posted on February 23, 2001 07:53:20 PM"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"
Yes, a law. But why should the final say be by a panel of nine judges if the majority of the People desire something be in opposition to what the Court rules?
Are we to accept that nine people should speak for millions, that their (judges) opinion has better odds of being correct than a common opinion of millions?
posted on February 23, 2001 08:12:01 PM
I am sad for the founding fathers. They probably thought that the shorter and simpler a statement they made the less chance there would be of any misunderstanding in the future.
By saying that there could be no law made with respect to an establishment of religion what other avenue of intercourse lay open for the government to become involved with a religeous body? At that time government had not fallen into the habit of passing power to agencies by giving regulations the power of law before they are even written. It would seem they had in the very simplicity of the statement cut church and state off from each other. Little did they foresee lawyers who could twist and distort meaning like a rabbinical court that can make a commandment onto the reverse of it's intended
direction. Even the 10 commandments in their simplicity can find no common agreement among their supposed followers.
posted on February 23, 2001 08:27:27 PM
Some lower court have ruled that the separation of church and state (is) not part of the Constitution and ruled in favor of a pro-religious action, only to be overruled by the US Supreme Court.
Why should the US Supreme Court have greater weight, especially if they (US Court) base their ruling on evidence that does not exist within the document?
posted on February 23, 2001 08:27:33 PM
You seemed happy enough to have that panel of nine judges decide the election for the loser.
The majority of the People?
How does that effect anything anymore? A clear majority of the people voted that Al Gore would be their president, yet he is not. That panel of supposedly impartial jurists is seated by political whim and avarice, and thus cannot be deemed impartial in any real sense. How could an impartial jurist express a hope that either political candidate prevail as did Justice O'Connor at a cocktail party? How could that same justice say that she would only retire if she was assured that her replacement would be seated by a republican? How could another say that if the democratic candidate were elected he would retire because his hope to be appointed Chief Justice would be dashed in that case?
Before you say well then, we revert to the existing law, remember that impatial or not, those justices do have by law the final say in decisions brought under constitutional questions.
The fact that they are bought and paid for does not alter their powers while seated.
posted on February 23, 2001 08:31:04 PM
Whew, I was staring to get a headache! Finally, my real (surreptitious) point has been broached.
Although I stand behind and believe all I have said regarding the religious clause of the 1st Amendment, the interpretation regarding "separation of church and state" was not my (real) point. I wanted to prove that some do dance to different tunes as long as it is the music of their choice and played where and when (they) desire.
According to the anti-Bushers and anti-Republicans; when the Florida Supreme Court made rulings in favor of Gore and the Democrats, the Court was righteous.
However, when the U.S. Supreme Court made their final ruling against the Florida Supreme Court, and, therefore, against Gore and the Democrats; according to the anti-Bushers and anti-Republicans the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong, they were idiots, they ruled wrong, they played politics, they were corrupt, etc.
[Now] some of the same people are saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is to be trusted and are indeed paramount regarding the interpretation of law and actions, and should have the "final say." *Additionally, some imply* that a layperson to believe he or she is better equipped to decide is arrogant, stupid, and ludicrous.
I remember who they were, do you?
Crow is served, will someone turn the record over?
*xxxxx*... was edited to clarify and make some unhappy people, less unhappy.
[ edited by sgtmike on Feb 24, 2001 12:01 AM ]
posted on February 23, 2001 08:31:27 PMWhy should the US Supreme Court have greater weight, especially if they (US Court) base their ruling on evidence that does not exist within the document?
They simply do, as the constitutionally appointed interpreters of law. And they will. Your only hope for a system which negates that reality is for either you, or Rush Limbaugh, or preferably both are appointed to the court.
posted on February 23, 2001 08:36:42 PM
Your point was as transparent as a window. The only reason that what occured did is that the impartiality of the court is compromised by their own political bent.
The Florida court acted as a court should do--it weighed both sides, and it rendered a decision in keeping with Florida law. The U.S> Supreme court had no standing in a matter that was purely a state mattr as it is deigned to be by the U.S. Constitution
posted on February 23, 2001 08:42:30 PM[Now] some of the same people are saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is to be trusted and are indeed paramount regarding the interpretation of law and actions, and should have the "final say." Moreover, for a layperson to believe he or she is better equipped to decide is arrogant, stupid, and ludicrous.
I presume that now means now, and in this thread two people only have presented the case that you critisize--myself and antiquary. So, you are of the opinion that he and I are arrogant, stupid, and ludicrous as you just said that we are.
I'll take that as a direct personal insult, but won't speak for antiquary.
posted on February 23, 2001 08:46:01 PM
Yeah, I almost copied and printed that statement also, KRS. Doubtless it is some complex and highly sophisticated line of reasoning that is being used to make a point again.
posted on February 23, 2001 08:57:30 PM
Well, Dan, it was a pretty good discussion, but again there's this disruptive. We'll continue in email as usual.
posted on February 23, 2001 09:00:18 PM"Moreover, for a layperson to believe he or she is better equipped to decide is arrogant, stupid, and ludicrous."........ is what has been implied -by others.
Is it "disruptive" because views were challenged in a way your arguments could not win out?
Or is it disruptive because attention has been called to those who are dancing to a different tune and you got caught?
Your MO is obvious. Every time you start loosing ground or get egg on your face, you begin sending clandestine and false messages to the moderators that someone just violated a TOS…..according to your intentional misinterpretation.
posted on February 23, 2001 09:10:34 PM
In the first place, a listener can not determine what is impied by another, he or she can only infer, right or wrong.
In the second, by the reading of your posts, sgtmike, including those portions which consist "I remember who they were, do you?" and "Crow is served, will someone turn the record over?", coupled with the idiotic GIF you've posted above, it is clear to whom you are referring.
Your continual use of the 'some' and 'other' evasion is both obvious and demeaning to you personally. It demonstrates quite succinctly that you do not have the courage of conviction in anything you say, and shows your lack of stature in all things.
If you cannot even do more than try to sneak around with snide, innefective, and petty jabs then you are not worthy of attention as I'm sure you would agree if you encounter such behaviors in others.
posted on February 23, 2001 09:13:24 PM
I haven't lost any ground, as you put it, I've said that the court is corrupt but still has it's constitutional standing.
I may have said it's a shame that it's come to this, but it is you who are perpetually wrong, sgtmike.
You simply cannot seem to see that this court, as seated, was not envisioned by the people who wrote the constitution. Things were more honest then, I guess. For one thing, they'd never heard of republicans.
posted on February 23, 2001 09:22:49 PM"....it is clear to whom you are referring. Who?
Some and others do. Are you ready to say that some and others do not?
General terms used to state a fact. Stating names (User ID) can be determined to be a specific directed insult, depending on what was said or what is interpreted to have been said or implied.
No petty jabs. It is a fact that (some) are now dancing to a different tune.
Is it disruptive, or a violation, or both, to state a fact?
[ edited by sgtmike on Feb 23, 2001 09:24 PM ]
You have stated that you had a 'surreptitious' intent to disrupt this thread from it's subject onto your boring repeat of your incorrect assessments of posters to this thread in:
Whew, I was staring to get a headache! Finally, my real (surreptitious) point has been broached.Although I stand behind and believe all I have said regarding the religious clause of the 1st Amendment, the interpretation regarding "separation of church and state" was not my (real) point. I wanted to prove that some do dance to different tunes as long as it is the music of their choice and played where and when (they) desire.
Since there really aren't a lot of posters in this thread, and even fewer who could be seen by you to fit into the descriptive you offer, then 'some' and 'others' can only apply to those posters. The primary posters who fill your bill are antiquary and myself, but your vehement harrassment of me on several points whenever you are here would indicate that antiquary is not the subject of your insults, and not who you call idiotic, ludicrous, and stupid.
So yes, at the least, your behavior is lacking in the area of good ettiquette, but is more properly termed personally insulting.
On another subject: I've been buying properties here and there, and while interested in a town in Illinois listed as one of the top 100 places to live in the country, a small place near the Missouri border, I happened out of curiousity to look over yhhe listings in your town, not far away really. I was surprised to find that it has some of the lowest sale prices for housing in the country. Nearly as cheap as the middle of Kansas.
That must make the property tax base very low, eh? Affecting the salaries of all public employees?
Do you receive salary reports for police around the country? I'd imagine that you must. A while back a local newspaper listed starting salaries for patrolmen in cities around here to be upwards of $90,000 a year,
depending on their education level. Is that inordinately high?
I don't know if you're trying to make the sarge feel bad, but you've succeeded in putting my pittance into perspective. A liveried public servant of the law enforcement type makes about half that in these parts.
The commissioner here only makes a little bit more than the figure you cited.
I'm just glad I don't have to deal with that California cost of living.
posted on February 23, 2001 10:05:23 PM"You have stated that you had a 'surreptitious' intent to [disrupt this thread.]"
I said that? Show me.
I proved a point while submitting valid arguments (challenges) in opposition to the "separation of church and state" contribution made by another person early in this thread. Pardon me if I detected a paradox between previous (strong and cynical) arguments in a different thread and this one.
Some, damn there's that word again, who post believe they can say what they want with complete immunity and whenever someone challenges what they say, or copy and paste, are everything bad and disruptive. What was that you called me in another thread because I did not agree with some of your opinions and pastes; "Outspoken and belligerent?" Standard MO. Sorry, it does not work like that.
I voted for and (presently) respect President Bush. It is my right to concur or disagree, like it or not.
posted on February 23, 2001 10:06:21 PM
Yeah. And that was only base salary figures. The same article said that many of the officers make twice that with overtime and other qualification payments.
posted on February 23, 2001 10:43:13 PM"…was not my (real) point.…… does not translate to "disruptive."
Regardless what my "real point" eventually became, my arguments were within the scope of the topic subject started by another person.
Some, damn, there it is again, want it both ways. If you do not like your cynicism about President Bush, and (alleged} supporting information to be challenged, don't post about him. If you do, be prepared to be challenged.
If revealing hypocrisy is relevant to discrediting an opinion or provided info, so be it. It is called, "impeaching."
*******
The figures you stated, as a starting salary for an "entry level" police officers in your area is hard to believe. The figures you give do not correlate with the salary schedules used in collective bargaining (contract) negotiations.
Using three major size departments in California, that should be a decent gauge, I find the following to be the entry level salaries.
Los Angeles: $40,000 for entry level officers.
San Francisco: $54,084 for lateral transfer officers (experienced) which would (most likely) make EL salaries lower.
San Diego: $34500 for entry level officers.
You apparently were not in my area comparing real estate prices and taxes.
posted on February 23, 2001 10:54:10 PM
Maybe it was average starting salaries, but it wasn't in major cities. The plums, I guess are in the smaller communities with very large tax bases.
As to RE listings you can see for yourself.
[ur]http://www.coldwellbanker.com/[/url]
http://remax.realtor.com:80/FindHome/USMapHome.asp?gate=remax
Those, a couple of the many, don't carry the MLS stuff, but most of those are adobe PDF files and would take your 386 system a week to open using a dialup connection.
more frequently. LOL
