Quote by wickedpam:

New schedule, Mom starts today so I have to actually be on time. Bright side, I finally get to hear the first hour of the show.

Quote by Raine:

Quote by wickedpam:

New schedule, Mom starts today so I have to actually be on time. Bright side, I finally get to hear the first hour of the show.

It's good that you guys can carpool!

Quote by TriSec:

I must disagree with Momma: I do hate Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. With every fibre of my being. Nothing would make me happier than to see them both destroyed and disgraced.



But that's just me.

Quote by TriSec:

"Why I hate the President"

- an old Tri-Secian rant from 2006.



Mr. President, I want to thank you for the things you and your administration have done for me.



I no longer enjoy aviation. This has been a lifelong interest of mine, since my very first word. (“Airpane! “, according to my father.) Years of travel, hanging around the airfield, going to airshows, listening to the tower…have all been ruined thanks to you. Now, when I see an airplane or a helicopter flying around….I wonder if it’s spying on me, or particularly if it’s a military bird, I run inside to get the TV on to see what happened. What once brought me endless hours of excitement and happiness has now turned into fear and worry. Thank you, Mr. President.



I no longer travel great distances anymore. Thanks to the TSA, and the assumption that everyone traveling via air is a terrorist, and the loss of my fourth amendment rights, and the surly treatment by your minions, and the subsequent loss of human dignity in the airport…the joy of visiting unknown places has turned into tedium and hassle. I only go places I can drive now. Thank you, Mr. President.



I can no longer have civil discussions with my in-laws. We’re on opposite sides of the fence…I live in the reality-based community…they’re part of the 29%. The last couple of attempts at conversation have devolved into shouting matches and upset family members for days afterwards. Thank you, Mr. President.



I have even yelled at my own mother…she has unfortunately started watching Fox News. She once voted for President Kennedy, and has voted for his younger brother Edward in every election she has been able to. She doesn’t see the irony in trotting out the right-wing talking points, and I have violently argued with her over this. Thank you, Mr. President.



Yes sir, I’d have to categorize your administration as a catalyst for change, alright. You’ve made a huge difference in my life, and in the relationships I have with my family and friends. Thank you, Mr. President!

Quote by TriSec:

Well, Dennis Miller has just boggled my mind then.



I can't believe I used to like him.

Quote by Raine:

Quote by Shane-O:

Quote by Raine:

Three cases are to be decided today from SCOTUS:



Davis v. FEC (07-320), on the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance laws;

District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on the scope of the right to own firearms under the Second Amendment;

and Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (06-1457), on electricity contracts reached during the Western energy crisis.



all l three seem like pretty interesting cases.

Heller is going to go 5-4 - Kennedy swing opinion AGAIN - this time he'll side with Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia - 2nd Amendment applies to individuals as well as militia - ergo, a "ban" is unconstitutional, however - regulation is not. Of course, the minority will ask the question, isn't a "ban" a "regulation"?

So it is your opinion that Guns will be allowed back on the streets. I can see this one coming, and it concerns me for the implication to all state regulation regarding gun ownership.

The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the 2nd Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Quote by Scoopster:

From Scalia's written opinion in Heller:

The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the 2nd Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The

enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Interesting.. Scalia just gave an opening to invalidate any preventative measures taken to limit civil protests.

Quote by Raine:

Quote by Scoopster:

Both 5-4 decisions.. the split in both looks to be along ideological lines with Kennedy being the swing in both cases.



Link to text of Heller decision

Both meaning Heller and the also the FEC case? or the Morgan stanley case? I see that all the decisions have come down...

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by Raine:

Quote by Scoopster:

From Scalia's written opinion in Heller:

The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the 2nd Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The

enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Interesting.. Scalia just gave an opening to invalidate any preventative measures taken to limit civil protests.

and also the fourth amendment mention... hmmm.

Right to Privacy precedent? For future cases re: abortion rights?

Quote by livingonli:

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by Raine:

Quote by Scoopster:

From Scalia's written opinion in Heller:

The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the 2nd Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The

enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Interesting.. Scalia just gave an opening to invalidate any preventative measures taken to limit civil protests.

and also the fourth amendment mention... hmmm.

Right to Privacy precedent? For future cases re: abortion rights?

Scalia's going to have twist a lot of logic to contradict himself if he gets to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Quote by Shane-O:

Hagel:

Richardson:

Biden:

Webb: - we need 60 in the Senate.

Dodd: - due to that stupid Countrywide BS.

Quote by Scoopster:

Pffft.. Scalia writes this passage a little later on:

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “it is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968).

They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repel force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).

Does Antonin Scalia fancy himself to be the spirit of Samuel Adams now?! How quaint..

Quote by Raine:

Quote by Scoopster:

Pffft.. Scalia writes this passage a little later on:

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “it is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968).

They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repel force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).

Does Antonin Scalia fancy himself to be the spirit of Samuel Adams now?! How quaint..

I am going to git me a shoulder mounted missle launcher... :sarcasm:

Quote by Raine:

I am going to git me a shoulder mounted missle launcher...

Quote by Raine:

:clap:



Would it be safe to assume that Delaware would put in another Dem to the senate seat?



I think Richardson would be great, I also think Wes Clark would be great. There a lot of people that would be great. I get so angry at the mere suggestion of someone like Hagel simply becuase he may have said he was against the war. We have enough talented qualified people on OUR side of the aisle. We don't have to share this with the very people who put us into this friggin mess. And this mess is far more than just the damn war. Hagel, no effin way. he wasn't good enough for the repubs and he is not good enough for me.



People should look up Hagel on the issues. he is no way NEAR being close to anything that represents what kind of change we need in this country.

Quote by starling310:

Good morning!

Great post Raine. . . a bunch of us were just talking about this last night. I was getting hot under the collar that "we" are willing to destroy a pristine wildlife preserve for what? 2.8 years of oil; a substance that wars are fought over and whose gaseous output is destroying our earth!

1 of the guys at the table said "well, maybe."

:star: ----> "Maybe what?"

: guy : ----> "It might destroy the wildlife preserve."

:star: -----> "That's not a risk I think we should take." StooNad!

Quote by Shane-O:

Quote by Raine:

That is part of what I am thinking... I am also wondering if this will be an issue if and when a search and siezure case comes up.



Shane-O, what do you think about these decisions?

I'm trying to sift through the opinion and the thought processes - not only the Justices, but yours as well. What issue are you speaking to specifically? -- The quote posted deals with the 2nd Amendment and the differentiation re: militia vs. individual - thus - does the right to bear arms only apply in a situation where a person is a member of a group.



I don't see how that would apply to the 4th Amendment - as those rights are already specific to individuals. Also, curtailing speech of a group is prohibited under the First Amendment. And on the "Right To Privacy" - it doesn't really exist (Consistutionally) - and is mostly grounded in the barely ever-used Third Amendement (housing soldiers lol) with the 4th thrown in for a little spice.



Could you narrow your query a bit for my dim brain!!!

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by Shane-O:

Quote by Raine:

That is part of what I am thinking... I am also wondering if this will be an issue if and when a search and siezure case comes up.



Shane-O, what do you think about these decisions?

I'm trying to sift through the opinion and the thought processes - not only the Justices, but yours as well. What issue are you speaking to specifically? -- The quote posted deals with the 2nd Amendment and the differentiation re: militia vs. individual - thus - does the right to bear arms only apply in a situation where a person is a member of a group.



I don't see how that would apply to the 4th Amendment - as those rights are already specific to individuals. Also, curtailing speech of a group is prohibited under the First Amendment. And on the "Right To Privacy" - it doesn't really exist (Consistutionally) - and is mostly grounded in the barely ever-used Third Amendement (housing soldiers lol) with the 4th thrown in for a little spice.



Could you narrow your query a bit for my dim brain!!!

Scalia cited the use of the phrase "the right of the people" and even pointed out that it's also used in the 1st and 4th Amendments and has similar language in the 9th Amendment. His interpretation of it is that it indicates both a collective right and an individual right to something - in the case of the 2nd Amendment it's to keep and bear arms.



Using his own interpretation, and his own citations, you can extend his logic to include the individual and collective right of the people to assembly, petition of grievances, and privacy in their effects and matters among other things. Which means Scalia (unintentionally) gave unlimited abortion rights, free unhindered civil protests, hell maybe even class-action lawsuits!

Quote by starling310:

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by Shane-O:

Quote by Raine:

That is part of what I am thinking... I am also wondering if this will be an issue if and when a search and siezure case comes up.



Shane-O, what do you think about these decisions?

I'm trying to sift through the opinion and the thought processes - not only the Justices, but yours as well. What issue are you speaking to specifically? -- The quote posted deals with the 2nd Amendment and the differentiation re: militia vs. individual - thus - does the right to bear arms only apply in a situation where a person is a member of a group.



I don't see how that would apply to the 4th Amendment - as those rights are already specific to individuals. Also, curtailing speech of a group is prohibited under the First Amendment. And on the "Right To Privacy" - it doesn't really exist (Consistutionally) - and is mostly grounded in the barely ever-used Third Amendement (housing soldiers lol) with the 4th thrown in for a little spice.



Could you narrow your query a bit for my dim brain!!!

Scalia cited the use of the phrase "the right of the people" and even pointed out that it's also used in the 1st and 4th Amendments and has similar language in the 9th Amendment. His interpretation of it is that it indicates both a collective right and an individual right to something - in the case of the 2nd Amendment it's to keep and bear arms.



Using his own interpretation, and his own citations, you can extend his logic to include the individual and collective right of the people to assembly, petition of grievances, and privacy in their effects and matters among other things. Which means Scalia (unintentionally) gave unlimited abortion rights, free unhindered civil protests, hell maybe even class-action lawsuits!

That is interesting that he made that point. However, I wonder if he can be held to it. . . . does Precedent carry across issues?

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by starling310:

Quote by Scoopster:

Quote by Shane-O:

Quote by Raine:

That is part of what I am thinking... I am also wondering if this will be an issue if and when a search and siezure case comes up.



Shane-O, what do you think about these decisions?

I'm trying to sift through the opinion and the thought processes - not only the Justices, but yours as well. What issue are you speaking to specifically? -- The quote posted deals with the 2nd Amendment and the differentiation re: militia vs. individual - thus - does the right to bear arms only apply in a situation where a person is a member of a group.



I don't see how that would apply to the 4th Amendment - as those rights are already specific to individuals. Also, curtailing speech of a group is prohibited under the First Amendment. And on the "Right To Privacy" - it doesn't really exist (Consistutionally) - and is mostly grounded in the barely ever-used Third Amendement (housing soldiers lol) with the 4th thrown in for a little spice.



Could you narrow your query a bit for my dim brain!!!

Scalia cited the use of the phrase "the right of the people" and even pointed out that it's also used in the 1st and 4th Amendments and has similar language in the 9th Amendment. His interpretation of it is that it indicates both a collective right and an individual right to something - in the case of the 2nd Amendment it's to keep and bear arms.



Using his own interpretation, and his own citations, you can extend his logic to include the individual and collective right of the people to assembly, petition of grievances, and privacy in their effects and matters among other things. Which means Scalia (unintentionally) gave unlimited abortion rights, free unhindered civil protests, hell maybe even class-action lawsuits!

That is interesting that he made that point. However, I wonder if he can be held to it. . . . does Precedent carry across issues?

Hey.. if fundies can use the Dred Scott decision to advocate the right to life..

Quote by Raine:

So, it seems to me as tho SCOTUS forgot the *Well regulated Militia* part of the second ammendment.

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not

to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

I think most recently by the Selective Service Act and its changes over the years, but that's the basic idea Scalia uses - every citizen as defined by the Congress who can apply enroll in the organized Armed Forces is considered part of the "militia", and of course the Armed Forces do not need to accept everyone into their ranks.

Quote by Shane-O:

I'm probably not very useful in figuring out what the Justices are up to in the future.



I have a pretty cynical view of what they do.



They are presented with "A" and based upon their core befiefs they decide "Z" and their job is to make up "B" through "Y." It's usually contorted, often flies in the face of precedent and has little basis in the Constitution itself. They pick and choose what to follow and discount contrary arguments via rediculous differentiations.



Consistency in the law is the least of their concerns.

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.

Quote by BobR:

Quote by Scoopster:





The italicized part has been amended many times since, I think most recently by the Selective Service Act and its changes over the years, but that's the basic idea Scalia uses - every citizen as defined by the Congress who can apply enroll in the organized Armed Forces is considered part of the "militia", and of course the Armed Forces do not need to accept everyone into their ranks.

So the idea is that everyone is already a member of a militia by birthright, whether or not they actually join up and/or whether or not they are actually accepted... :huh:

Quote by Raine:

I think most recently by the Selective Service Act and its changes over the years, but that's the basic idea Scalia uses - every citizen as defined by the Congress who can apply enroll in the organized Armed Forces is considered part of the "militia", and of course the Armed Forces do not need to accept everyone into their ranks.

This idea and I see what you are saying, seems to go against what was written in the federalist papers. The militia was never to be a part of the government, was it?

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

* * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.



We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

"In sum, we The Supreme Court of the United States have decided that removing the gun ban in the District of Columbia is our "make up" call for having declared a ban on Gay Marriage in California unconstitutional. Let's call it a wash. "

Quote by Shane-O:

Raine - sent you a PM

Quote by Raine:

OMG, is momma drunk? Did she just tell a 14 year old girl to wear something TIGHT?!?!?!

Quote by capt:

Quote by BobR:

Quote by capt:

Holding "feet to the fire" not in the gay S&M way . . .

as far as S&M goes, I wouldn't have considered that strictly gay...

I was thinking me specifically holding Barack's feet - Um, was that out loud?

Quote by capt:





Maybe Bush's debacle in Iraq will teach another generation that war is never the answer? (maybe?)

Quote by m-hadley:

"Scuse me, I would like permission to RANT - I am so goddamned pissed off, I literally cannot see straight. First the Supreme (sic) Court hands down two absolutely boner-fide decisions (Exxon, DC Guns), then the US Senate loses all spine and capitulates to the Bush/Cheney administration on FISA (even giving them more than they had hoped for - isn't that special?) and Obama (our great hope of hopes) doesn't even bother to show up to support the filibuster I think I'm gonna pick up a bottle of Vitamin V on my way home from work and drink it til I puke. I'm sorry, I am just that disgusted :rage:

Over and outta here...

mfaye

Quote by TriSec:

Say, I'm likely going to have an open evening....anything out there worth watching tonight, network cable, on-demand, or otherwise?



maybe I'll... read a book!

Quote by TriSec:

Say, I'm likely going to have an open evening....anything out there worth watching tonight, network cable, on-demand, or otherwise?



maybe I'll... read a book!

Quote by BobR:

Quote by TriSec:

Say, I'm likely going to have an open evening....anything out there worth watching tonight, network cable, on-demand, or otherwise?



maybe I'll... read a book!

I know PBS stations are different in different regions, but our local station is showing "War in the Air: The Unseen Enemy" at 9:00... and then "American Experience - Race to the Moon" at 10:00...



TBS has 2 episodes of Family Guy on at 8:00 - I love that show; it's so over the top.



Comedy Central has reruns of last night's Daily Show and Colbert Report - although the Daily Show was light on content - they had ColdPlay on to play a couple of songs... very strange.



If you get MSNBC, there's always Keith Olbermann....



OnDemand Free movies has:

Blue Velvet

Cry Baby

Earth Girls are Easy

Electra Glide in Blue

Europa Europa

Field of Dreams

Forget Paris

Immortal Beloved

Leaving Las Vegas

Leonard Cohen : I'm Your Man

Mississippi Burning

Mystic Pizza

Repo Man

Silverado

Taxi Driver

The Brother From Another Planet

The Gods Must Be Crazy

Tora! Tora! Tora!



That should give you some choices... :P

Quote by clintster:

OK, so mfaye added me as a friend on MySpace. Is there anyone else here who does the MySpace?

Quote by m-hadley:

Quote by clintster:

OK, so mfaye added me as a friend on MySpace. Is there anyone else here who does the MySpace?

Clinster,

You might also might want to make friends with fair Rebekah (on phones and drums) and ProducerChris - they are both on MySpace.

Cheers,

mfaye

:heart:

Quote by clintster:

OK, so mfaye added me as a friend on MySpace. Is there anyone else here who does the MySpace?

Quote by TriSec:







Some subversive, communist, anti-American, Al-Qaeda operative, BASTARD! stole the US flag out of my flowerbed today!



:boom:

Quote by trojanrabbit:

Hey, I took down the whole site!

Quote by trojanrabbit:

Yes, you should see me today. Positively grotesque with one bloody red eye (ruptured vessel) and one normal eye.