Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 07-16-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Leviathan
"Badly compromising judicial integrity..." this is really an ironical time to be using the questioning of Judicial Legitimacy. The Senate voted, what, 99-0, one abstention, against the decision, an overwhelming majority of Americans were polled to contest the decision, and yet you Believe to run contrary to the District decision would be compromising judicial integrity?

Lev,

Have you ever read and analysed the document these Senators used as the supporting justification for the "under God" phrase? I have. It is riddled with inaccurate history, quotations, citations and propaganda. I suspect that only one or two Senators ever read it. Who authored it? Who claimed that it was an accurate presentation of the facts?

I now have cause to wonder if the person who authored it wrote the Niger-Iraq nuclear connection papers. The members of Congress believed the President when he made the claims he did about WMD and the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The majority of the American public believed the President's statements concerning why we should pre-emptively attack a sorveign foreign nation. However, the majority of the world's other governments did not believe him. Those dissenting voices/nations were trashed and summarily and arrogantly ignored by this government and its supporters. Now we are discovering that they were correct not to trust this President, his administrative spokespersons or the majority of cowardly political hacks in Congress.

So when you use the fallacious "Argument from Authority" ploy to make your points, I, for one, am not very impressed or influenced by it. The efforts by some devout supernaturalists to turn America into "their" ideal of a Christian Nation are of long standing and considerable success. However, that success does not mean that America ever was, is, or should become a Christian Nation under some "unnamed" supernatural God. Please don't lose sight of that in all the legal mumble-jumble used to masked the Big Picture. There are a good many practicing attorneys and legal professors that are sincere believers in the supernatural...which is their right of free religious expression. However, I am one of those that demands, under our Constitution, the right of free non-religious expression and the removal of all examples of supernatural beliefs being supported by my government and tax dollars. The Separation of Church and State, Religion and Government, is one of the greatest gifts, intended or not, given to us by the framing farthers. It took 172 years for the Christian zealots to get our National Motto changed and to divide the country into believers and non-believers. How many years will it take for that particular denomination of Christian zealots, should they be able to remain in power, to further subdivide our nation into blind faith true believers and pragmatic true believer...and certain anti-God "evil" minorities?

Leviathan · 07-16-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Lev - that's a tantalizing quote, but it's full of the colorful and overstated language that leads one to expect that the next paragraph will point out that the Ninth Circuit is sober, industrious, and makes more sense that the Supremes.

Toto, that quotation is one paragraph of a damning report that the Ninth Circuit is nothing but a bunch of 'renegades' that wish to defy consensus. You could not have noted, and I guess I should have stated, that the paragraph came from a law review, and it cited well over 5-10 sources for a few paragraphs of argument.

As far as there being any hope in the "next paragraph" for the Ninth, sorry. The next few pages tell about how Richard Posner, perhaps the most famous judge today not on the Supreme Court, did a study to see just why the Ninth was the most overturned, if in fact they were. He concluded they were the most overturned, sometimes not even garnering a vote of the nine S. Ct. justices, and sometimes not even having a full written opinion explaining the overturning, the ultimate insult to an inferior court.

You may choose to call it "tantalizing" if you want, but I'd say this Professor of Law hits the nail on the head, and is echoing sentiment from around the nation to condemn the Ninth Circuit, and its fanciful ruling in Newdow.

Quote:

Buffman:So when you use the fallacious "Argument from Authority" ploy to make your points, I, for one, am not very impressed or influenced by it.

You need to correct your phrases: it isn't just "authority," but overwhelming authority. *No court*, not one, not a single court, absent the Ninth Circuit, has even a *hint* of the same holding as in Newdow. Those "historical inaccuracies" you speak to have been discussed at length, in numerous SUpreme Court cases, and have been discussed as the basis for our Establishment clause jurisprudence.

I'm sorry: just b/c you find them "inaccurate" does not mean the S. Ct., the lawmakers mind you, do.

Buffman · 07-16-2003, 08:36 PM

Leviathan

You need to correct your phrases: it isn't just "authority," but overwhelming authority. *No court*, not one, not a single court, absent the Ninth Circuit, has even a *hint* of the same holding as in Newdow. Those "historical inaccuracies" you speak to have been discussed at length, in numerous SUpreme Court cases, and have been discussed as the basis for our Establishment clause jurisprudence.

How do you know that the "historic inaccuracies" to which I refer are the ones to which you now allude? Have you read the document I mentioned? It would not seem so. I suspect that you are making a hasty and rather faulty assumption. (We did a rather thorough analysis of the Senate document many months ago. You may be able to find it in the Forum Archives. With my recent PC crashes, I lost my copies...and quick references. Sorry.)

Just because someone has the means to get elected to public office does not autimatically confer them with omniscience...especially concerning accurate early American history.

You might wish to review some of the information at the following URL It could prove to be very informative and useful in some of your current academic endeavors.

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html

Specifically:

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphi...om/author.html

Toto · 07-16-2003, 09:06 PM

Comments on Newdow should be taken to the other thread. This thread is on Pryor, who is in trouble:

Democrats call for another delay on Pryor vote

Quote:

Pryor is one of the founders of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which raises money for GOP attorneys general. Pryor, at his confirmation hearing, told the committee that he had not lobbied tobacco companies or companies under investigation by his office.

Democrats say they have documents from the group showing Pryor may have been involved in some of the fund-raising activities that he denied.

"It would be premature for the committee to take action on the Pryor nomination," Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a joint letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch.

The two senators said they wanted to question Pryor again to give him "an opportunity to seek to explain his prior testimony."

Also from the NY Times

Quote:

The two Democrats, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking minority member of the committee, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, raised their objections in a letter to the committee chairman, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

They said that a bipartisan staff investigation had been proceeding about possible problems with the information provided by the nominee, William H. Pryor, but that the investigation had been sabotaged by a disclosure to a columnist who is a former Republican Congressional staff member.

. . .

The staff research about the fund-raising was first publicly disclosed in an opinion column in The Mobile Register by Quin E. Hillyer, a supporter of the nomination and a former Republican House staff member. Senators Leahy and Kennedy, in their letter to Mr. Hatch, accused the Republican staff members of the committee of disclosing the information.

Spector on the hot seat

enfant terrible · 07-16-2003, 11:12 PM

I am not too concerned about Pryor under the existing Senate rules, as the vote on his nomination would certainly be filibustered. What I am deeply concerned about is the Republican plan to challenge the rule on cloture (ending a filibuster). And if they choose to pursue that route, they have a good chance of success.

Toto · 07-17-2003, 11:27 PM

Senate Panel Delays Vote on Pryor Nomination

Quote:

The new flap stems from Pryor's work with the Republican Attorneys General Association, a group he formed in 1999 that raises campaign contributions.

During his confirmation hearing last month, Pryor testified he did not know if any tobacco companies or if selected firms were association members. But Democrats said recently obtained association documents indicate otherwise.

Some Republicans charged that the documents appeared to have been stolen as part of a smear campaign. Democrats said they were lawfully provided by a whistle-blower.

Toto · 07-19-2003, 03:28 PM

Did Pryor Lie to Judiciary Committee?

Quote:

. . .

In his testimony before the committee on June 11 and in written answers to later questions, Mr. Pryor said he saw nothing wrong in raising money for a Republican attorneys general group. He also said he was unaware that any of the companies he solicited did business in Alabama and would therefore come under his jurisdiction as the state's chief law enforcement official.

But the documents cited by Democrats on the panel appear to show that Mr. Pryor had solicited donations from several companies that do business in Alabama, including the International Paper Corporation and the United States Steel Corporation.

Mr. Pryor also said he was unaware that any tobacco companies had been solicited by the Republican attorneys general group. The documents suggest that Philip Morris U.S.A. and the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation donated heavily. One document listed Mr. Pryor as the person assigned to call a lobbyist for Philip Morris who had committed to donating $25,000. The documents also suggest that Mr. Pryor was assigned to call a lobbyist for Brown & Williamson, which donated $25,000 to the association.

Toto · 07-22-2003, 11:18 AM

Pryor plays the Catholic card

Quote:

The ads -- probably the toughest so far in the Senate's battle over President Bush's judicial nominations -- accuse "some in the U.S. Senate," apparently meaning Democrats, of opposing the appeals court nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. because he is a devout Catholic.

The ads are being run by the Committee for Justice -- founded by C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, to help rally support for judicial nominees -- and the Ave Maria List, an organization of lay Catholics that works for the election of antiabortion candidates to Congress.

"Some in the U.S. Senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having 'deeply held' Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge," the ads said. "Don't they know the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office?"

. . .
David Carle, spokesman for Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the groups' charge "a false and detestable smear that's intended to chill debate" on Pryor's suitability for the bench. "The question in Mr. Pryor's case is not his religion, which in fact is shared by several members of the Judiciary Committee. It is whether he is capable of fairly and impartially applying the laws to everyone who comes into the courtroom, as he would be required to do as a federal judge," Carle said.

Stephen Maturin · 07-23-2003, 09:09 AM

The Senate Judiciary just voted to recommend Pryor's confirmation. The vote was 10-9, split along party lines. Looks like another filibuster's in the offing.

Edit: Here's the AP write-up on the vote and all the attendant hoo-ha.

Ab_Normal · 07-23-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
The Senate Judiciary just voted to recommend Pryor's confirmation. The vote was 10-9, split along party lines. Looks like another filibuster's in the offing.

Insert Tourette's-like swearing bout here... I'm not looking forward to another round of "Dems are blocking all of Bush's appointments" when, in fact, they've filibustered something like 2% of them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2003, 06:19 PM	#61
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Originally posted by Leviathan "Badly compromising judicial integrity..." this is really an ironical time to be using the questioning of Judicial Legitimacy. The Senate voted, what, 99-0, one abstention, against the decision, an overwhelming majority of Americans were polled to contest the decision, and yet you Believe to run contrary to the District decision would be compromising judicial integrity? Lev, Have you ever read and analysed the document these Senators used as the supporting justification for the "under God" phrase? I have. It is riddled with inaccurate history, quotations, citations and propaganda. I suspect that only one or two Senators ever read it. Who authored it? Who claimed that it was an accurate presentation of the facts? I now have cause to wonder if the person who authored it wrote the Niger-Iraq nuclear connection papers. The members of Congress believed the President when he made the claims he did about WMD and the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The majority of the American public believed the President's statements concerning why we should pre-emptively attack a sorveign foreign nation. However, the majority of the world's other governments did not believe him. Those dissenting voices/nations were trashed and summarily and arrogantly ignored by this government and its supporters. Now we are discovering that they were correct not to trust this President, his administrative spokespersons or the majority of cowardly political hacks in Congress. So when you use the fallacious "Argument from Authority" ploy to make your points, I, for one, am not very impressed or influenced by it. The efforts by some devout supernaturalists to turn America into "their" ideal of a Christian Nation are of long standing and considerable success. However, that success does not mean that America ever was, is, or should become a Christian Nation under some "unnamed" supernatural God. Please don't lose sight of that in all the legal mumble-jumble used to masked the Big Picture. There are a good many practicing attorneys and legal professors that are sincere believers in the supernatural...which is their right of free religious expression. However, I am one of those that demands, under our Constitution, the right of free non-religious expression and the removal of all examples of supernatural beliefs being supported by my government and tax dollars. The Separation of Church and State, Religion and Government, is one of the greatest gifts, intended or not, given to us by the framing farthers. It took 172 years for the Christian zealots to get our National Motto changed and to divide the country into believers and non-believers. How many years will it take for that particular denomination of Christian zealots, should they be able to remain in power, to further subdivide our nation into blind faith true believers and pragmatic true believer...and certain anti-God "evil" minorities?

07-16-2003, 08:36 PM	#63
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Leviathan You need to correct your phrases: it isn't just "authority," but overwhelming authority. No court, not one, not a single court, absent the Ninth Circuit, has even a hint of the same holding as in Newdow. Those "historical inaccuracies" you speak to have been discussed at length, in numerous SUpreme Court cases, and have been discussed as the basis for our Establishment clause jurisprudence. How do you know that the "historic inaccuracies" to which I refer are the ones to which you now allude? Have you read the document I mentioned? It would not seem so. I suspect that you are making a hasty and rather faulty assumption. (We did a rather thorough analysis of the Senate document many months ago. You may be able to find it in the Forum Archives. With my recent PC crashes, I lost my copies...and quick references. Sorry.) Just because someone has the means to get elected to public office does not autimatically confer them with omniscience...especially concerning accurate early American history. You might wish to review some of the information at the following URL It could prove to be very informative and useful in some of your current academic endeavors. http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html Specifically: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphi...om/author.html

07-16-2003, 11:12 PM	#65
enfant terrible Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 276	I am not too concerned about Pryor under the existing Senate rules, as the vote on his nomination would certainly be filibustered. What I am deeply concerned about is the Republican plan to challenge the rule on cloture (ending a filibuster). And if they choose to pursue that route, they have a good chance of success.

07-23-2003, 09:09 AM	#69
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	The Senate Judiciary just voted to recommend Pryor's confirmation. The vote was 10-9, split along party lines. Looks like another filibuster's in the offing. Edit: Here's the AP write-up on the vote and all the attendant hoo-ha.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.