Marijuana.com

kevstermon

Does anyone have any faith that the Extreme Court that appointed Bush in the first place will rule against his Reichmarshall in this matter? I predict a 5-4 vote in favor of Ashcroft.

 

Niteshift

Does anyone have any faith that the Extreme Court that appointed Bush in the first place

Revisionist history alert!

The US Supreme Court didn't appoint anyone to anything in that election. They ruled the the FL Supreme Court had violated the Constitution and sent the decision back to them.

This guy (BUSH) doesn't know when to quit! He asks the supreme court for permission to get rid of the miranda rights in the constitution, that pissed the supreme court off that he even suggested it and at least they told him no.

Oh how short the memory can be...........

Bush didn't ask to "get rid of Miranda". The case in question was a STATE CHARGED case that was only in the federal system because of the appeals. The only involvement of the Justice Department was to file an amicus curie (friend of the court) brief, which is nothing more than offering their opinion on the matter. An amicus holds no legal weight and is does not make the author a party to the case. Bottom line: The Justice Department was NOT a party to the case. So blaming Bush is ignoring the facts.

But people forget history, like the case of Dickerson v US, which was decided in 2000 and was a 1996 case, meaning that both the arrest and Supreme Court appeal happened under CLINTON's presidency. In that case, a bank robber was arrested by the FBI. This was TOTALLY a Justice Deprtment case. They appealed to the Supreme Court to allow admissions by Dickerson that were made after he was in custody, prior to Miranda.

So if ANY President or Attorney General had a direct interest and responsibility for asking to "get rid of Miranda", it was Bill Clinton and the Janet Reno Justice Dept., not Bush and Ashcroft.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

kevstermon

Bull****. In stopping the recount the Court majority knew they were handing the election to Bush even though he did not recieve enough votes. If thats not an appointment then what is it?

Niteshift

The votes had already been counted, re-counted and re-counted again..........with Bush winning.

There was no compelling reason to have the entire country have to sit and wait because the Democratic election supervisors in 3 counties couldn't make the numbers come out the way they wanted them to.

The law was followed and he won. Exceptions were made and he still won. You may not like that fact, but that won't change it from being true. He was ELECTED, according to the LAW, not "appointed" by anyone.

BTW, even some of the most liberal members of the court agreed with the remedy, so you can't blame it on Republican appointees.

Bellatrix

Revisionist history is actually a good thing, Niteshift. You should remember that George Bush doesn't have a very good command of English before you start using his "talking points." Revisionist history is also called "post colonial" or '"post modern" history. It recognized that the sometimes history is written only by people in power, which can result in certain omissions and conflicts of interest. For example, in Canada we have people who have researched the condition of residential schools, and have found that the rosy picture the church and gov't portayed them as was totally false. This is revisionist history.

No. It's a sad endictment of affairs in the US that there are Americans that still believe this. They stopped the vote count (which was never completed even once), and Gore was winning.

No, Niteshift. This is such a terrible misconception. It bears repeating - it chills me to think that some Americans still believe this. Never mind that Katherine Harris and the Republican Brownshirts were unlawfully alerting voter lists and disinfranchising voters long before the count was stopped. Gore was ahead by thousands of votes. The deciding vote on the Supreme Court was one Antonin Scalia - yup, the guy who was duck hunting with his buddy Dick Cheney a while back. The BBC did a very through investigatin of the Florida vote count and these were their findings. I might also add that the report was never shown int he United States. You can find it on Kazaa, or any fileshare program.

This is not my opinion. It is a FACT.

George W. Bush is not the President of the United States. He is a usurper who happens to be squatting in the White House. That being said, even if Shrubby did win, he won by a very small percentage of the vote, but he acts like he won by a huge majority. The result is stupid crap like this, where Bush decides that he hasn't wasted enough of the taxpayers money (what's the deficit at now?), but he thinks it's worthwhile to use more of your tax dollars to harass sick people! He could use it to chase terrorists, but he's either too stupid, too incompetent, or too ignorant (probably a healthy dose of all of the above). Those "terrorists" are probably mostly his Saudi business partners anyways.

__________________

Marijuana.com Community Posting Guidelines
Marijuana.com Article Submission Guidelines

FREE MARC EMERY