USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[booradley60 0]

So I guess god DOES actually listen to Robertson's hit-list.

The same thought crossed my mind when I heard. Look out Hugo Chavez, whilst God works the bolt...

[billybob2002 0]

Holy crap...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6JOG4.html

Quote[/b] ]

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

Sep 14 2:20 PM US/Eastern

 

By DAVID KRAVETS

Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published

The case will probably move up the courts, again.

Edit: did some research...

[denoir 0]

Hasn't the supreme court already decided on this? Or do they decide on a case-by-case basis and precedence is in no way mandatory?

[billybob2002 0]

Hasn't the supreme court already decided on this?   Or do they decide on a case-by-case basis and precedence is in no way mandatory?

They didn't rule on the constitutionality of the pledge because they ruled that Newdow lacked standing to bring up the case and overturned the appeals court decision using that.

[denoir 0]

Right, I remember now - he was the foster parent or something like that? Or the kid was not in his custody?

I vaguely remember the case. Well, hopefully they won't chicken out on an irrelevant technicality this time.

[billybob2002 0]

Right, I remember now - he was the foster parent or something like that? Or the kid was not in his custody?

I vaguely remember the case. Well, hopefully they won't chicken out on an irrelevant technicality this time.

He did not have custody of the child and so I guess he found some other families for his unpopular crusade. Even his ex-wife filed suit aganist him for using their daughter for his crusade. Anyway, they can't "chicken" out this time the case *is* probably going to reach them and it's directly about the constitutionality of it.

[denoir 0]

Hehe, Bush to Condi on the UN summit (taken by Reuters):

"I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?"

Of course in Blogistan the right-wingers are saying that this is a terrorist conspiracy to humiliate Bush while the left-wingers are saying this is proof that Bush is just a stooge.

[Daddl 10]

I'm sure mommy granted his wish... lol!

[chops 111]

Is he asking if it's possible that he can have a break or is he asking if it's possible he has to urinate?

[walker 0]

Hi all

The latest info in the oil speculation markets is that they will attempt to push for the 100 dollar barrel if Rita hits Texas. Some particularly in Asian and Arab markets have already invested on that bet. Worse still are expectaitions of a sustainable 80 dollar barrel.

There is also rumour that Al Qaeda backers have been investing in Oil futures as part of a combined plan to disrupt arab oil to boost their profits.

The current possiblity of Iran reacting to the threat of the security council on the Nuclear issue by seriously cuting oil output is also feeding speculation.

If the situation plays out as badly as the 100 dollar mark many governments especialy the US may be forced to nationalise oil companies and bring in rationing in order to control supplies and ensure they get to key services and industry.

The US and Europe have already cut deep into their reserves to pull the US out of a possible crash after Katrina.

The US economy has already been seriously weakened by the Iraq war, massive debts and Katrina. A bad hit by Rita could be the straw that broke the camels back.

I guess all we can do is hope and pray Rita looses some of its ferocity in the next few days.

Worried Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Interesting concept. If you can´t alter reality, just delete it:

Pentagon blocks testimony by intelligence official on Able Danger

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AFP) - The

Pentagon blocked an intelligence official from testifying to Congress on his claim that a secret military intelligence program identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative a year before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Two members of the team, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer and civilian contractor James Smith, attended the hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee but had their lawyer, Mark Zaid, answer questions for them.

Zaid told the committee he had received letters from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon general counsel's office specifically prohibiting Shaffer from testifying.

Asked why, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon had offered to provide the Judiciary Committee a classified briefing in closed session.

"And as I understand it, the Judiciary Committee preferred to have an open hearing on a classified matter, and therefore the department declined to participate in an open hearing on a classified matter," Rumsfeld said.

The issue has reopened a longstanding controversy over the failure of US intelligence agencies to share information that could have prevented the September 11 attack.

Zaid said Shaffer and Smith were prepared to testify that Able Danger, a secret data mining project, had prepared charts in 2000 that named Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the September 11 hijackers, as a member of an al-Qaeda cell.

He said the Defense Intelligence Agency destroyed files of documents related to Able Danger that Shaffer, who had been the DIA's liaison with Able Danger, had in his office as late as spring 2004.

"I don't understand why they would have destroyed any documents, particularly if they were classified, and there was classified information within these boxes," he said.

"The DIA should be required to explain who destroyed the documents and why the destroyed them," he said.

The Pentagon said that its investigation into Able Danger had found no information to corroborate that Atta's name and photograph was on a chart produced by the group.

[Akira 0]

Tom Delay indicted on conspiracy charges.

God I hope they nail that walking pool of slime.

[EiZei 0]

Does'nt this mean he cant continue as the majority leader or did GOP already change the rules?

[billybob2002 0]

Does'nt this mean he cant continue as the majority leader or did GOP already change the rules?

He stepped down...  

[EiZei 0]

Does'nt this mean he cant continue as the majority leader or did GOP already change the rules?

He stepped down...  

Guess they did'nt manage to change them in time then.

[ralphwiggum 6]

This was a hard call for me to make since it is related to Iraq war, but decided to post it here since it is of political nature that I'll make comments

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5035364/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.

Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won't provide. One U.S. senator said Wednesday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he will offer amendments to the defense appropriations bill working its way through Congress, to take the funding issue out of the hands of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and give control to military unit commanders in the field.

"Rumsfeld is violating the law," Dodd said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I'm sorry that's how they felt."

Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the department "is in the final stages of putting a reimbursement program together and it is expected to be operating soon." But defense officials would not discuss the reason for the delay.

Krenke said the Pentagon's first priority is to ensure that soldiers "have all they need to fight and win this nation's wars."

Others don't see it that way.

"Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough," said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.

The father asked that he be identified only by his first name -- Gordon -- because he is afraid of retribution against his son.

"I wouldn't have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it," said Gordon. "But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don't support Donald Rumsfeld's idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don't go to war until you are prepared."

Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it "an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden."

In a letter to Dodd in late April, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel, said his office was developing regulations to implement the reimbursement, and would be done in about 60 days.

Soldiers and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices.

"The bottom line is that Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department are failing soldiers again," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for Iraq veterans.

"It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket," said Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader with the 3rd Infantry Division and served in Iraq from the invasion in March 2003 to spring 2004. "These are bureaucratic failures, but when they make mistakes like this, guys die. There has been progress made, but we're still seeing serious shortages."

Dodd said he is worried the Pentagon will reject most requests for reimbursement. Turning the decision over to the troop commanders will prevent that, he said, because the commanders know what their soldiers need and will make better decisions about what to reimburse.

Dodd also said he wants to eliminate the deadline included in the original law, which allowed soldiers to seek reimbursement for items bought between September 2001 and July 2004. Now, he said, he wants it to be open-ended.

"I'm tired of this, obviously they're not getting the job done," said Dodd. "If you have to go out and buy equipment to protect yourself, you're going to get reimbursed."

While not as bad as privatization of  military, this is giving some serious questions on how much of private funding has to be given to protect our soldiers. The soldiers have to shell their own money to get the equipment, and evevn though such practice has always been around, there is always more cost to the society than the budget that government states.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it "an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden."

Yeah. Cause the Iraq War has a clear cut ending and certianly isn't "open-ended."

[ralphwiggum 6]

New charges against Delay, this time for money laundering.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/delay.indictment/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Texas grand jury has brought a new charge of money laundering against Rep. Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader indicted last week on conspiracy charges stemming from a campaign finance probe, the congressman's office said Monday.

In a written statement, DeLay called the indictment another example of "prosecutorial abuse" by District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

"He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over,' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate," said the Texas Republican. "This is an abomination of justice."

In the initial indictment, DeLay was accused of conspiring with two associates to steer corporate contributions to state House candidates, which is illegal under state law, by sending the money through GOP groups in Washington.

That charge forced DeLay to give up his position as majority leader, but he said Sunday he thinks he will return to his leadership post after the case is resolved.

"I think it will be over and be over very, very soon. And I think I will go back to be majority leader," he told "Fox News Sunday." "And at the same time, I'm still a member of Congress. I'm going to be working on the agenda and doing everything I can to make good things happen."

DeLay, majority leader since 2002, also said the charge that he conspired to evade campaign finance laws in his home state of Texas was "politics at its sleaziest."

"My lawyers tell me that this is so frivolous, so over the top, so embarrassing to the judiciary that we ought to be able to get it out of here quickly," DeLay said.

The rules of the GOP conference call for members to give up leadership posts if they are indicted. House Republicans selected Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri as their acting leader, with Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia and David Dreier of California also taking on additional duties.

DeLay's troubles stemmed from contributions to a political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), which was designed by DeLay to help the GOP capture control of the Texas House in 2002.

DeLay, 58, said Sunday Earle, a Democrat, was attempting to "change election law through the courts."

Earle has denied any partisan motivation, telling reporters in Austin Wednesday that 12 of the 15 public corruption cases he has prosecuted involved Democrats.

An attorney for DeLay, Dick DeGuerin, told CNN on Thursday that his client didn't violate the law and he hoped a judge would throw out the case. If not, he said, he hoped for a trial by the end of the year.

and seems like Bush is not willing to put up a fight for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has never been a judge.

An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.

In a televised announcement from the White House, Bush called Miers "exceptionally well-suited" for the high court. Miers has "devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," he said.

He called on the Senate to "review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly."

Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (Watch: Miers has no judicial experience -- 2:30)

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said.

"If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." (Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)

If the Senate confirms Miers, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and be the third woman to sit on the high court. O'Connor became the court's first female justice in 1981.

<snip>

and with this news, conservatives are fuming that they cannot get a conservative judge nominated. seems like their frustration is with not getting judicial activism done in their favor.

personally, I'm worried about her lack of experience as a judge. Hopefully the Senate panel might get some more info and make some reasonable choice.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Aparently one of the men involved with Delay on the money laundering charges is bucking for states evidense.

It is a well known fact that in the US justice system the Criminal who Rats fastest on the others in a conspiracy gets the lower sentence.

The second grand Jury is totaly seperate from the first. Aparently the evidense in the second case is so damning the Grand Jury came to its decision in less than 24 hours. Normaly it takes weeks.

Wonder how long it will be before one of those in the first case Rats the others out?

Not to mention of course the book sales and Film rights to be sold by the one who stays out of prison.

Kind Regards Walker

[Jinef 2]

I have but 3 words for this entire thread.

"Impeach monkey man."

[Student Pilot 0]

I have three words, too:

"On what charges?"

Ok, your turn

You can't impeach someone because you don't agree with his policies.

@Bush's new judge appointment

What a great oppurtunity missed.  Here we had the chance to appoint conservative, constitutional judges to the court and what does Bush do?  He appoints some lady few have heard of, who has never been a judge and who has no record.  There are so many qualified conservatives out there, and he chooses some lady to please NOW and the other minority groups.  

You are all wrong, Bush is not a conservative.  He is a middle of the road moderate, just like his father.

-Pilot

[harley 3 1185 0]

George Bush is an oppurtunist, which means he does what's in his best interests (then those of the country); currently his plans are obviously to not pander to the conservative right, due to this interesting thing called public opinion.

However, I should think that this nominee is an insult to Liberals and Conservatives alike; who has the affrontery even these days to nominate a no-body whose only claim to fame is that Bush knows her? This is a case of neopotism gone wrong. Compared to John Roberts (a relatively deserving moderate), Miss Miers (whom I'm sure is a very nice lady) has absolutely NO qualifications for the highest court of the land. There are J.P.s more qualified than her in bumfluff Arkansas for God's sake (no offense intended to the J.P.s of Arkansas)!!

My two cents (or two pence rather)/rage...

[Student Pilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]currently his plans are obviously to not pander to the conservative right,

When has he ever?  The only things I can agree with him on are the war in Iraq and his very small tax breaks.  He hasn't cut out of control spending, he hasn't stopped illegal immigration, he hasn't implemented large tax cuts, he hasn't encouraged drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coast of Florida, he hasn't come out against the rediculous ADIZ zone over Washington D.C., many pilots have been reprimanded by the FAA because they have flown near Air Force 1, even though Bush never gave ample warning!, the list goes on.

Actually, I encourage you liberals to impeach Bush, then we get Cheney!

Quote[/b] ]due to this interesting thing called public opinion.

Public opinion is not in the favor of the liberals, the Democratic party is imploding, they are not the popular group.  What the American people want is a conservative congress and president.  Unfortunately, Bush and the moderates in congress have not given that to the people.

-Pilot

[brgnorway 0]

Bush and his cronies should be sent to trial, found guilty for crimes against humanity and shot!

Unfortunately it won't happen!

[Frisbee 0]

Once again I'm amazed by the difference in 'shading' the politics in the US and the EU have.

Against gay marriage, abortion and such : seems very conservative to me. :x

I may not be very well informed, but I don't really see many good things Bush has done for the US. Weak economy and dollar, huge resources for a war, increasing poverty at home, etc.

Then again, I can't say I actively follow US politics, the snippets I do pick up are of course largely coloured by the media which supply them. Can't make an assesment as accurate as I could if I was an American citizen.