially like it should have something to do with the second, but yet it so clearly does not. All the appearance of "A therefore B" logic, but without any connection whatsoever. Bravo - that's one for the Herbism archive.

Yep, the troll uses debate tools made popular by Carla on Cheers.

What is particularly humorous about the troll's latest comment is that factually, voters in Massachusetts have repeatedly decided that Kennedy SURELY belongs in his position of being able to judge Robert Bork. Does the troll now wish to question the will of the American people?

Surely a smarter troll would have dug up a better non sequitur to distract us with.

"Can you or can you not spell out what you meant when you said " You reap what you sow."?"

Playing extreme politics with the judiciary bites the offending party in the behind. The irony is that the left decries partisanship when it comes to selecting court appointees, yet does just as much, or worse than those to whom they point a finger. As recently witnessed by talk radio's condemnation of the recent amnesty bill, the end result for those who sow such hypocrisy will once more reap a whirlwind of condemnation from the public.

And if the left cannot fathom the lunacy of Mr. Kennedy's blood-stained hands passing judgement on a conservative jurist like Mr. Bork, they deserve to lose in '08, because they still don't get it...decades after Mr. Kennedy's reckless act.

Herb

You have some lawyers, who think they might be spied on, do they also see little green men.

They have no proof, only an unbridled self importance, that if the govt is spying on someone, they must be spying on me.

WOW!
It's crazy how the EXTREME REICH is still spinnin'! Damn guys.... don't you have other things to do???

Herb, relating it to the topic at hand ( you know, the one this is ABOUT for everyone but you, apparently ), you can't understand what I am asking or you are choosing not to answer it.

An activist judge, is one that reads into the law something that isnt there, but he/she thinks should be.

In this case, the Judges are simply enforcing the law, as written.

"...you can't understand what I am asking or you are choosing not to answer it."

One more time, Chickenjuggler. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked:

"Can you or can you not spell out what you meant when you said " You reap what you sow."?"

To that, I replied numerous times, most recently with the following. Please note the capitalized words:

"PLAYING EXTREME POLITICS WITH THE JUDICIARY BITES THE OFFENDING PARTY IN THE BEHIND. The irony is that the left decries partisanship when it comes to selecting court appointees, yet does just as much, or worse than those to whom they point a finger. As recently witnessed by talk radio's condemnation of the recent amnesty bill, the end result FOR THOSE WHO SOW SUCH HYPOCRISY WILL ONCE MORE REAP A WHIRLWIND of condemnation from the public."

Clearer?

Herbarino

LOL. No.

I'm asking for you to specifically name or give THE example that caused this topic to be created. I'm asking you to name the instance that caused the chickens to come home to roost. You are talking in generalitites. I am asking you to cite the specific instance that caused this activist judgement to take place. You toss around phrases like - You reap what you sow. And The Chickens have come home to roost. - But you won't show or tell me how this applies to this thread. Specifically.

I'm asking you to prove/explain to me, mostly because I don't know, what you think happened that caused the topic at hand. Name names. Who caused this? Be speficic. Be specific. Be specific. I don't want to hear a general theory that is true - I want to see it in action as shown by you.

What, specifically, is being reaped?

Who sowed it? Who? Specifically. Who caused it?

Fair enough.

My response was in part due to the following comment:

"Now, where are the conservative cries of "Activist Judges?"

That's because it's silly to complain about activist judges when SPECIFICALLY a great jurist like Robert Bork is barred from the bench by the left. Mr. Bork is NOT an activist judge. He's a conservative judge who goes by what the Constitution says...unlike so many judges on the left who appear to make it up as they go along, or follow their european pals in their jurisprudence. Yet Mr. Kennedy "Borked" him. If they would have allowed Mr. Bork on the Court, you'd have a whole lot less activism, given Mr. Bork's judicial philosophy.

Herb

Sigh.

Forget it.

There was nothing activist about their ruling, the plantifs couldnt meet the low standard, which has always existed, of being able to prove they had been harmed. They were on a fishing expedition. The judges simply followed existing case law in denying their claims.

Reality check. Robert Bork was the political hack who was willing to subvert justice by firing Archibald Cox when Nixon couldn't find anyone else in the Justice department to do the job.

THAT is why he was kept from the bench.

Thank you.

Nwokie, there is a difference between a fishing expedition and valid discovery. In this case, no valid discovery is possible! This is the travesty of the law.

Having bent said law into a circular chicken and egg problem, we are left with a scenario where the rights of Americans entitled to due process are lost. When sane heads prevail, this decision will be reversed or addressed.

All that happened here is some tempoary bad law that will exist long enough for some other violations to run their course.

keep voting the same goobs in, and this is what you get. Won't be long and you will have to have your shoes checked for explosives before posting to a website.

I'm all for fresh blood.

In fact, this is where the left leaning blog / Internet movements have done some real damage. We got some people elected this year that were not on the establishment radar. Funded them, promoted them, the whole deal. (and we, as in we the people)

And you wonder why they want to change how the Internet works. That's exactly why.

If I were you, I would seriously consider support for core ideas, then support people inclined to implement them. New blood, elected in this fashion has a strong incentive to make for some change.

One change, needed in particular, is taking our current corporate lobby out of the system. Doing this will help matters as accontability to the people would then become far more important than it is now.

Another would be to be aggressive about speech matters in general. Balanced and diverse speech is present on the net now. (that may not continue) It is not present in our traditional media forms.

This impacts how people get elected, what matters are discussed and the bounds of said discussions.

New blood is only new for a time. Getting that done without addressing these other core matters will only provide a tempoary change.

DAMN BIBLE THUMPERS!