Cassandra on the Espionage Act Decision
Cassandra at Villainous Company has a good post about the court ruling on the Espionage Act, and what it means for the newspapers.
Cassandra at Villainous Company has a good post about the court ruling on the Espionage Act, and what it means for the newspapers.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Powered by WordPress.
one district court judge, running counter to existing law, does not new law make.
assistant devil's advocate (50cffa) — 8/12/2006 @ 10:22 amOne allegation of contrary existing law, without a link to the allegedly existing law, does not counter to existing law make.
Xrlq (a0a088) — 8/12/2006 @ 11:09 am“assistant devil’s advocate,” your post-modern ironic brain (and your aliases) may be shocked to learn this, but judges—whether one, nine, or 25 of them—do not ‘MAKE’ laws, thus your statement amounts to counting the number of martyred jihadists on the head of a pin.
Making laws is the role of the legislative branch.
The role of the judiciary is to interpret laws.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/12/2006 @ 11:21 amMaking laws is the role of the legislative branch.
The role of the judiciary is to interpret laws.
Someone should have told that to Harry Blackmun.
Paul (b182b9) — 8/12/2006 @ 11:53 amand “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
actus (6234ee) — 8/12/2006 @ 12:17 pmReally? That sounds as if the judiciary trumps the legislative branch of government. And all this time I thought we had three co-equal branches of government. Your mileage may vary.
moneyrunner (0f8378) — 8/12/2006 @ 1:43 pmone district court judge, running counter to existing law, does not new law make.
Comment by assistant devil’s advocate
Um, care to name said “existing law” for the class?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/12/2006 @ 4:33 pmand “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Comment by actus
False.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/12/2006 @ 4:34 pmFar be it from me to contradict johnn marshall.
actus (6234ee) — 8/12/2006 @ 6:18 pmFar be it from me to contradict johnn marshall
Yes, a “judge said so” is just so persuasive…
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/12/2006 @ 6:53 pmHell, even John Marshall could be wrong.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/12/2006 @ 8:46 pmAce, never mind “actus”— he’s just trying to play another one of his juvenile games again.
“actus” is just trying to show that he can quote John Marshall, albeit completely out of context.
The quote which “actus” used WITHOUT proper attribution, is a quote by John Marshall from the Marbury vs. Madisun decision(1803); “…it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Essentially, the decision asserted the Supreme Court’s domain in ruling on whether or not a law was in accordance with the Constitution.
Naturally, this means that the Judiciary is to INTERPRET laws, rather than “make” laws, as “actus” wishes to imply.
If one wants to be very explicit about the context of the Marshall quote, I’ll provide the sentences from the Marbury vs. Madisun decision which directly follow the quote which “actus” provided:
“Those [judges] who apply the rule [of law] to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/12/2006 @ 9:25 pmThey just make sure its constiutional. I don’t imply much more.
Are you being clever or do you not know who i’m talking about?
Some people think we can ignore the past 200 years. That those people think of themselves as ‘conservative’ is rather funny.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 4:34 amAre you being clever or do you not know who i’m talking about?
Um, I graduated law school when you were about 15.
Save the smugness for someone else, asshole.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 5:41 amThey just make sure its constiutional. I don’t imply much more.
Really?
This “judicial department to say what the law is”
isn’t implying much more?
You are embarrassingly obtuse.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 5:50 amNot really, specially when I connected it to your quote with an ‘and.’ If I’m implying anything, its the long tradition of judicial review we have in this country.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 5:54 amI don’t know anyone who thinks every idea that’s been around for 200 years must be right. Nearly all oppose slavery, for example, even though that had been around a lot longer than 200 years when we finally got around to abolishing it. So by Acthole-logic, I guess the fact that anyone calls himself a conservative must be a real knee-slapper.
Xrlq (1a2fae) — 8/13/2006 @ 5:58 am“Some people think we can ignore the past 200 years. That those people think of themselves as ‘conservative’ is rather funny.”
Why stop there? Let’s go farther back in the law when married women didn’t have separate rights from their husbands? Or, as Xrlq pointed out, how about slavery? We could come much farther forward into the legal abominations like Roe v. Wade and campaign finance reform, both of which were laughable twists on judicial review. So, save your laughter for the “living Constitution” nuts or those Supreme Court justices who think international law should determine what is Constitutional and what is not.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/13/2006 @ 6:56 amWell, its the fact that its worked, and been used for 200 years. But I don’t know what sort of logic lesson I can take from someone who takes a point of judicial review and thinks its the same when applied to slavery.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 7:11 amPatterico — please put the commenter’s name at the beginning of the comment instead of at the end. I want to skip all comments by “actus”.
dchamil (e4a1cd) — 8/13/2006 @ 7:37 amWell, its the fact that its worked
Um, slavery worked too.
But I don’t know what sort of logic lesson I can take from someone who takes a point of judicial review and thinks its the same when applied to slavery.
Obtuse.
Man, are you dense.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:03 amIf I’m implying anything, its the long tradition of judicial review we have in this country.
Way to go captain obvious/strawman.
Your comments are absolutely meaningless.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:08 amUm, I’m not so sure. I mean, we are still in many ways paying the price of it today.
Sorry if I don’t think conserving things that are stable, good and work is the same thing as keeping slavery. Maybe i’m not from the right part of the country.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 9:45 amSorry if I don’t think conserving things that are stable, good and work is the same thing as keeping slavery
“stable” —according to you
“good” —according to you
“work” —-according to you.
See a pattern there?
Further, the “200 years” point is irrelevant.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 10:21 amIf you can’t see why, you are dense.
Sure. Most of the things I say are according to me. Except for the things I quote, which happen to be according to John Marshall and also referred to by about 200 years of our jurisprudence.
There’s lots of ways it’s relevant. To me it’s relevant that it has worked this long. That so many people have accepted its logic, its correctness, and worked with it. Experience counts for something in my world. I would think thats the essence of conservatism — keeping what works, and avoiding radical changes.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 10:26 am“actus,” we always believed your personal commentary to be immature, silly, devoid of reason, and filled with resentment toward our nation’s traditional institutions.
However, now that you’ve been caught trying to explicitly take out of context a quote from John Marshall from the Marbury vs. Madison decision without proper attribution, you reveal yourself to be fundamentally dishonest, and incapable of taking responsibility for your own posts.
As with most people who lie, cheat, or steal, you didn’t believe you would get caught.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:16 amIf you’re really that dense, I’m not sure what kind of logic lesson you can take from anybody.
Xrlq (9aea6d) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:16 amRat, I’m sorry that I didn’t provide proper bluebooking in a comment on a blog. I’m sorry that some people think that marshall’s words means the judiciary makes laws. Maybe you didn’t find the attribution proper, but the point was to pick the famous phrase and put it in quotes and readers would be able to figure it out. You may think i’ve been ‘caught’ doing exactly what I set out to do, but perhaps its because you’re not so familiar with Marbury v. Madison.
Certainly. I mean, from judicial review to slavery. Who can escape such powerful logic? I wouldn’t think that you could simplify these two things to the point of comparing them across one dimension with formal logic, but you’ve done it. And I really can’t learn much from it.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:30 amTo get back to Mr. Justice Marshall: Didn’t someone say …now that Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, let him enforce it…?
It does take three branches, working together; without invective helps, too.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:41 amactus – even I, as a mere humble innocent resident alien in this country, am aware that judicial review did not get rid of slavery in this country … as I recall, that was achieved by the 13th Amendment ( qv here ) …
As far as I understand the system over here where I now am resident, a Constitutional Amendment is Legislature and citizenry grabbing a situation by the sensitive parts and fixing it … can one get much further from judicial review ?
A question ot the citizens commenting here, if I may …
Why is it that so many on the left end of the spectrum over here are proud to be mendacious ? Where I spent my first 21 years, mendacity was considered to be poor form, just not the done thing, sorta like scaring the horses which should not be done in public …
Alasdair (48477d) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:50 amSure. Most of the things I say are according to me
Well, we know then where you stand on facts.
Except for the things I quote, which happen to be according to John Marshall and also referred to by about 200 years of our jurisprudence.
Again, the years thing as if it means anything.
That so many people have accepted its logic, its correctness, and worked with it. Experience counts for something in my world
What logic?
You pasting a sentence fragment and pretending it means something other than it really does?
. I would think thats the essence of conservatism — keeping what works, and avoiding radical changes.
So you were absolutely opposed to the Hamdan decision then, right?
Oh, things that “work” and precedent only count when liberals like them.
I wouldn’t think that you could simplify these two things to the point of comparing them across one dimension with formal logic, but you’ve done it. And I really can’t learn much from it.
It’s not terribly complicated.
Again: dense
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:51 amLogic, fact, coherence are not your friends.
I’m sorry that some people think that marshall’s words means the judiciary makes laws.
Right, I mean how dare you paste a sentence fragment with no context, explaination, or corresponding words.
It probably isn’t too late, refund.
Please.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 11:53 amGood God, you really are that stupid, aren’t you? This time, I’ll try typing real slow. You said it was “funny” that anyone could oppose any 200 year old practice and still call himself a conservative. I pointed out an obvious example of a practice much older than that, which is universally condemned by liberals and conservatives alike. The end.
Xrlq (9aea6d) — 8/13/2006 @ 12:40 pmThats a good precedent to cite: extermination of indians. I think that makes the case for, rather than against, judicial review.
Ya, I mean, sorry If I think that 200 years worth of jurispredence agreeing with and building on an opinion counts for something.
The logic in marbury v. madison. Have you read it? its quite brilliant in how it hands marshall’s opponents a victory in the instant case but yet emphasis that the Court has the power Jefferson would deny it.
Well, I’m not conservative. I liked Hamdan because it was basically democracy forcing: it was, like Kelo, the court giving power to the lawmaking representative branch: legislatures.
I know. That’s what I was getting at when I thought it was so simplified. Its so oversimplified as to say nothing.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 12:52 pmI understand. My point is that the history of judicial review is different than that of slavery. So those are quite different 200 years, such that it makes a difference to someone who is ‘conservative.’
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 12:54 pmI liked Hamdan because it was basically democracy forcing
So say you, not too bright person.
What about the over 200 years of judicial practice it overturned?
cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases
Hypocrite much?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 12:57 pmit hands marshall’s opponents a victory in the instant case but yet emphasis that the Court has the power Jefferson would deny it.
The founders are for it, you’re against it.
Lovely.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 12:58 pmI hadn’t read it that way, tell me more about it.
Well, one founder was against strong judicial review: Jefferson. He would have had us live with lots of majority power but little protections in terms of ‘rights.’ But there were other opinions back then, from other founders. People such as marshall, who was one of the first chief justices and helped make the judicial branch what it is today. You know this right?
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 1:01 pmI hadn’t read it that way, tell me more about it.
Er, I spelled it out for you.
People such as marshall, who was one of the first chief justices and helped make the judicial branch what it is today. You know this right?
Um, I’ve forgotten more about the law then you’ll probably ever know.
Further, holding the judiciary as currently constituted in high regard confirms the comment above.
He would have had us live with lots of majority power but little protections in terms of ‘rights.’
Hilarious lie.
strong judicial review
-Justice Jackson
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 1:07 pmI hadn’t read it that way, tell me more about it.
Never
Before
In the history of Anglo-American Law
Had
The
Court
Acted
In
The
Manner
It
Did
Can you grasp that?
In other words, for over 200 years something “worked” but you oppose that.
Funny, huh?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 1:10 pmAbout jefferson? You’re kidding me right? Maybe you’re confusing him with his opponent, Madison, but Jefferson was all about — or claimed to be — Majoritarianism — the minority was to conform to this. And it wasn’t the courts that would step in to protect minorities. He thought for some reason the majority would. Or the government just wouldn’t infringe on too many rights, because he wanted it to be small.
Well its kind of conclusory. What specifically about it is new? It moved some of the decision making to congress, and away from the president. Ie, the decisionmaking is still in the political branches. So your Jackson quote — which I’m guessing you got from the Thomas dissent, but I’m not sure how much you know about Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp. — is still doing allright.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 1:26 pmWhat specifically about it is new?
You mean other than the fact it had never happened before right?
Wow.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 2:06 pm“Ya,(sic) I mean, sorry If I think that 200 years worth of jurispredence (sic) agreeing with and building on an opinion counts for something.”
Sounds like you must like Justice Scalia a lot then if you aren’t for the overarching leaps in logic the liberal end of the bench endorses.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/13/2006 @ 2:07 pmIt moved some of the decision making to congress, and away from the president
By ignoring jurisdiction-stripping?
Are you for real?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 2:07 pmWell, folks, it does appear “actus” bit off a little more than he could chew, eh ?
Nothing like catching a dishonest blogger like “actus” red-handed, as he intentionally attempts to take out of context, the words of a man who has been dead since 1835.
After all, a little embarrassment for “actus” will be a good ‘life-lesson’ for him.
Anhow, “actus,” you now see why “The Ace” is a nationally regarded blogger.
This is kind of like when a pick-pocket believes he’s got an easy prey when he’s robbing a little old man walking down the street, and it turns out that the little old man is indeed a cop, working undercover.
Ten seconds later, the pick-pocket finds himself spread-eagle on the ground, thinking to himself, “I think I picked the wrong fight.”
Uh-huh, sure looks like “actus” picked the wrong fight.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/13/2006 @ 3:28 pmWhile the discussion about 200 year-old practices and jurisprudence is fascinating… does anyone have anything to say about the linked article?
Darkmage (4de99c) — 8/14/2006 @ 9:07 amThis is what I want you to specify. Its a long opinion. What in it had never happened before? When I ask you about whats new about it, you just repeat that it had never happened before. Which is kind of a tautology, and doesn’t explain what is new.
What jurisdiction stipping was ignored? For me, the main thing it did was move review towards congress.
What do you know of my intent? How can it be catching when I put it into quotes? The whole point I was making was to evoke that opinion. That concept of judicial review, of the necessity of interpretation and what that means for judging.
If its the tautalogical repetition, thats something we can all have.
actus (a3fb4f) — 8/14/2006 @ 2:18 pmWhat in it had never happened before?
Hilarious.
Um, IGNORING jurisdiction-stripping, for the 3rd time.
What jurisdiction stipping was ignored? For
Your ignorance is appalling. You mean other than the Detainee Treatment Act, right?
Why are you even commenting on the matter when this is your level of knowledge on the topic?
If its the tautalogical repetition,
I spelled it out for you, jackass.
Further, from the author of:
How can it be catching when I put it into quotes?
You’re way, way too dense to see the irony.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/14/2006 @ 3:37 pmWhat jurisdiction stipping was ignored?
Hint:
Again,
that (jurisdiction-stripping provision) being ignored.
Had
Never
Happened
Before
In
The History
of
Anglo-American Law.
Ever.
Can you grasp this, yet, idiot?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/14/2006 @ 3:40 pmAce, if you are finished pounding the crap out of actus’s silly arguments, I’d love to get your take on Cass’s post, or a link if you’ve covered this at your blog.
Paul (b182b9) — 8/14/2006 @ 9:53 pmI’m asking you to explain how they ignored it.
Aren’t you the one asking me to get a refund? Here I am telling you, your answers aren’t very good. Can you explain what part of the opinion ignores the DTA, and what the opinion claims to do with it — say is it interpreting it — and why you think that’s wrong, and why you think its actually ignoring it.
But its a good thing that you’re giving me an unattributed paragraph with things in quotes inside it. What I would like is the actual opinion and the law.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 5:18 amAlso, according to eugene volokh, the court has previously bypassed jurisdiction stripping measures.
But since you havent yet showed how they ‘ignored’ here, we cant really compare.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 5:33 amSorry. That was sasha volokh.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:12 amBut since you havent yet showed how they ‘ignored’ here
High comedy. You mean other than the DTA, right?
The people who said to ignore you were correct.
You are obtuse and have no point.
You’re simply not capable of making one or reading comprehension.
That was sasha volokh.
And:
which is confusing and hard to interpret
You are a total embarrassment.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:21 amI’m asking you to explain how they ignored it.
Um, how can you not understand this?
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:27 amCan you explain what part of the opinion ignores the DTA
THE ENTIRE MAJORITY OPINION IGNORED IT YOU ILLITERATE JACKASS.
Which part of “no court” do you not understand?
and why you think that’s wrong, and why you think its actually ignoring it.
IT IS IGNORING IT by merely assuming jurisdiction of Hamdan’s case, idiot.
This
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:29 amIsn’t
Complicated
But
You
Can’t
Grasp
It
No. I mean as in what page of the opinion. Or did they not mention the DTA at all?
Wait. Whats the problem? Sasha Volokh found two places. In one, its a case of interpretation of the text avoiding a juridiction stripping issue. In the other, its a difficult case to understand. But dont let that stop you from saying its never happened before.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:29 amBut, instead, they avoided the question by interpreting the statute as not really withdrawing jurisdiction.
What is amusing is you think this is proper “judicial review.”
Ignore the plain language of the Constitution to “interpret” a statute to mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean and call it “the law.”
and why you think that’s wrong, and why you think its actually ignoring it.
Like this:
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:32 amNo. I mean as in what page of the opinion. Or did they not mention the DTA at all?
Go
Read
It
Yourself
Idiot.
Hint: I’m quoting from the dissent.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:33 amIn one, its a case of interpretation of the text avoiding a juridiction stripping issue
Bully for them, trashing the constitution.
No. I mean as in what page of the opinion. Or did they not mention the DTA at all?
Extensively, stupid.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:35 amand why you think that’s wrong, and why you think its actually ignoring it.
It is wrong because the Constitution says this:
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:36 amWell, without reading the statute or opinion, I don’t know if their interpretation was correct. But what gave you the idea it had never happened before?
Look you’re the one saying the opinion did something and I ask where it did that. Thats it. Its really not that much of an issue to ask for citations. You’re able to quote from the dissent — which is not hte law — but what i’m looking for is the quote from the majority where it does what you think “had never happened before in the history of anglo-american law.” But it looks like it did.
However, briefly looking at the majority opinion it does look like it addresses the DTA. So you’re wrong when you tell me ‘the entire opinion’ ignored it. It didn’t ignore it. Now I’d like you to tell me why you think their treatment of it is ignoring it. Note, this means you read the opinion, not just cite the constitutional provision we both know is at play. Tell me why you think what the court did is wrong by analyzing what the court did, not repeating what we both know the constitution says about jurisdiction.
Though I am going to need citations. Since the one thing you’ve been telling me all along, that the court ignored a law, was a lie. The court did not ignore it. Did you read the opinion?
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 8:20 amSo you’re wrong when you tell me ‘the entire opinion’ ignored it. It didn’t ignore it.
It ignorned it by ruling.
It ignored the jurisdiction stripping (for the 6th time).
Again, not complicated.
The court did not ignore it.
Um, yes it did.
See, twisting & turning a bunch of words together and pretending they didn’t doesn’t make it so.
They ignored the plain language of the Constitution and the statute.
Clearly.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 8:50 amTell me why you think what the court did is wrong by analyzing what the court did, not repeating what we both know the constitution says about jurisdiction
The court ignored a jurisdiction stripping statute in violation of the Constitution.
There isn’t much “analyis” needed. The court made itself king and acted extra-constitutionally.
Again, not complicated.
What I love about you ignorants is you can’t even level set the language with you. To you “ignore” means something other than what it normally means.
See, coming up with absurd “logic” and legal reasoning and making it “law” doesn’t in any way mean the plain language of the DTA was ignored.
It was. That is my point.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 8:57 amIgnore means disregard. They did not disregard. They addressed it, they regarded it. You disagree with how they addressed it, but thats different. Words have meanings that, though fluid, have limits. You mean something other than disregard, than ignore.
So they did not ignore. They treated the DTA. its right there, and you can’t lie about it anymore. Now what you can do is tell me why you think their explanation of why the DTA does not limit their jurisdiction is incorrect. So step through their analysis and tell me the problem with it.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 9:05 amIgnore means disregard. They did not disregard
Oh, yes they did.
See, they spent a bunch of time telling you why they disregarded it.
To go back to a previous point, who are you to question Justice Scalia?
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 9:59 amYou mean something other than disregard, than ignore.
No I don’t.
They ignorned the DTA.
Now what you can do is tell me why you think their explanation of why the DTA does not limit their jurisdiction is incorrect
Again:
The court ignored a jurisdiction stripping statute in violation of the Constitution.
Again:
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:02 amThis isn’t complicated.
So step through their analysis and tell me the problem with it.
They didn’t have jurisdiction.
That is the problem.
Further, they either made an error or outright lied in footnote 10:
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:24 amApparently I’m justice stevens. But you tell me why you think its incorrect.
Note that Scalia doesn’t say they ignored the DTA. Rather he says their interpretation of it is “erroneous.”
It probably isn’t. I just want you to go through their analysis of the DTA and explain where they made their error.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:25 amSee, none of Senator Levin’s statements were made during the debate. All statements were inserted into the record afterward.
That demonstrates how twisted the ‘reasoning’ was in reaching this decision.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:26 amTHe problem with this argument is that its the same conclusory reasoning you started with. Maybe its you who needs a refund?
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:27 amNote that Scalia doesn’t say they ignored the DTA
He says they don’t have jurisdiction.
I just want you to go through their analysis of the DTA and explain where they made their error.
In issuing an opinion.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:27 amThey didn’t have jurisdiction.
THe problem with this argument is that its the same conclusory reasoning you started with.
There is no “problem” as it is correct.
See, the language of the statue is very clear.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:28 amSo is the intent.
Apparently I’m justice stevens
Isn’t it funny how your comments always come full circle and look absurd?
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:29 amDoes the record show that? Because I know the congressional record is often added to after ‘debates.’
I know. He says that based on an argument interpreting the DTA in a way different than the majority opinion. Which is not an argument of ignoring or disregarding, as you claim. Its an argument of error. I’d like to hear your argument of error. Something other than “An error was made.”
I know. Like a broken record, thats all you say. I’m curious with you steppign through their jurisdiction argument and finding within it the problem. Do you understand the english language enough to understand what I’m asking? Or are you just going to be conclusory (do you know what this word means?) again? I ask you what the problem is with their jurisdiction argument and all you tell me is they didn’t have jurisdiction.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:33 amWell, when I’m chasing a circle, i’m going to end up going in circles. Here you think that an unexplained argument is unproblematic given your conclusion that it is correct. So there’s not very far we’re goign to get is there? When you disagree with teh conclusions of a “nationally regarded blogger,” you get what you deserve.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:36 amDoes the record show that? Because I know the congressional record is often added to after ‘debates.’
Yes, it does.
They made an error or are lying.
He says that based on an argument interpreting the DTA in a way different than the majority opinion
With a string of precedents that would bowl you over.
I ask you what the problem is with their jurisdiction argument and all you tell me is they didn’t have jurisdiction
My problem is it ignores the Constitution.
My problem is they lied in their opinion.
My problem is they turned the plain language of a statue on it’s head.
My problem is that they ignored a large body of existing case law to make a political statement.
For example this:
The Act is silent about whether paragraph (1) of subsection (e) “shall apply” to claims pending on the date of enactment.
is one of the more disengious things you’ll ever read as:
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction
and:
no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider
and:
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:45 amThis section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Well, when I’m chasing a circle, i’m going to end up going in circles
Um, you said this: Far be it from me to contradict johnn marshall.
Which is a silly & meaningless statement.
Of course you will then contradict Justice Scalia.
And not see the irony.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:46 amIf this had been a boxing match, the ref would have stepped in and stopped the fight in round one.
The attending medical doctor would have cradled actus’ bloodied face in his hands, then whispered in actus’ ear, “Son, it’s probably not a wise idea to fight someone above your weight class—and by the way, it’s dishonest to take a dead man’s quote out of context.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/15/2006 @ 11:04 amBy the way I meant “disingenuous.”
This comments section keeps giving me “do you wish to debug” errors when I’m trying to type…grrrr.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/15/2006 @ 11:17 amWell, Marshall was in the majority opinion, and lots of people have since then cited that. As opposed to people who live for the dissent. This is kind of the idea of the power of precedent — we can treat differently what has worked for majorities for 200 years than what we treat as the non-law of dissent in the last few months. Sorry.
And back comes the rat to reiterate his misunderstanding. Yes. I was caught using a quote. With quotation marks.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 1:52 pmIf I can go back to Comment #6, which started all this, I agree with actus (which scares me BTW). Our written Constitution lasted all of fourteen years — from 1789 to 1803. Since Marbury v. Madison we have had a stare decisis constitution just like the British, although I bet their House of Lords has trampled less on the Magna Carta than our Supreme Court has trampled on our Constitution. Now if we were to discuss just what part of Article III gives the Supreme Court authority to command the armed forces of the United States or to conduct wars ….
nk (54c569) — 8/15/2006 @ 2:08 pmPardon me. It was Comment #5.
nk (54c569) — 8/15/2006 @ 2:10 pmIf this had been a boxing match, the ref would have stepped in and stopped the fight in round one.Actually, Desert Rat, I think a better sports analogy comes from college football: Georgia Tech vs. Cumberland College.
For you non-football history buffs, the final score was 222-0.
Paul (292530) — 8/15/2006 @ 2:21 pmactus, while it was juvenile of you to quote Marshall without attribution, that pales in comparison to the way you sought to use Marshall’s one-sentence quote from the Marbury vs. Madison decision in order to make it sound like Marshall was stating something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what the decision was communicating.
‘The Ace’ exposed you for being a ‘3 of clubs.’
actus, we would have all moved on had you not tried to whitewash what you did.
Your OJ Simpson like denial of truth is soiling your reputation.
Prior to this, we all believed you were merely wrong about issues.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/15/2006 @ 3:52 pmNow you’ve revealed you’re also dishonest.
actus, to paraphrase Mark Twain: It is better to let people think you’re an idiot than to post comments and remove all doubt.
Paul (cfe284) — 8/15/2006 @ 6:56 pmWhat you’re not getting is that to people who know marbury v. madison, like me, the sentence is so evocative that it evokes the proper sense of judicial review. Also that its attribution is obvious — the quotes kind of give away the fact that the words aren’t mine. And its left as a bit of a surprise for those that don’t know where the quote is from to find that its actually from something deeply embedded in our legal system. A deep embedding that Ace seems to not care for.
But i’m very happy you’ve come up with your own meaning for what I’ve said. The only problem is that you can’t really use your meaning to tell me what I think. Only what you think. Since its your, not my, meaning.
Look, at least I don’t claim that the court ignores something when they actually discuss it in a way I don’t like.
actus (6629c1) — 8/15/2006 @ 7:16 pmOh, come on, Actus. You’re the same guy that said because you personally found some good in the NYT story on the SWIFT program that it was irrelevant what they intended. Your dishonesty is just astonishing.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/15/2006 @ 9:48 pmYes. Because I think the good of free publication is that we can all get what we need for ourselves. Not that it means that we can each read our meanings and then assign it to the author. You can make up your own good or bad — but its yours, not the authors.
actus (188931) — 8/16/2006 @ 4:55 am