The Cellar - Judge Alito will be so pleased

Page 3 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Judge Alito will be so pleased (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=23522)

Spexxvet

11-22-2010 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 695463)

Darn straight. That's sort of like owning a 22-hour-a-day convenience store.

Or ER.

TheMercenary

11-25-2010 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 681636)

I admit to my own belief that the CIA knew that rendition and torture were illegal, and were attempting to hide their activities.

They were just doing their job as they believed at the time they were directed to do.

richlevy

12-04-2010 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 696174)

They were just doing their job as they believed at the time they were directed to do.

I'm not saying this in order to prove Godwin's Law, but isn't that a Nuremberg defense?

It's really too bad that Stanley Milgram isn't around to make the talk show rounds.

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

http://www.grossmont.edu/bertdill/docs/perilsobed.pdf <-- PDF

Quote:

The subject, Gretchen Brantt, is an attractive thirty-one year old medical technician who works at the Yale Medical School. She had emigrated from Germany five years before

Quote:

Brandt: I think we are here on our own free will. I don't want to be responsible if anything happens to him. Please understand that.

Milgram's experiment was conducted in 1963. Miss Brandt would have been about 13 years old when the Nuremberg trials were conducted.

Maybe people can learn.

..and maybe some people can't http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html

Lamplighter

01-13-2011 10:45 AM

Another page of Animal Farm will be turned this summer.

NPR
Supreme Court Tackles Warrantless Entry Case
by Nina Totenberg
January 12, 2011

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court is wrestling with a case that could give
police greater power to forcibly enter a home without a warrant.

The Constitution bars warrantless searches except in certain circumstances
— for example, an emergency search to prevent the destruction of evidence.

But on Wednesday, the question before the court was whether police,
by themselves creating such exigent circumstances,
are unconstitutionally evading the warrant requirement.

The case before the court began in 2005 when Lexington, Ky.,
police banged on the door of an apartment where they thought they smelled marijuana.
After loudly identifying themselves, police heard movement inside,
and fearing the destruction of evidence, they broke in.
<snip>

Quote:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether this meant that police could merely "sniff at every door,"
knock on those doors where they smelled marijuana, and break in once they heard a noise.

It "would be perfectly fine for the officers to do that," Farley responded.

Quote:

Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that if the suspects had quickly answered the door
and simply refused to permit entry, the police would have been powerless to do more.
"The police," he said, "were taking advantage of the stupidity of the criminals."

Quote:

Justice Elena Kagan worried that allowing police to create exigent circumstances
would be "essentially eviscerating the warrant requirement in ...
the one place that the Fourth Amendment was most concerned about."

Quote:

A decision in the case is expected by summer.

xoxoxoBruce

01-13-2011 10:53 AM

Why not just pass a law that all front doors be clear glass. :rolleyes:

Lamplighter

01-13-2011 12:03 PM

That cuts right to the chase :rolleyes:

Lamplighter

01-20-2011 08:08 PM

The Citizens United case is, and will be, an extremely important issue for every US citizen.
It's not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's a "corporate influence" issue...
regardless where the corporation is headquartered, in the US or some foreign country.

NY Times
Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: January 19, 2011

Quote:

WASHINGTON — When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations
for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances
at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
of the [US] Supreme Court.

A leading liberal group is now trying to use that connection to argue that Mr. Scalia and
Mr. Thomas should disqualify themselves from hearing campaign finance cases because
they may be biased toward Mr. Koch, a billionaire who has been a major player
in financing conservative causes

The group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department on Wednesday
asking it to investigate potential conflicts by Justices Scalia and Thomas and
move for their disqualification from the landmark Citizens United case,
in which the court last year lifted a ban on corporate spending on political campaigns.
Common Cause also cited the role of Mr. Thomas’s wife, Virginia Thomas,
in forming a conservative political group opposed to the Obama administration
as grounds for his disqualification.

The petition is a new tack for opponents of the court’s decision in the Citizens United case.
Common Cause, by its own acknowledgment, faces a difficult task in getting the justices’
to remove themselves from the case and seeking to have the Citizens United decision itself vacated.

Quote:

Mr. Koch and his brother, David Koch, were among the main beneficiaries
of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and became
a favorite target of liberal groups, which accused them of effectively trying to buy the election.

Either way this investigation goes, John will be so pleased

TheMercenary

01-23-2011 02:50 PM

Common Cause is a well known Lefty-Liberal group who has been known to get lots of money from George Soros, I guess ole George just doesn't like the competition. Where was Common Cause when Soros was buying off American political influence or bankrupting the UK banks?

TheMercenary

01-23-2011 04:11 PM

Quote:

But the main point here is that the focus on Citizens United allows liberals to engage in conspiracy theories about why they lost the last election rather than face up to the fact that the grassroots uprising against the policies of the Obama administration is what accounted for the GOP landslide victory in the congressional elections, not the money that some conservative groups were allowed to spend last year.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/tobin/387477

TheMercenary

02-04-2011 02:06 PM

Good God what a bunch of hypocrites.....

Racist and eliminationist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

Quote:

The website of Common Cause describes the group as "a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard in the political process."

The bio of Common Cause's president, Bob Edgar--a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania--informs us that "under Bob's leadership, Common Cause is championing a number of critical issues and reforms, including the public funding of political campaigns at all levels, election reforms that make voting more accurate, secure and accessible, improved ethics at all levels of government, redistricting reform and a diverse and open media."

It all sounds very high-minded. How's it working out in practice?

On Sunday, Common Cause hosted a panel discussion called "Uncloaking the Kochs," which, according to the Common Cause website, "was followed by a rally outside the posh Rancho Las Palmas resort where the Koch brothers were holding one of their political strategy meetings." The Koch brothers' support of free-market causes makes them enemies of "democracy," in Common Cause's view.

Christian Hartsock, a videographer who contributes to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, attended the Common Cause rally and produced a devastating four-minute video of his interactions with the Common Causer supporters.

His coverage of the rally opens with an ingenuous twentysomething white woman holding forth: "There's a devastating influence in our country, and it's coming from fear and anger and widespread misunderstanding of what's actually causing the problems in our society. And I think that the racist Tea Party is one example of that, and it makes me feel ashamed to be an American."

This is followed by clips of Hartsock's other interactions with Common Cause ralliers, some of which we've transcribed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

TheMercenary

02-04-2011 02:09 PM

Here is some of the video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-co...m-protest-mob/

Lamplighter

09-20-2012 06:53 PM

Rendition, that nasty word/deed, is back in the news...

NY Times
ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
September 19, 2012
High Court in Italy Backs Convictions for Rendition

Quote:

ROME — Italy’s supreme court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of 23 Americans
in the 2003 abduction of an Egyptian cleric in Milan, making it the first case
to successfully challenge the contentious American program of extraordinary rendition.

The ruling opened the way for the extradition of the defendants, who were tried in absentia.
But legal experts said it was unlikely the Italian government would initiate proceedings any time soon.

“The ruling is important because it confirms the reconstruction of the facts,"
said Armando Spataro, a top prosecutor in Milan.
“It confirms that what happened was incompatible with democracy.” <snip>

The high court, the Court of Cassation, confirmed sentences of seven years for 22 employees
of the C.I.A. and an Air Force colonel at a United States base in Italy,
and nine years for the C.I.A. station chief in Milan, Robert Seldon Lady.<snip>

The case made headlines as the first in the world to scrutinize — and legally condemn
— the American practice of rendition, in which suspected Islamic militants
were abducted in one country and transferred to another, often one where torture was permitted.
The program, begun amid the heightened fears after Sept. 11, has since been ended.

Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was abducted on Feb. 17, 2003,
as he was walking to his mosque. Prosecutors said he had been taken to an American air base
in Italy and flown to Germany and then on to Egypt, where Mr. Nasr says he was tortured.
He has since been released.

tw	09-20-2012 10:19 PM

Quote:

Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was abducted on Feb. 17, 2003, as he was walking to his mosque. Prosecutors said he had been taken to an American air base in Italy and flown to Germany and then on to Egypt, where Mr. Nasr says he was tortured. He has since been released.

Sometimes it is necessary to invent a bogeyman when none exists. Then extremists will support the endeavor.

Lamplighter

06-24-2013 12:02 PM

Reuters
Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley
Jun 24, 2013

UPDATE 2-U.S. justices rule against college worker in harassment case

Quote:

<snip>The court had in 1998 said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
let harassment victims hold their employers responsible for improper conduct by a supervisor,
but never defined exactly what a supervisor was.

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito adopted
a narrower version of a supervisor than Vance had proposed.

"An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when
the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions
against the victim, i.e., to effect a 'significant change in employment status, such as hiring,
firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities,
or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,'" Alito wrote.

The court rejected Vance's argument that a supervisor was anyone
with day-to-day oversight of an employee's activities.
It also rejected what Alito called the "nebulous" guidance by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to link supervisor status
to the exercise of significant oversight over an employee's daily work.
<snip>

Sam's parents are so proud, as are the parents of Clarence Thomas.

Lamplighter

06-25-2013 01:52 PM

The "conservative" wing of the USSC is working steadily to reverse
laws which historically have protected minority rights.
In this session, this group has ruled in one way or another to reverse
protections which affect minorities in voting rights, harassment in the workplace,
legal remedies for employment discrimination, and now a strike
at a well established law affecting American Indians.

The facts in this case were quite clear and undisputed, but the
non-Indian public and these Justices wanted a different decision.

Sam Alito has written an opinion based on the public emotion rather than the law.
He calls it a technicality, but it's just an excuse to over run basic provisions of,
and previous USSC rulings on, a very important protection to another minority, American Indians.
He seeks a ruling against this particular child's biological father.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...googlenews_wsj
Wall Street Journal
June 25, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Quote:

In mid-April of 2013, the Supreme Court Justices considered an appeal
by the South Carolina couple and their lawyers to the South Carolina Supreme Court
decision which held the following;

1. that it was in Veronica's best interests to be placed with her father;

2. that ICWA applied and was not unconstitutional;

3. the "Existing Indian Family" doctrine was inapplicable
as an exception to the application of the ICWA in this case;

4. that the father did not voluntarily consent to the termination
of his parental rights or the adoption;

5. the Appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that Father's parental rights should be terminated or that granting
custody of Baby Girl to Father would likely result in serious emotional
or physical damage to Baby Girl.

In today's 5-4 decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
the United States Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
but reversed and remanded this case back to the South Carolina courts on a technicality.
The narrow decision focused on the standard to determine whether
this particular father's parental rights could be terminated.

In advance of the oral arguments, support for the position to uphold the lower court rulings
and the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were characterized as historic.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and 19 states and state attorneys general
were joined by a large array of groups who submitted 24 separate briefs in all.
Not one state submitted briefs in support of Adoptive Couple.

The overwhelming support included 17 former and current members of Congress;
Casey Family Programs, the Children's Defense Fund, and 16 other child welfare organizations;
the American Civil Liberties Union; broad coalitions of psychology associations,
child advocates, and legal experts; adult Native American adoptees;
and tribal amicus briefs which include 333 American Indian tribes.
<snip>

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Page 3 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page