Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and O'Connor.

[tjwash]

All voted to take a giant dump on our rights.

You can not refuse to show your papers now, when the gestapo asks for them, and can be arrested. Why is the rest of the world moving forward, and we are moving backward?

[Bluebear]

1. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Life in Bush's America.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Two justices will pass away Janurary of 2005, One retires, two indicted

and giving Kerry the capability to install liberal justices with the filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.

You heard me right.

Renquist and O'Connor passes away.

Stevens retires

Scalia and Thomas are indicted for being an ass (or we can make shit up)

Kennedy is committed into the loony bin for ACTUALLY accepting the damn Gore vs. Bush issue.

[Political_Junkie]

4. Only in a perfect world...

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. We'll see. Kerry might try to compromise and pick out moderately

conservative judges.

[lgardengate]

10. Who have you been talking to?

I really can't believe 2 pass away.And Jan of 2005?
Come on,now!

[tigereye]

13. you might want to remember that O'Connor

is the only thing protecting any semblance of choice at this point. JMO. I know she isn't the most liberal thing to come down the pike, and her opinions can be ridiculously narrow, but maybe an all "liberal" court isn't necessarily the best thing, either. Don't mind me I'm a SCOTUS junkie. :)

or are you trying to be funny?

[gottaB]

19. ahem

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-949

[tigereye]

21. not sure what you are referencing specifically

I agree that the 2000 election decision was unbelievable, but I
haven't read more than perfunctory descriptions of the arguments ( and I'm not a lawyer). I was just trying to say that a complex court of complex thinkers is better than one "stacked" either way. Historically a number of justices appointed by Reps, Reagan, etc.( O'Connor to some extent, Souter and many members of the Warren court) and sometimes by Dems, have surprised court watchers and those that appointed them, by displaying judicial independence, and that is what they should do.

All of these matters put before them are incredibly complex and often arcane, and no rote thinker would be able to handle them. Even Scalia (who frightens me sometimes)is said to have an amazing mind.

[gottaB]

24. I'm assuming O'Conner penned that opinion

You should give it look, because it goes beyond mere wrongness. It is cruel and unusual.

What is the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment? To justify the tyranny of complex thinkers?

My point, specifically, was that one's dispostion towards O'Connor rather depends on whose ox is being gored.

Kerry is on record saying his nominees to the Supreme Court will support Roe v. Wade. Sure, the Blackman opinion is complex. Judges have complex views of the decision, and jurisprudence has introduced further complications. O'Connor's view is complex for that matter. And yet at its heart we see a right to privacy vs. the compelling interest of the state. It is possible to draw a clear distinction that even a simpleton like myself can appreciate.

In the same way, I think it's possible to draw a clear distinction between judicious people and arrogant creeps. O'Connor, mental faculties notwithstanding, sits squarely among the latter.

So I agree with you perhaps on one point. A liberal philosophy does not in itself mark a good judge. If stacking the courts means appointing more arrogant creeps who happen to espouse liberal opinions, that would be a bad thing, not because of the potential for acrimony, but because eventually the arrogant creeps will have a meeting of the minds and conspire to do away with our democracy, such as it is.

And woe unto us if the arrogant creeps happen to be clever.

[tigereye]

29. I really don't think any of these folks intent

is to do away with democracy. Many aspects of our democracy work quite well. Although sometimes the more that we entrust certain types of decision making to only one branch or a small group, the more potential there is for megalomania, perhaps.

[rfranklin]

3. Und vair are your papers, Herr Hauptmann?

Remember when the Republicans--scaring us about the external threats that only they could protect us from--used to insist that if the Commies won we'd all have to carry identity cards?

I think the Commies have won.

[gumby]

5. Lions and Tigers and Bears

Oh my!!!

[tjwash]

6. I want to know...

...what all the "less government in our lives" conservanazi, minions are saying about this. Is this just A-OK because it does not involve the Clenis? Or are they all to busy having a group masturbation session over tortured prisoners to realize we are getting screwed?

[Monte Carlo]

7. Things like this are why Bush cannot be allowed 4 more years...

... and the opportunity to fill these seats with another Scalia or Thomas or Bork. We are talking LONG TERM here.

[Sandpiper]

8. Guilty until proven innocent

Is what the right wing would like to see our justice system become.

"If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with the police ____________ ."(demanding identification, detaining you, searching your belongings, etc.) Right Clarence???

The Fourth Amendment is being eviscerated to the point where it's value is going to be little more than symbolic.

[TexasSissy]

11. I already thought we had to. Suprised we didn't? We didn't?

How can the police do their job if they can't determine who someone is? I thought it was law that we had to show our i.d. or identify ourselves, when asked by law enforcement officers.

Or was that only if there was probable cause to stop us and ask us?

I never really thought about it before, since I've only been stopped for cause (check out a possible traffic violation, etc.). Wait...I think I was stopped once years ago at night and there wasn't probable cause. They were just seeing who we were, why we were out so late, etc. I didn't know that was illegal.

[Kali]

12. I thought so to,

but I have read in local poilice reports of people being arrested for "failure to show identification" - this is related to illegal imigration, but it is how it came to my attention that somehow somewhere it had already slipped in that you MUST carry ID. INSANE.

Freedom - yeah right!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

14. Those five should be locked up in GITMO!!!

[TreasonousBastard]

15. There are now two classes of citizens...

the police and everyone else.

Just the way Stalin liked it.

[DaveSZ]

16. Kick

The arrest video can be seen at this site: http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html


Be sure to watch the video.

That's what they ruled as legal.

Let's hope Kerry wins so he can appoint some justices that protect people's rights.

[hiphopnation]

17. I guess it doesn't feel like "big news"

since they've been pooping on my civil liberties for four years now. I'm getting used to that bootheal in my neck...

[genius]

18. Gee. These are the same five who overthrew the Constitution on 12/12/00

They belong in jail guys. When is someone going to have the courage to arrest them?

[disinfo_guy]

20. the Fascist Five

they vote to install dictators and infringe on our rights

[stavka]

23. Please....Oconner was the deciding vote in the progressive favor many X's

I don't approve of the election decision, obviously

[Deja Q]

26. People change...

Look at Nader. Used to be a big progressive/consumer activist.

Look at where he is today, saying the right words - but upon looking into his actions he's about as filthy as * and the rest.

[stavka]

22. I disagree...I think you should be required to say who you are.

It in no way prejudices you in a court of law, and typically is in your interest.

What situation would you want to be held as John Doe indefinitely until your DNA, dental records, or fingerprints are used to track down that little detail?

I totally believe you shouldn't be required to say anything beyond that, but this is a silly battle to fight.

[Deja Q]

25. So this is fighting terrorism? What next, arrest the person anyway until

his name is identified as being true and that he is not guilty or up for outstanding warrants?

:shrug:

Welcome to the future.

I said in another post how these clowns were more than just blissfully incompetent; they are malevolent. I do not withdraw my assertion.

I am HypnoToad and I approved this message.


On edit, added in my little Great Seal - seems even more apropos these days:

[donhakman]

28. ha ha

[spanone]

27. They also voted in favor of HMO's. Must sue in federal court.

where they are much more 'corporate friendly' less inclined to hand down big judgements.