Author Topic: Sorry Feds, States and their Citizens DO have rights! (Read 1322 times)

SOB · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2006, 01:26:00 AM »

"Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications."

LOL, what a piece of garbage.

Debonair · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:04:00 AM »

He probably wouldn't have lost that election to a dead guy the death was a mercy suicide, but #1 at the DoJ is a much bigger gig than senator anyway

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:22:20 AM »

The truth of it is that Ashcroft probably lost that election because he refused to campaign against Carnahan's widow right after the crash. This was just a few weeks before the election.

Quote

The two were tied in the poll when Carnahan was killed Oct. 16 in plane crash. At first, Ashcroft suspended his public campaign activities, then crept cautiously back into campaign mode.

Ashcroft lost to Carnahan by about 49,000 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast. Carnahan's widow, Jean, was named to take the Senate seat.

49K votes out of 2 million cast; a close race.

Most of the "after action" reports highlight Ashcroft's 8 day inaction for his loss of momentum in the race and also a large sympathy vote for Carnahan's widow. It'd be interesting to have seen the result if Carnahan's Lt. Governor...then instantly Governor... had not named Mrs. Carnahan as the next Senator prior to the election. Suppose it had been some other Democratic pol, thus erasing the sympathy vote.

Quote

Media polls taken after Carnahan's burial showed the Senate race still statistically tied, as it had been for months. But the polls showed Mrs. Carnahan leading Ashcroft slightly when participants were told about Wilson's offer to appoint her senator.

I'm not a fan of Ashcroft but this base canard about losing to a dead man is often bruited about by those who haven't examined what happened after the plane crash.

Toad · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:24:58 AM »

BTW, I'm unsure of how I feel about this SC decision. On the one hand, I'm very glad States Rights won out. On the other, it does seem to me that the dissenters have a point about Federal regulation of medicine.

Still, in the balance, "power down" is a good policy. Let the folks in the trenchs have as much power as you can push down to them. The guys far from the scene should have less say in our lives.

Debonair · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:41:43 AM »

Does the campaign reform bill rule out faking your own tragic death two weeks before an election?

straffo · « **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:56:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I'm not a fan of Ashcroft but this base canard about losing to a dead man is often bruited about by those who haven't examined what happened after the plane crash.

What mean canard in this context ?

Debonair · « **Reply #21 on:** January 18, 2006, 03:08:24 AM »

scuttlebutt of dubious veracity.

junk, crap, etc.

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:03:16 AM »

Wow. It didn't take long to find out where Roberts truly stood on State's vs Federal rights.

By extension, it didn't take long to find out how Republicans really feel about that issue by appointing him.

(Republicans = no states rights)

I can't wait until a case involving the executive branch hits the courts and these jokers roll over, completely forgetting that they are the 4th branch of government, with oversight being implicit in the job description.

Righto.

Liars.

Sloehand · « **Reply #23 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:58:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Wow. It didn't take long to find out where Roberts truly stood on State's vs Federal rights.

By extension, it didn't take long to find out how Republicans really feel about that issue by appointing him.

(Republicans = no states rights)

I can't wait until a case involving the executive branch hits the courts and these jokers roll over, completely forgetting that they are the 4th branch of government, with oversight being implicit in the job description.

Righto.

Liars.

I think you got it wrong Nash. Reps are typically for less Federal Governement, ipso facto are pro States Rights, while the Dems are completely the opposite, wanting to shell out every last 'borrowed' Federal dollar to to regulate and dole to 'protect' the people (mostly from themselves).
This wasn't what it was really about however. Reps currently in power just used their current government position to to try and enforce another Rep belief, generally a religious one. That all life is sacred and must be preserved, regardless of the human pain and suffering it will induce in both patient and their family. This was a religious issue and the ammunition the Reps had in hand was Federal power. It just got in the way of States Rights is all, so people naturally assume that was the core issue.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #24 on:** January 18, 2006, 06:33:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sloehand
I think you got it wrong Nash. Reps are typically for less Federal Governement, ipso facto are pro States Rights, while the Dems are completely the opposite, wanting to shell out every last 'borrowed' Federal dollar to to regulate and dole to 'protect' the people (mostly from themselves).

no I think you have it wrong. republicans talk the game of state rights but don't hold to it when what the state wants to do goes against their agenda. in other words they believe the states have the right to do what the feds say (this only holds true if a republican is in office. if the federal gov't goes under the control of the democrats then you will see the republicans back the states in opposition to the fed)

on what issues has this administration backed the states rights?
assisted suicide? no
medical marijuana? no
(I may be mistaken on this next one, since it's an older issue and from memory) but wasn't it Illinois that wanted to allow their citizens to get their meds from Canada but the feds shut them down on that as well.

is there any issue that this administration has deferred to a state on when the will of the state opposed this administration. if there is I'm not aware of it.

you need to stop listening to what the Republicans say and watch what they actually do.

lazs2 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:47:31 AM »

Just curious.... If you are the victim of assisted suicide... is your life insurance still good? What if it is for say.... millions?

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:56:22 AM »

Laz, in a lot of policies suicide is covered after the policy has been in force for two years.

Straffo! Duck!

Actually canard means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

Medical Marijuana: Do the Feds or the States have the right to regulate a Doctor prescribing marijuana to patients?

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia vote to give the Feds the power.

O'Connor, Thomas and Rhenquist (now deceased) vote to give the States the power.

Assisted Suicide: Do the FEs or the States have the right to regulate a Doctor prescribing drugs to assist in suicide?

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted to give the Feds the power.

Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted to give the States the power

I believe Sloehand has it right. The only consistent "States Rights" vote in both cases is O'Connor. Looking at the total flip by both sides, it seems to me this was clearly a "right to life" vote and not a "States Rights" vote. In other words this is what we'd see if Roe V Wade was tested at the SC right now.

This one WAS right to life instead of states rights, IMO.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:40:03 AM »

I'm not talking about the courts decisions. it's supposed to be fair, impartial, and concerned with the word of law, not party politics.

ya I know but it is supposed to be.

I'm talking about this administration. not whether or not the supreme court backed the Feds or the States in the fight but did the feds fight the states at all.

if this administration truly walked it's talk on states rights then the attorney general would have never fought the states on them in th first place. they would have acknowledged that the people of the state had made a decision on the issue and respected that states right to handle their own business as they saw fit.

they didn't though. they are only interested in an individual states rights when the wishes of the state align themselves with the republican party.

Suave · « **Reply #28 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:59:25 AM »

Republicans on the hill are just as liberal if not more than the democrats.

straffo · « **Reply #29 on:** January 18, 2006, 02:09:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
LStraffo! Duck! Actually canard means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

Damm ! exactly like in french