- Special tax to fund war not necessary
- More ID requirements for voting is wrong
- Blackwater scandal
- Fighting air congestion
- Death toll in Iraq down
- Moveon.org’s ad
- Biofuels policy & legislation
- Take responsibility for your actions
- You need to pass to move on
- Too much hoopla over voting ID requirements
Boulder students protesting the Pledge
The love of the U.S.A and its Constitution is apparently alive and well at Boulder High.
“Misguided, over-sensitive and goofy” were three adjectives Dan Caplis used to describe Ms. Martens, a leader in the protest at Boulder High.
Now , I’m no lawyer, but the same three adjectives could easily be used to describe the beliefs of Mr. Caplis, who has claimed to be a pro-life Christian, yet he has for some time been a cheerleader for the Iraq war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of unquestionably viable American lives and possibly more than a million similar Iraqi lives. Many of them women and children.
Aside from the fact that , as a lawyer, Mr Caplis should have a better than average understanding of our Constitution, he should also have a vocabulary sufficient to convey his thoughts without insulting either Ms. Martens or the intelligence of the listeners of his local radio program.
It seems that there are two possible scenarios here. First, his boss at Clearchannel has directed him to ridicule anything Boulder, and second, Mr.
Caplis has no compassion or empathy and is merely trying to divert attention from the fact that his elected Republican party members have failed in their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States of America.
I’m afraid that both may well be the case.
This letter has not been edited.
Well said, Caplis is a smarmy and gutless pile of pig offal.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 02:23 PM***APPLAUSE***
Posted by Joanna on October 9, 2007 02:32 PMCompassion and empathy...
Attorney who "should have a better than average understanding of our Constitution..."
"The love of the U.S.A and its Constitution is apparently alive and well at Boulder High."
"I’m no lawyer..."
All words picked from Mr. Holeman's letter.
Mr. Holeman believes that there are only two explanations of why Dan Caplis wrote that Ms. Martens was, as Mr. Holeman quoted, "Misguided, over-sensitive, and goofy." Mr. Holeman, you forgot option number 3. Mr. Caplis, the attorney with an OBVIOUSLY much better understanding of the Constitution, was RIGHT!
Why would one need to "feel" compassion and empathy for misguided protests, of students whose time would much better be spent LEARNING about the Constitution and civics? Shall I feel compassion and empathy for you Mr. Holeman, because you lack the COMPREHENSION of the language of the Constitution, and the RESOLVE to review Supreme Court cases that have ALREADY, through past precedent, he issue of the word "God" in the pledge?
It must be nice, living in a world where compassion and empathy, trumps logic, reason, and research. Maybe if we all just "felt better" the evil in the world would go away, and we could all hold hands and solve all the words problems, just by ignoring facts and research, and just by doing what "feels nice."
Posted by Dan2 on October 9, 2007 02:38 PMTommy
It looks like the Peoples Republic of Boulder is starting ooze over into Longmont. Typical irrational and liberal rationalizing and mostly melodramatics blaming Dan Caplis for what Saddm Hussien was doing and no the terrorists are doing now and questioning his faith.
Tommy you are basiclly giving aid and comfort to the enemy by making such absurd comparisions.
People like you pay lip service to the Constitution when you think it will serve your trasparent purposes and arguments, yet you and the rest of the left work everyday to chip away and the Contitution and are trying to re-interpet and re-write it to suit your left wing agenda. You're the hypocrite and not Dan Caplis.
So in fact you are more like the terrorists.
It's like heathens and atheist quoting selective parts of the Bible when they think it will silence Christians.
That always brings a smile to my face as you just did Mr. Pseudo American and "Defender of The Constitution.
When high school students arrange a protest on a Saturday at 8 am, I will take them seriously. When they stage a protest during the school day, I am a little more suspicious of their intent. I would imagine that most of the students involved don't know the reasons that they were leaving class! You see it all the time, swarms of high school students leaving school, chanting and waving signs. When someone asks them what they are doing, they are hard-pressed to even explain the issue. They wanted some time out of class!
Posted by idk on October 9, 2007 03:12 PMDan2,
It seems to me that participating in an organized protest is a very good civics education for these kids. Not all education happens in front of textbooks-- it happens through participation. Whether you agree or disagree with the subject they are protesting is moot.
And though Mr. Caplis may indeed have more institutional knowledge of Constitutional law, he desperately needs a refresher course in civil disobedience and its importance to the history of this country.
Posted by Dan on October 9, 2007 03:36 PMAlthough I'm inclined to agree with idk on the protest, Caplis's behavior is pretty assinine, as is he. As an editorial correctly pointed out, for him to accuse that high school girl of being an attention-seeker may be the most dramatic pot-kettle-black statement in history.
What's more, Caplis goes on Bill O'Reilly's show to back him up in trashing Boulder (Caplis also had a very transparent method of ingratiating himself with O'Reilly by using a lot of O'Reilly's buzz words - culture war, secular-progressive. He was so far up there he should have checked for polyps.).
I don't really have any love for Boulder, but that's pretty low to go on a national show and trash your home state because you see yet another chance to get yourself on TV,.. And this guy wants to run for Congress!? Makes you wonder if that were to happen how quickly he would sell us down the river to get in good with some group or other.
Posted by Jeff on October 9, 2007 03:41 PMI suspect that the protest was held by that group of students simply because they COULD.
Sincerity and conviction, I have my doubts.
Posted by c on October 9, 2007 04:15 PMI am surprised the kids in boulder have time to do anything other than experiment with drugs and feel good masterbation that the school board say they sould be exploring. maybe her vibrator was stuck on and was all excited.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 04:18 PMDan,
I can't disagree with your logic. While this may have been an exercise in civics (to some extent), should it be graded, I would have to say that the students should receive a failing grade. As a purely teaching tool, maybe the Administration of BHS should use this "protest" as an opportunity to evaluate Constitutional subject matter knowledge and follow up with a "quiz" to those students, and then grade them as an "extra effort" project? Here could be some questions:
1. What did you hope to accomplish by protesting the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance?
2. What was the basis, or point of contention, in a legal and constitutional view, of this protest?
3. What right were you exercising by protesting the Pledge of Allegiance?
4. What, if any, are the significant historical arguments, either made in regards to the Pledge, or opinions that use the language of the Pledge, in the United States Supreme Court?
Maybe, an even better avenue these "students" (actually let's call them what they really are, kids) could have taken would have been to petition the school for a redress of grievances, not to walk out and protest the NON-OBLIGATORY recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? That way a conversation could have begun, instead of a walk out by some kids, that has no potential to influence State, or National policy as it relates to the Pledge.
Don't you think that may have been a better idea? Don't you think it is the responsibility of the EDUCATORS to EDUCATE, as adults, than to support a useless protest that only brings more humiliation to a city, that has seen more than it's share in the last 5 years? Maybe I expect too much from the Boulder School system...
Posted by Dan2 on October 9, 2007 04:21 PMHi Dan2,
I agree that would have been a much better idea.
Holeman claims that "Republican party members have failed in their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States of America."
While Caplis and Dan2 disagree, still Holeman is in pretty good company:
"WASHINGTON — President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws."
There have been numerous allegations that Bush violated the constitution in certain respects. While some are based more on politics than principal, others are seriously put forth.
As for the "under God" debate, while there may be other cases I am not aware of, the principal case seems to be Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which the Supreme Court sidestepped the constitutional issue by holding that the plaintiff had no standing to sue, although three of the eight justices who participated in the decision, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas, said that the phrase passed constitutional muster. Scalia did not participate, but surely he would have joined those three if he had.
So the constitutional issue has not really been resolved. The circuit court from which the above case was appealed had held that the inclusion of the phrase did violate the constitution.
Of course, even if the Supreme Court had held that the phrase passed constitutional muster, which it did not, people are free, as they should be, to advocate that the law be changed in that regard. E.g. Plessy vs. Ferguson and other cases upholding segregation and discrimination.
Beyond that, people are free, as they should be, to argue that even if the phrase is constitutional, it is undesirable.
As to how far the complaining students should be allowed to go, I'm just glad it's not my problem because I'm not sure what I would do if it were. But I have to applaud the students for their interest in the question and their attempt to stand up for their own beliefs.
Posted by Truth on October 9, 2007 05:44 PM
Caplis is hapless
Posted by on October 10, 2007 07:35 AMWhile I do respect the student's right to peaceful assembly, I do find it ironic that they are practicing one of their rights in protesting something that every proud American would seemingly be glad to take- a Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.
I found it offensive that the students had the nerve to rewrite the Pledge. But then again, they are around 17 years old, and we must all remember that they know everything at that age.
But let me predict that when these brats hit age 42, they'll look things a bit differently.
Posted by Mike Woodring on October 10, 2007 08:02 AMSmarmy is the perfect word to describe Caplis.
When he was a legal analyst for local TV news programs wooing his little blonde trophy wife, he played the role of the quintessential NICE guy.
Now that he's got his own show on Clearchannel, he's a raging righty, insulting anyone who doesn't agree with whatever vitriol he's trying to sellt that day.
Caplis is just a mercenary
A political prostitute who changes his views and values to suit whatever audience he's trying to appeal to.
When you think about it, he's just a Mitt Romney wannabe.
Posted by Thomas on October 10, 2007 08:15 AMHoleman said in his letter, "Mr. Caplis, who has claimed to be a pro-life Christian, yet he has for some time been a cheerleader for the Iraq war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of unquestionably viable American lives and possibly more than a million similar Iraqi lives."
When I read something like this, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief. "A million Iraqi lives?"
Now the official count is about 87,000 over the last four and one half years. Some anti-war types like to use the figure of 500 per day which is totally unsupported, but would work out to about 800,000 deaths. But Holeman comes and has to up this to yet an even more unrealistic million.
I'm afraid, Holeman is “Misguided, over-sensitive and uses goofy” numbers.
Posted by Jim on October 10, 2007 08:47 AMReminds me of an old joke:
Seems as if this fellow was trailing along behind the elephants in the circus parade, shoveling up after them. When the parade ended, he was bitching and moaning about the heat, the rough street, the long walk, and the job in general.
Someone asked him why he didn't find a better job, and get away from all the things he was complaining about.
His reply: "What do you mean, get another job? And leave show business?"
So much for those who insist on spending their time on talk-radio.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 10, 2007 09:02 AMI knew someone who went to law school with Caplis. They told me they were not surprised that he ended up on the radio because he certainly wasn't qualified to become an attorney!!? They said he was generally dim and not someone they would ever want as their attorney.
Posted by Tony on October 10, 2007 09:28 AMOld Grouch
You are and Old Joke!
Tony, I think the person you knew that went to law school with Dan probably flunked the Bar exam and is envious of his success.
Anyone who wouldn't want Caplis for an attorney is probably someone who can't afford his fees Because he's such a competent attorney or some poverty stricken liberal who wants the govement to provde them with "Free" legal service compliments of the taxpayers.
After all liberals are moochers.
Posted by on October 10, 2007 09:53 AMfound it offensive that the students had the nerve to rewrite the Pledge. But let me predict that when these brats hit age 42, they'll look things a bit differently. Posted by Mike Woodring on October 10, 2007 08:02 AM
Yo Mike: Congress rewrote the Pledge which Rev. Belamy created:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
Mike: You will find that "under God" creates a divisible nation and changing "my" to "the" robs Belamy of his pledge.
Deicide Corner: “. . . the religion of one age is, as a rule, the literary entertainment of the next. . .” -- Fridtjof Nansen
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com Free copy of FreeThought at ffrf.org on October 10, 2007 10:24 AMWell, even if I don't agree with them, at least they're thinking in the Boulder schools. Their stunt was meaningless, save a little few moments of fame for the children. Compare this to the Denver Public Schools where they don't even know what the Constitution is.
Posted by Frustrated on October 10, 2007 11:17 AMIf Dan2 is such a non-partisan libertarian constitutional scholar, why do his views always vigorously comport with the Rethuglicon Junta?
Why did the SCOTUS hear Elk Grove v. Newdow if this were moot?
Posted by on October 10, 2007 11:42 AMWHAT THE HE!! WAS WRONG WITH THE ORIGINAL PLEDGE?
AREN'T WE PAST THE "THE COMMUNISTS ARE COMING...OH NOES....THE COMMUNISTS ARE COMING" PHASE IN THIS COUNTRY?
IF SO, IT'S TIME TO TAKE RELIGIOUS REFERENCES OUT OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW IF ANY CHRISTIANS WOULD TAKE OFFENSE IF OUR PLEDGE SAID "UNDER NO GOD"? I KNOW I WOULD, WHICH MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY SOME AMERICAN CITIZENS WOULD LIKE IT REMOVED. I HAPPEN TO BE A CHRISTIAN WHO AGREES WITH THEM.
Richard Grimes
Has a bit more irrelevant information than the kids at Boulder High but is just as misguided and ignorant.
Al least they're young and dumb, but whatis your excuse Richard or is that Mr. "Free Thought".
Richard Grimes
Has a bit more irrelevant information than the kids at Boulder High but is just as misguided and ignorant.
Al least they're young and dumb, but what is your excuse Richard or is that Mr. "Free Thought".
Read these decisions:
Abington v. Schempp 1963
Marsh v. Chambers 1983
Lynch v. Donnelly 1984
Wallace v. Jaffree 1985
Allegheny County v. ACLU 1989
Lee v. Weisman 1992
Actually read them. This issue has been decided through the use of precedent in these opinions.
Also appropriate, but off the subject, is a letter I was thinking about writing on the Constitution and if it is a "living document." My contention is that it is indeed a living document, but maybe not in the way many people wish it were. The Constitution is a living document in that it may be added to, and subtracted from, but the meaning of it's amendments do not change, unless repealed.
Especially appropriate is the Second Amendment, and the historical significance of writing style in the late 1700's. If we break down the construction of the sentence, review the historical significance of the "militia" and their usage in the Revolutionary War, we better understand the direct language of the Second Amendment.
So, what does "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually mean? Let's take it apart to understand.
-A well regulated militia. We know what this means in a historical context. The minutemen (of the Revolutionary War) were called such because they were ready to be "called to active duty" at a minutes notice. These were citizens, part of the militia, that would be lead by a "regular army" commander, usually a Colonel. The militia was not supplied with arms, so the people that made up the militia, supplied their own arms for fighting.
-The use of the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE" means EXACTLY what it says. All the men, from ages 13 and up, were called upon as militia men, in times of crisis, be it Indians or the Brits, these men were called upon to leave their homes, family, and jobs, and were called to serve. If they did not own firearms, they would be of no use to the military who supervised them. That is why it is the right of the PEOPLE, and not the Militia to keep and bear those arms for defense, of self, family, and country.
Those that believe, because of advances in technology of the military and so forth, that would say that the constitution is a living document, and that we don't "need" to have and bear arms anymore, are flawed in the lack of historical context, and the direct language and use of words. Trying to divine the intent of the framers is a fruitless exercise, as we KNOW the intent. They wrote it for us.
Which brings us back to the circular question of should the use of the word God, with no other defined religious connotation associated with it, be unconstitutional in and of itself? Again, we look at the language of the Constitution and the very First Amendment. One so important it was the first thing agreed to and put on paper. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Pretty simple. Again, especially when reviewing the historical context and the use of this particular language. The Church of England dominated politics in the Monarchy of Great Brittan. The Catholic church did the same in most of the rest of Europe, and the Lutheran Church, in Germany were intertwined in politics. The Bishops of those countries had more influence and those that did not subscribe to those PARTICULAR religious sects, were punished (think Islam right now and the difference between Sunni and Shiite).
So, what did the framers do? They made certain that no ONE religion, would become the official religion of the United States. In fact, they felt it was so important to have every religiouss sect and belief given the same foothold, that they also guaranteed the right of every citizen to practice whatever religious faith they chose.
It has become the liberal (meaning broader, not politically liberal) legislation of the bench, that has "created" this "living document" and has lead to confusion of the mostly under-informed and less educated general population, that has lead to the confusion and offended mentality of the "meaning of the Constitution." This is of course, in violation of the very document that we are debating. The Constitution itself has made it very clear regarding the separation of powers, over the three branches. The "living document" view of the 1930's and 60's has created new law (without an act of Congress nor the signature of the President), by rulings, which is completely, well, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that is why the issue of "under God" appears to be such a large one.
We MUST understand, read, and review on a regular basis the Constitution of the United States of America. If there is ANY part of the Constitution we do not agree with, it is our right, our duty, and obligation as citizens, to AMEND the Constitution, even if it means repealing prior Amendments that no longer apply to the 21st century. There will be a HUGE challenge, in repealing anything in the bill of rights, but that is WHAT MUST BE DONE, if we are to follow the Constitution and the powers it grants, not only to the people, but also to the 3 branches of federal government.
drew, if you took the time to read this, than you will understand how I am a Libertarian, and why I adhere to the words of the Constitution, not the "meaning" of it.
Posted by Dan2 on October 10, 2007 01:12 PM09:53 AM anonymous,
Yep! There you are! Right behind the elephants, shoveling it all up.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 10, 2007 01:15 PM12:04 PM: I am totally aghast at your comment. Grimes provides the original pledge, that's all that's all. By posting twice you augment your mental affliction. You consider the original pledge "irrlevent information" ~~~ what kind of jerk are you? I say to you what was said to Brian Stuckey and won't repeat the expression that begins with "F".
Posted by JVB on October 10, 2007 01:17 PMI've said it before; and I'll say it again. Recite the original Pledge of Allegiance. I do. I have done so for about 75 years now. And, that's that for me.
If you feel that you are not obliged to recite anything, stand mute. That's your right, if you so choose.
Dan2,
I see where you have joined "An American, John II", and that claque. The "living document" approach goes much further back than the 1930's, and is found in the 200+ years of Case Law that actually makes the wording of the Consitution itself, as well as that of the Amendments, workable in the REAL world.
It is, of course, useless to attempt to debate your belief-system. But, I really wonder how you - or those who live in fantasy as you do - really expect a National Government of a country now numbering over 300 million peoples, with 50 States spread over nearly half the Northern Hemisphere to even exist, much less govern, by attempting to get everything done by the 1789 processes of Amendments only.
The only answer I can come up with - after reading you, and reams, and reams, and reams, and . . . of John II, is, in REALITY, you DON'T. You want a return to a state of anarchy, and paralysis that would, simply, veto the entire Industrial Revolution, and all the rest of human growth, change, and achievement over 200+ years.
(John II even went so far as to call for armed revolution, and fighting in the streets, to achieve that kind of regression in one of his fantastic emissions earlier this year.)
Well, Dan2, if that's "Libertarian(ism)", all I can say is, thanks to whatever power there might be that the majority of Americans have more simple common sense, whatever be their differences along other political lines. The clock DOES NOT run backwards.
But, as I also have said before: I'll defend to the death your right to say, write, and present it.
Just, PLEASE(!!!) don't ever expect me to even begin to get into a "discussion" about it. That fantasy world is worse than trying to decipher OZ, when you folks take off on a flight.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 10, 2007 01:49 PM It matters not if you believe in "God" or not.
The fact is that Hamilton, Jefferson et al, were living in a time when the (Christian) Church of England, headed by King George the third was making freedom impossible for the people in the colonies using his religion as a club, and later, hired Hession mercenaries to quell insurrection.
That REALLY pissed off the soon-to-be American Revolutionary freedom fighters.
See anything familiar here? Hint: King George the fourth with all his signing statements and Blackwater.
Religion is a two bladed sword, as it can be the salvation of lost souls or the excuse for bloody wars.
Or the reason behind 9/11.
Let's keep God out of this ,shall we?
I'm sure our Forefathers would agree.
And I agree with Tommy, Dan Caplis is clearly a Boulder & freedom-hating , jerk.
Jim said:
":Now the official count is about 87,000 over the last four and one half years. Some anti-war types like to use the figure of 500 per day which is totally unsupported, but would work out to about 800,000 deaths. But Holeman comes and has to up this to yet an even more unrealistic million.
I'm afraid, Holeman is “Misguided, over-sensitive and uses goofy” numbers.
Posted by Jim on October 10, 2007 08:47 AM
Which source would you like to give us for your number, Jim?
There's a website, www.iraqbodycount.org that only counts DOCUMENTED civilian deaths.
I'm sure it's easy for some to overlook one little word but one word can be the difference between propaganda and fact.
The Lancet Medical Journal, a British publication, in 2006, estimated civilian deaths at about 655,000.
For every person that has been killed by a bomb, how many survived but with massive trauma. We're talking lost limbs, brain injuries, etc.
How many of these dead and injured were financial providers for their families?
There was an article the other day about the 17 people killed in the Blackwater incident.
One was a young cab driver who was the sole provider for his family, many of whom are either elderly.
What gets me is that 87,000 dead civilians, many of them children, is acceptable...to some people, only because it's less than one million.
How many have to be dead, Jim, before you decide that it's enough?
Posted by on October 10, 2007 02:23 PMOG,
I think you may have misread my very long (I didn't even realize how much stuff I was writing as I was doing it) post.
The separation of powers is inherent in the Constitution, and as such, CONGRESS is the only body able to write laws, that MUST be enacted by the President. The Supreme Court may not create new law through precedent. That is defined in the Constitution.
The reference to the 30's and 60's is specifically related to the legislation of the bench, in violation of it's constitutional authority, and not as directly related into the belief system of a "living document," as constitutional scholars and even members of the Supreme Court differ on that philosophy. I may not have been clear in my previous post. For that I apologize.
My opinion is that you are incorrect in your questioning assessment that I don't "really expect a National Government of a country now numbering over 300 million peoples, with 50 States spread over nearly half the Northern Hemisphere to even exist, much less govern, by attempting to get everything done by the 1789 processes of Amendments only."
Of course I do. That is the foundation of our Republic with respect to our Liberties and our government's powers. As evidence, I point out that, minus the bill of rights, 12 of our remaining 17 amendments have been ratified as of 1900, and the 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992. Especially relevant in this argument is the 10th Amendment, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
While I do not wish to diminish your political philosophy in any of my posts or writings, your assessment that I want to "return to a state of anarchy, and paralysis that would, simply, veto the entire Industrial Revolution, and all the rest of human growth, change, and achievement over 200+ years" is not only without merit, but has no grounding in reality. What I do expect, no, demand, is that we as a society, and especially as a Government, follow the rules of the United States. That indeed means, states liberty, personal liberty, and an adherence to the Constitution of the United States. I philosophically believe in a free society, of limited representative government, of personal responsibility. We may historically review evidence of the destruction of society, from the Persians, to the Romans, to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, because of the enslavement of it's people, and desire for absolute federalism and control of those in power. This is what the 10th Amendment hopes to prevent in the United States. This is what separates our Republic from a Confederacy, and was one of the many precursors to the Civil War in the United States.
I do not want anarchy, nor would I support a call to arms. What I expect from my fellow Americans, is to share a passion for the historical significance of our Constitution, our roots as a Republic, and the ability and intellect to recognize the importance of the actual words, and not an exercise in divining intent, and legislation of precedent.
Posted by Dan2 on October 10, 2007 02:34 PM??
"The Lancet Medical Journal, a British publication, in 2006, estimated civilian deaths at about 655,000."
Key word there is estimated. Review the procedures used to arrive at this figure and you'll see why this number doesn't accurately reflect the true number of civilian casualties.
While I am not comfortable with any casualties, civilian or otherwise, the US military isn't in Iraq killing innocent civilians nor would the killing stop if we left. Most experts agree the killing would increase dramatically.
Posted by KW on October 10, 2007 04:18 PMDo my eyes deceive me or did anon 2:47 actually accuse Mr. Holeman of being a "Pseudo- American"?
Why not just cut to the chase and admit that his marching orders come from his rotund-draft-dodging-hate-spewing Rush?
Mr. Holeman is being helped by those who would call anyone"phony" just because their hero / "never say I was wrong" did it.
I'm sure he appreciates it.
Posted by dmz on October 10, 2007 06:00 PMI feel sure that none of the cases cited by Dan2 involved the question of whether the words "under God" are constitutional. They may, or may not, be cases a person might cite in an "under God" case as helping to establish a principle that the person thinks should extend to "under God", but that is quite different than a holding.
I personally do not think that the words are unconstitutional. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a person can seriously argue that the words are unconstitutional. Since the Circuit Court in the Supreme Court case I cited held that the words were unconstitutional, and since that case was not overruled, it is clear that Dan2 is grossly in error, and that it is still an open question. Dan2 has made a mistake any unreasonable person could make; he has confused his opinion with the law.
Posted by Truth on October 10, 2007 06:34 PMCould the students have found a better way to air their grievances, as Dan2 asks? Probably. Just as Bush could have found a better way to conduct operations in Iraq. Just as all of us could have found a better way to do many of the things we have done in our lives. High school is a place where there should be learning through experience, except that most high school students don't have any experiences in the area of civics and government from which they might learn. Monday morning quarterbacking usually does come up with what appears to be a better way.
Maybe if the students were older they would have come up with a better way. But what I like about them is that the interest they showed in our government and our constitution. I have the impression that in that regard they stand apart from most high school students. Perhaps from most young people since we have a serious problem in the extent to which young people stay away from the polls. It seems likely that these students will not be staying away. Their views on "under God" may or may not change over the years, but I think that it is likely that their obvious interest in our government and our constitution will remain intact. Would that were true of a great many more high school students.
The way they handled the matter is troubling. But that does not rise to the level of condemning their motives. They are, after all, high school students. And the way they have spoken about the matter is a hell of a lot more civil than 90% of the posts on this forum by alleged adults.
When people repeat ad nausem "we must understand the constitution", what they usually mean is that we must see it the same way they do. People much more knowledgeable about the constitution than the people on this forum regularly have very different and conflicting opinions about how it should be applied. It is simple intellectual arrogance or worse for a person to say that only his understanding makes sense, especially when that "understanding" has been rejected over many years by many scholars.
Posted by Truth on October 10, 2007 07:00 PMSometimes, courts say the craziest things.
For example, take a trial in which the twelve jurors unanimously hold that the defendant was guilty of murder. The trial judge thinks the evidence supports that verdict. The intermediate appellate court thinks the evidence supports that verdict. In the Supreme Court, four of the justices think the evidence supports that verdict.
But then the other five justices come along and reverse, saying that no reasonable person could think that the evidence supports that verdict.
It's the same way with some posters. They say the constitution can mean only what they claim it means. They ignore the fact that many courts, and many scholars, over many years, have rejected that meaning. They don't say that there are other possible meanings but that theirs is the right one. They say, categorically, that there can only be one meaning, theirs.
It's very much like the fundamentalist take on the bible.
It's called intellectual arrogance.
Posted by Truth on October 10, 2007 07:13 PM"Read these decisions:
Abington v. Schempp 1963
Marsh v. Chambers 1983
Lynch v. Donnelly 1984
Wallace v. Jaffree 1985
Allegheny County v. ACLU 1989
Lee v. Weisman 1992
Actually read them. This issue has been decided through the use of precedent in these opinions."
Does not answer the question:
"Why did the SCOTUS hear Elk Grove v. Newdow if this were moot?"
Instead of a homework assignment, how about a brief summary of your view of supreme court precedent in this area and how it relates to the question asked?
A teacher at the head of the class (agent of the government) reciting the pledge daily, whether or not a student has the right to decline, uses the coercive power of the government to establish:
God exists
Our nation is under him
Which are religious views.
So Dan2, what do you think of the decision of the SCOTUS to allow the governent to claim "national security" allows it to be immune from prosecution for the crime of extraordinary rendition of the wrong man?
Posted by on October 10, 2007 09:49 PMKW claimed:
Most experts agree the killing would increase dramatically (if we left Iraq).
Tell us who these "experts" are K-Dub, and what is their track record in regards to predicting future events in Iraq...
...thought so.
Posted by Charles B. on October 11, 2007 07:48 AMCharles B.
...thought so. Thats the problem you don't think. So what do do you imagine going to happen when our troops pull out?
All the waring Muslim sects are going to hug, hold hands and sing Kumbaya my Lord.
Our presence is the only thing holding the line from the full scale blood bath.
I say pull out ASAP then let them finish each other off then go back and finish off the last remaining terrorists(Your pals).
What a dense person you really are Charles.
Parr for the left.
The certainty of the Christian Taliban stealing Belamy's Pledge is that it turns America into a divisible nation since nobody argued over the original pledge of an "indivisible nation."
Deicide Corner: Deicide Corner: “The Bible illustrated by Dore occupied many of my hours--and I think probably gave me many nightmares.” -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com Complimentary copy of FreeThought at ffrf.org on October 11, 2007 09:32 AMRichard Grimes
Eleanor Roosevelt? You're quoting a socialist communist loving bi-sexual and think it substantiates your Godless and mindless point.
How is this really, Hillary Clinton channeling that horse face pinko pervert?
Posted by on October 11, 2007 09:51 AMTruth,
Unfortunately, your illustration of the actions of the Courts is innacurate. Appeals are based upon the matter of the lower Court following all the rules concerning the ADMISSIBILITY of evidence, as well as following all those of procedure that ensure a fair trial.
The matter of EVIDENCE itself - that which the Jury heard,or saw, and upon which it based its verdict - can enter only when there is challenge to the "truthfulness" of the evidence; and is rarely, if ever, a major part of an appeal.
Indeed, in many Jurisdictions, challenge of the evidence itself is almost impossible to bring into the Courts, except in rare cases of confessed perjury, or well documented instances of faulty, or deliberately skewed, laboratory work, and such. And even here, the action to reverse a prior decision is initiated in the trial Court first - with, again, appeal being sometimes allowed on matters of procedure, etc.
In the lower Courts, the Judge is supposed to make certain that the Law is followed; and the Jury - as Judges often explain when empanneling a Jury in the first place - "tries the facts (evidence)". The Appeal Court(s), and the Supreme Court(s), are there to ensure that the LAW, as applied in the case, is that which should apply.
Mr. Grimes,
Ordinarily, I don't reply to you, since I recognize we have very little in common when it comes to your particular "hobby-horse".
However, I do believe you have made a point in your last posting that should be taken into consideration. And that is the reality of the original Pledge of Allegiance and its statement concerning, "one nation, indivisible".
That is a basic reason for reciting the original. You are affirming ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE. You are NOT indicating allegiance to any one, or all, of a gaggle of cults, each claiming to know all about whatever "god" THEY claim the Nation is "under".
That IS our Civil Allegiance as Americans: To ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for ALL.
Get "god" OUT of civil government.
Keep "god" OUT of civil government.
Aw Geeze: I thought, surely, this time I am posting a comment so innocuous nobody could attack; therefore, I will enter an imprecatory prayer that fire and brimstone will rain down on 09:51 AM
Posted by RG Intelligent enough to be an atheist but lack the courage on October 11, 2007 10:49 AM2:47 anon male. This one always shuts the Christians up Psalms 137:9
Posted by Sharon B. on October 11, 2007 11:12 AMOld Grouch: "Unfortunately, your illustration of the actions of the Courts is innacurate. Appeals are based upon the matter of the lower Court following all the rules concerning the ADMISSIBILITY of evidence, as well as following all those of procedure that ensure a fair trial."
Although the law and rules in different jurisdictions differ, and the law and rule in different kinds of cases differ, in general, an appeals court can overturn a fact finding in the trial court if it determines that no reasonable person could reach that factual result from the evidence.
"Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretion."
"Although there is some support for utilizing the manifest weight standard of review, most appellate courts review findings of abuse under an abuse of discretion standard. Wilson v. Jackson, 312 Ill. App. 3d 1156, 1165, 728 N.E.2d 832, 839 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court. Wilson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 1165, 728 N.E.2d at 839."
"Petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred in extending the maintenance and making it reviewable in two years. "An award of maintenance to a spouse capable of improving his [or her] income can be an abuse of discretion." Schuster , 224 Ill. App. 3d at 970, 586 N.E.2d at 1353. "An abuse of discretion occurs only when no reasonable person could find as the trial court did." In re Marriage of Ward , 267 Ill. App. 3d 35, 40, 641 N.E.2d 879, 883 (1994). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that no reasonable person could find as the trial court did in this case."
Posted by Truth on October 11, 2007 12:06 PMAnon male at 9:51. Is that the best you can do? No ideas, no information, just insults and slams?
E. Roosevelt did a lot of good in her life. She also put up with a two timing husband and still lived a life to be proud of.
You little man, what have you done that we should listen to you?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 11, 2007 12:17 PMSharon B.
Your passionate defense of that buck toothed old pinko perverted crone is amusing. She was also a craddle robber in her later years.
The road to hell is paved with the so-called good and intentions and ideas this sexually confused socialist passed on to that adulterous FDR.
They deserved each other.
The mom and pop of welfare that destroys the family structure, "Socialist" Security that is not the goverments business to set up for anyone, plus they tell you when you can access your money and in reality is a slush fund that politicians dip into.
Melting all our gold coins that are real money and stashing it in Fort Knox and letting the Federal Reserve print money out of thin air and charging us inflated interest rates that is also destroying families.
Robbing us of our mineral rights on our property. Sound like the communists to me.
How can immoral people possibly do good for anyone. The opposite is more like it.
Speaking of immoral people Sharon, are you a man hating, feminist lesbian?
Obviously self hating as well.
Correction: cradle not craddle
For your benefit Sharon. I know what a stickler you are for spelling.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 01:11 PMTruth,
You were illustrating a point with a rather broad generalization concerning the matter of "evidence". There is a difference here between "fact finding" in a lower court and your illustration. This does come under what I mentioned as "admissibility", i.e., the Judge allows something, to be presented that should not have been allowed; or declares something to be evidence, or fact, that is an abuse of his (the Judge's) position as guardian of the LAW.
A Case in point, concerning "evidence", would be a witness who testified that, in the course of a search, pursuant to a properly executed warrant, he found a pistol among the stage props in the theate, and further offered testimony that this weapon belonged the defendant, who was sitting out in the 3rd row seats, with others, watching the play. (A bit of a stretch; but illustrative on the point, only.)
The "admissibility" of the testimony concerning ownership would be very much at issue. Were the Judge to allow it to stand - with or without Objection by Counsel - the Case would, indeed, be reversed (or certainly should be) on grounds of abuse of Judicial discretion. The evidence/testimony itself gives no grounds for a "reasonable person" to actually conclude that POSSESSION/OWNERSHIP/BELONGING-TO has been established. Nor does it provide grounds for a leap - or broad-jump- to a verdict of the Defendant's gult.
And, on appeal, the Appelate Court would, almost certainly, find reversable error.
Now, on the other hand, if the Judge were to insist that the Prosecution establish the "chain of evidence", i.e., how the matter of "belonging to" was established, there would be no error. The Jury would consider ALL the evidence; and return verdict accordingly.
The "award of maintenance" case is the same thing. It is, in its own words, "a finding of the Court", and "abuse of discretion", i.e., the Judge allowed - permitted, declared admissible - something as "evidence" that should have been excluded. Since it was a divorce case, it was, most likely, tried to the Court - i.e., to the Judge, without a Jury. This takes it out of the area of "evidence" as such, and makes it totally a matter of Judicial discretion.
Or, in general, we return to the fact that Appelate Courts - all the way to the top - are concerned with the matters of LAW and PROCEDURE, including that of Judicial action/discretion concerning "evidence"; but not the matter of the "evidence" as such.
The Warrant was good. The search was legal. The gun was found. Admitting the FURTHER testimony concerning ownership, WITHOUT proper foundation, is reversable error, even if the gun actually does, in the end, belong to the defendant.
That's why lawyers do have objections during testimony, and to the entry of evidence, as well as the right to take exception to the Judge's ruling concerning both. It preserves the integrity of the TRIAL, and is also intended to prevent Judicial Error in matters of LAW.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 11, 2007 01:13 PMMr. Grimes,
I certainnly wasn't attacking. Indeed, I was praising your very excellent point concerning the way in which our Pledge should be one to that Nation which is INDIVISIBLE.
Hi Sharon,
The reactionary right-wingnuts will neve let go of their imagined grievances.
As the old saying goes: "The only difference between a rut and the grave is the length." And the anonymous poster merely illustrates how totally mentally defunct right-wing reactionary responses always are.
Dan 2,
I apologize for not having scrolled futher back earlier to read your reply. I'm sorry. I can't begin to agree with the idea that the Nation today can be governed according to your position. Nor can I accept that position as being the sole, only "correct" way of dealing with the Constitution. i leave that fantasy to you, and John II.
But, I do thank you for both your original and your further presentations. However much we seem to be living on different planets, in different galaxies, I do respect the time and effort you have put in to present a cohesive, comprehensive, and intelligent rendition of your thoughts.
Perhaps, some time in future, when he returns, your position and ideas would be of interest to our appelate lawyer friend who posted here a while back; and you and he could debate. I believe that would be an enjoyable exchange, since you do speak directly to the points, unlike some of your confreres, who never seem to say what they mean, or even know what they mean when they are saying it. Which is greatly to your credit.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 11, 2007 01:33 PMOld Grouch
Poor Sharon B. I think she's man enough to answer for herself you apologists for the immoral and left wing and other un-American propaganda you delude yourself into believing.
The left is the main cause of reactionary reponses because of your lies and yourself imagined benevolence or as Thomas Sewell refers to you as the "Annointed" ones. What is defunct in the mind of the left is the truth and morality.
Your full of old sayings aren't you.
Try, It's one thing to be young and foolish, but there is nothing worse than an old fool.
That's you Gramps.
O. G.
Looks like someone really socked it to you.
Oh well, it's like you haven't had it coming you old windbag.
Yuk! Yuk!
Good God, Old Grouch, if you don't like my analogy, fine with me. I would point out that you don't know what the hell you are thinking about if you think, as you somewhat awkwardly inferred, that an appellate court can't overturn a fact finding by the trial court. Talk about chasing after butterflies. Lots of time on your hands these days?
Posted by Truth on October 11, 2007 03:33 PMThanks OG,
While we may differ DRASTICALLY in our political philosophies, I have, and will continue to, appreciate the time and the intellect your posts and comments contribute to this forum. Not only do I respect the messenger, as it pertains to your posts, I also find your arguments compelling, grounded, and issue oriented as well.
And thanks for educating Truth on the process, rules, responsibilities, and legalities of our legal system. I gave up trying to respond to him long ago.
Anon at 9:49 pm yesterday asked me about Elk Grove v. Newdow, and why the Supreme Court would hear arguments of that case.
From the decision:
"The extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until Banning filed her motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring that the family court order gave her “sole legal custody” and authorized her to “exercise legal control ” over her daughter. Newdow’s argument that he nevertheless retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter his beliefs fails because his rights cannot be viewed in isolation. This case also concerns Banning’s rights under the custody orders and, most important, their daughter’s interests upon finding herself at the center of a highly public debate. Newdow’s standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. Their interests are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict. "
The Supreme Court actually became involved because of the counter suit filed by Ms. Banning, and the "next level of judiciary" for the counter suit as it applied to Elk Grove Unified School District et al vs. Newdow et al.
I will not do your "homework" for you because you are either too lazy, or incompetent to do it yourself. Read the decisions and formulate your own opinion, as most intellectuals do. Do not rely on my opinion alone.
And, what was the relevance of your last question, "So Dan2, what do you think of the decision of the SCOTUS to allow the governent to claim "national security" allows it to be immune from prosecution for the crime of extraordinary rendition of the wrong man?"
Are you referring to the 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds, in which the Courts ruled that when “there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged?” Or maybe the courts refusal to hear El-Masri v. United States?
My opinion on El-Masri v United States would be that as a German citizen, Mr. El-Masri has no standing in conjunction within the bounds of the United States Constitution, and that since his "trauma" was not caused within the borders, properties, or protectorates of the United States, and that his case has been heard and tried in Germany (so he has indeed received his due process from his country of citizenship) is most likely in my opinion that the courts refused to hear arguments upon appeal, although, I suppose, it could be reasonably argued that under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, there may indeed be leeway in this matter. We will never know really, since the Court refused to hear the matter without comment. And this STILL may not be the case you are referring to, as this was heard first in District Court, and then held by the 4th Appellate Court.
Help me out here to what you really want...
3:02 anon man. What I asked was who are you that we should listen to name calling and unflattering descriptions from you, for all we know you are butt ugly, short, fat and impotent. A perfect match for old E. Roosevelt or Hillary.
I have to tell you this but hating liberals, women, gays etc, as you seem to, isn`t moral. Hatred is personal, not moral.
Liberals have morals, they really care for the poor and try to change programs to help them.
My four grandparents lived on social security for years, not on welfare as the Republics would have had them.
Thank you Roosevelt. He wasn`t perfect, but he was good enough for me.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 11, 2007 04:23 PMSharon, I hate to say this, I REALLY do, but I think your comment "Liberals have morals, they really care for the poor and try to change programs to help them." actually makes the point of most "conservatives"
In as generalized as can possibly be, the philosophical differences that we may discern between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that liberals believe they have the solution to the ills of society, and that their solutions are the "right" solutions, where conservatives believe that the solution lies directly within the individual.
You comment that your 4 grandparents lived on social security (which means they "took" more than they "gave") and not on welfare, again, does not help your cause. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kiddo, but social security IS welfare. Maybe instead of living off the Government, your 4 Grandparents could have saved and invested THEIR OWN MONEY. If you think that your grandparents actually collected monies they "invested" into social security, you are gravely mistaken.
But, historically, you are correct, it wasn't Roosevelt that messed up the country, it was Johnson, and his continuation and expansion of the welfare state. You see, Roosevelt actually felt guilty that his family and friends had all this money, while his country was sinking deeper and deeper into the Great Depression and wanted to do something to "help," which he did. But even he knew that his "social programs" must come to an end, as it was not the responsibility of the government to provide a lifetime of support, but instead, because of the unbelievable loss of family income due to the War, it was a way to support the families who lost their providers in service to the country. Almost quid pro quo if you will. You should read 'Roosevelt's Secret War' by Joseph Persico. I think you would be fascinated by it's historical significance.
Dan2 the reason that the average i.q. is 100 is because some folks fall short on brains. Some need help, some individuals are not rugged enough or strong enough or lucky enough to make a go of life all on their lonesome.
Charity may make folks "feel" virtuous, but only a sound socio-economic system, which is Capitalism with restraints and with social programs, will provide for the most people most of the time.
In your opinion, Social Security is welfare. Since you don`t know how much anyone paid, you can not say they took out more.
Europe had something called the "post War Settlement", we did not but the G.I. bill and Social Security took the place of pws here.
Old people who had worked hard during the Depression and WWII now had a safety net. And further generations would have one too.
Yes, conservatives believe, in an almost religious way, in the individual pulling himself up by his boot straps. And to Hell with the ones who can`t, they can stand in line for our charity, or for what the churches give them.
Liberals like programs that keep people from being homeless and destitute, without punishing them for being less able then others. Despite what the Founding Fathers said, we are not all created equal, except perhaps in the eyes of the Goddess. In every other way, we are different in our ability to survive.
Of course what I said is twisted by conservatives to mean government control of our lives. Socialism, oh awful, but social programs can be good.
When my kids were little I told them that morals is the ability to be humane, to care for others, to want the best for all of society, to understand that humans are social animals and need each other. To try not to victimize others.
Morals has little to do with sex, and all to do with how others are treated.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 11, 2007 05:37 PM Sharon B,
Well said, as usual.
And 1;01 anon... Republican "Tricky Dick" Nixon was in power when we went off the gold standard, and the results were that Jimmy Carter was subsequently blamed for the resulting double-digit interest rates and inflation. The "trickle-down" effect was inevitable.
But that didn't stop the Cons from blaming Carter for the financial mess we found ourselves in, and as a matter of fact, Ronny Reagan had the temerity to use the term "trickle-down "to fool the voters into believing that the rich beneficiaries would somehow help the middle class improve their lives.....HA! It never "trickled" anywhere but their stock portfolios, just like the tax cuts by Bush 43 .
Some things never change, especially greed.
Back to the letter, Tommy's right, Caplis is a pompous pretty-boy jerk who carries water for Christo-fascists, and their wars- for- profit . (pro-life Christian my ass).
Posted by dmz on October 11, 2007 06:58 PMThe issue of whether an appellate court can overturn a fact finding by a trial court on the ground that no reasonable person could conclude that the evidence supported the fact finding is about as far off topic as it can be. I used it simply as an analogy to illustrate how Dan2 ignores what everybody else says as though he speaks for God.
However, the issue does illustrate how some posters, such as Old Grouch and Dan2, seem to think that the law is what they say it is rather than what the courts say it is.
Old Grouch went to considerable convoluted lengths to claim I was in error in saying that an appellate court can indeed overturn a trial court finding on the above basis, but he cites as authority, not any court case because there aren't any, but only his own self-serving statement.
What I did is to cite three statements from court opinions which say exactly what I did.
From one court opinion:
"Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only when NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD TAKE THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretion."
From another court opinion:
"Although there is some support for utilizing the manifest weight standard of review, most appellate courts review findings of abuse under an abuse of discretion standard. Wilson v. Jackson, 312 Ill. App. 3d 1156, 1165, 728 N.E.2d 832, 839 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs WHEN NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD TAKE THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE COURT. Wilson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 1165, 728 N.E.2d at 839."
[What this court is saying saying is that there is some support for the proposition that an appellate court can overturn a trial court fact finding on a lesser basis than the "no reasonable person" basis, that is, on the basis that the fact finding is against the "manifest weight" of the evidence, but that most courts stick to the "no reasonable person" test.:
From a third court opinion:
"An abuse of discretion occurs only WHEN NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD FIND AS THE TRIAL COURT DID." In re Marriage of Ward , 267 Ill. App. 3d 35, 40, 641 N.E.2d 879, 883 (1994). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that no reasonable person could find as the trial court did in this case."
For his part, Dan2, not the courts, says that it is settled law that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, when that is simply not true. He doesn't cite any cases but only his own self-serving statement as authority. He ignores the fact that in the case I cited in an earlier post, the Supreme Court was dealing this exact issue in which the Circuit Court held that the words in the pledge were indeed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court sidestepped that issue so the Circuit Court has never been overruled on that issue.
Dandy Dan does list four or five cases which he asks posters to read. Naturally, he doesn't say squat about what any of these cases hold because none of them hold that "under God" is constitutional in the pledge. Ain't Dandy the clever one!! Obviously, if Dan2 himself had read the cases himself, which I doubt, and found helpful statements in them, he would have brought those statements forward. Cleverly, he doesn't even provide a link to those cases, nor even the court citation, only the name. What rubbage!!
It's unfortunate that so many posters like Old Grouch and Dan2 think the law is what they say it is rather than what the courts say it is.
I repeat that I tend to think that the wording is constitutional but there is no doubt that it is an unsettled issue, contrary to what Dan2 falsely says the law is.
Posted by Truth on October 12, 2007 07:58 AMTruth,
Thank you for your commentary on my thought processes.
Your statement, 07:13 PM October 10, was, directly, to the "evidence". Your later citations were to the matter of "Judicial findings".
It is not a matter of thinking that the "law is what (I) say it is". It is merely a matter of attempting to clarify the difference between an Appelate decision - which deals with the matters of corret interpretation of Law and Procedure, i.e. the way in which the "evidence" was presented - and the "evidence" itself.
And, in at least one of the cases you cited, it was obvious that the Trial was to the Court, rather than to a Jury. In which case the Appelate decision dealt with a Judicial finding, which held that the "evidence" was sufficient to issue a certain decision; but was reversed because of Judicial abuse, i.e., the Judge went beyond whatever current Statutory provisions (the Law) allowed.
Your additional citations only serve to illustrate my point. They clearly state: "THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE (TRIAL) COURT". In any Appelate Case, it is the COURT - i.e., the Judge and his procedures - being reversed. That's what Appeals Courts are all about. They are NOT a "second bite at the cherry", in which one re-trys the case by way of the "evidence".
A reversal usually sends the case back for a re-trial - that's where the "second bite" comes in. The Prosecuting Attorney, in a Criminal Case - or whichever Attorney, winner or loser of the Appeal, or both, in a Civil case then examine the matter, and decide how to go further.
That distinction is all that is involved here; but, as a distinction, it IS real.
And here, you are now telling us that "Constitutional" is what YOU say it is - rather than what the courts say it is. Is this another instance of those for whom the Constitution was chisled in stone, back in 1789; and therefore everything done in the past 200+ years is to be jettisoned, in favor of regression to the 18th Century?
Yo Old Grouch: I appreciate your comment; it is the anonymous writer who, actually, attacked Eleanor Roosevelt, and not me. Yo
Posted by RG, Deicide on October 12, 2007 11:37 AMHas anyone noticed that the court just refuses to hear cases? Is this new? Justice by ignoring cases they don`t like?
I couldn`t wait to see how they ruled on the sale of sex toys, poo they refused it. Old prudes.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 12, 2007 11:44 AMThe truth is, Old Grouch, that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
OG: "Your statement, 07:13 PM October 10, was, directly, to the "evidence". Your later citations were to the matter of "Judicial findings"."
In the trial court, the facts are determined by the jury in a jury trial and by the court in a non-jury trial. The findings of fact are contained either in the jury verdict, if a jury trial, or in the trial courts "Findings of Fact" if in a non-jury trial. The trial court then applies the relevant law, which he sets forth in his "Conclusions of Law", to those facts and issues its judgment.
The appellate court can reverse the judgment of the trial court either (1) because it determines that the trial court's Conclusions of Law are erroneous, or because it determines that the facts, whether contained in a jury verdict or the trial court's Findings of Fact, are not supported by the evidence.
One issue is what standard the appellate court should apply in passing on the facts from the trial court. As I previously mentioned, most courts apply the strict "no reasonable person" standard, although a few apply a less strict, "substantial evidence" standard.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement:
"Your statement, 07:13 PM October 10, was, directly, to the "evidence". Your later citations were to the matter of "Judicial findings"."
All of my posts have to do with whether the evidence support the findings of fact. "Judicial" findings simply means findings by a court. It means nothing different from findings. As I said, the trial court will customarily provide the appellate court with two items, the facts as contained either in the jury verdict or the trial court's "Findings of Fact", and also his "Conclusions of Law".
As to the rest of your gobbledygook, I'd have to have an interpreter to know what you are trying to say, if anything. When a person is as verbose as you regularly are about a quite simple question, you can usually be sure the person hasn't figured out the problem, much less the answer.
The question is a simple one: whether or not the appellate court can reverse the judgment of the trial court because the appellate court for insufficiency of the evidence, using the standard I have spelled out. It is basically a "yes" or "no" question. My answer, and the answer given in the cases I cited, is "yes". Your unsupported answer seems to be "no", although it's a little hard to tell from your verbose gobbledygook.
The principle of law I stated above is one of long-standing and acceptance. That is why I could cite authorities to support it. Even if you were willing to look, which you obviously aren't, you'd not find any authority at all which conflicts with my answer. None at all. Nada. That is why the only authority you have is your unsupported, and also unclear, opinion.
Posted by Truth on October 12, 2007 04:22 PMTruth,
Your second to last paragraph again asks concerning "evidence" and its "insufficiency".
Since you know all about the Appeal process already, there is nothing more to say.
There are times I really wish I had had several of those who post here sitting beside me in one or another of my old classes when I was going to Law School. There is something about the "Socratic system" used there that would have been great fun to watch, as they answered the Professor's questions with their own interpretations.
But, that's just a bit of interior humor, somewhat in "self-defense", having myself experienced what happened in a session or two over time.
I guess we must take it then that you are an Appelate Lawyer
Sorry to have even begun to answer you. I have often said - here as well as elsewhere - that my own Law School days are 50+ years agone; but I had not learned that things had changed so much in the interim from what I was taught.
Interesting to learn that the Trial Transcript is now called - in your words - "the facts as contained either in the jury verdict or the trial court's "Findings of Fact". Way back when, a jury verdict was "Guilty", or "Not Guilty", according to the counts of the Indictment, or a finding for the Plaintiff, or Defendant, in Tort, with attendant amounts of damages, if any were allowed. And the Appelate Brief contained the points, and grounds, upon which the Verdict was challanged.
Ah! Well! Progress and change. And I guess the Briefs and Transcripts I still read from time to time today, in matters of interest, have become . . . "gobbledygook" only. And the cases which appear in the various volumes of Federal and State Reporters are no more than that too; decided - as you say they are - on the basis of the "evidence".
Posted by Old Grouch on October 12, 2007 05:21 PMA transcript contain a lot of different things, including all the motions that have been filed and the court's action on them, and also including the jury verdict in a jury trial and the judge's Findings of Fact in a nonjury trial, and including the judge's Conclusions of Law. If your prior posts were not gobbledkook, you have really made up for it in this last one. I have no idea what you point is, and I think you are in the same boat.
Posted by Truth on October 12, 2007 06:33 PMO.G.: "And I guess the Briefs and Transcripts I still read from time to time today, in matters of interest, have become . . . "gobbledygook" only."
What a grossly asinine statement. I said that your posts are gobbledykook, not the court papers. You do know the difference your posts and briefs and transcripts in a court case, don't you?
You should get a prize for the amount of verbiage you have manufactured on the subject and still not answered the question at issue, which is whether you think that an appellate court can overturn a trial court judgment because the evidence is insufficient to support the facts the trial court relied on. You need some practice with the words "yes" and "no".
Posted by Truth on October 12, 2007 06:45 PMTruth,
Unfortunately, back in the old days, there was insistence upon accuracy and precision in what was said. You have decided that your description of things - regardless of your misuse of terms, and your total lack of precision, or accuracy - must be the "WAY IT IS".
Thus, you have constructed a question to which the answer MUST BE in terms that agree with the matter, according to YOUR presentation.
I am sorry that I don't happen to approach that kind of question in the way you wish; and that I attempt to get at a definition of terms that might express the matter in a way that would allow for what would be a bit more legitimate answer, insofar as I be able to give one.
However since you insist that "evidence" and "facts" are one and the same thing (which, by the way, are synonymous terms when used correctly); and that an Appelate overturn may be done on the basis that the same thing is NOT the same thing, I am forced to simply let the matter drop. Again, I am sorry I don't happen to be able to deal with that kind of chop logic.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 13, 2007 09:14 AMThanks for the laugh, O.G. I bet if I asked you what your name is, you'd think I was asking a deep philosophical question that required several hundred words to reply.
"you insist that "evidence" and "facts" are one and the same thing (which, by the way, are synonymous terms when used correctly); and that an Appelate overturn may be done on the basis that the same thing is NOT the same thing"
Good Lord, you really have an overactive and totally incomprehensible imagination. You seem to say whatever pops into your head whether it makes any sense or not.
Posted by Truth on October 13, 2007 02:23 PMNo, Truth,
Just a couple of Degrees in Philosophy/History as a double major, where mastery of the basics of Elementary Logic 100 were a Freshman year necessity, - with a long detour through Law School, where words are always used with precision and accuracy.
To your question then:
1. Your question asks for answer to a false and illogical dichotomy.
2. The "evidence" is that which is presented at a trial, which when considered by the jury is determined to be the "facts" upon which any VERDICT is based.
3. Appeal Courts do not re-try the "evidence"; nor do they make judgment upon, nor render decision from, the matter of whether or not that "evidence" is, or is not, "fact."
4. Appeal Courts can, and do, overturn VERDICTS and JUDICIAL FINDINGS; and in so doing remand cases for action in the lower Court, according to the matters of reversable error the Appeal Courts find applicable.
5. Thus: As your question is posed, the only answer is: it is a totally illogical, and impossible, question, based upon construction of a false dichotomy, since at the time of Appeal the "evidence" is that which is "fact"; and neither in logic nor in law can one overturn by ruling that the same thing is NOT the same thing. (And no Appeal Court makes that fundamental error in basic logic to begin with.)
Now, if that simple exercise in dealing with an illogical question is beyond you, that's your problem. Not mine. You go right ahead and have the Court doing whatever it be you imagine is done, in whatever way you choose to imagine it.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 13, 2007 03:09 PMWikipedia correctly states what the law and practice is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal#Appellate_review
"The appellant is the party who, having lost part or all their claim in a lower court decision, is appealing to a higher court to have their case reconsidered. This is usually done on the basis that the lower court judge erred in the application of law, but it may also be possible to appeal on the basis of court misconduct, or that a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence."
You don't need any degrees to understand that statement nor the similar statements I quoted from three different cases. All you need is common sense, and unfortunately no degree can confer that on a person.
Some people can answer a "yes" or "no" question with a "yes" or a "no". Other people can provide long and incoherent dissertations and yet not answer the simple question.
This would be a good exercise for you to practice on:
Yes or no, can the appellate court reverse the judgment of the trial court because the appellate court considers that there is no evidence to support the facts on which the trial court judgment is based?
No matter how many degrees you have, the appellate court either can or it can't.
It's a simple question about what the practice is, what the reality is, not a philosophy or logic question.
When perfecting my appeal I recalled that Appellee is always happee; of course, the only winners in litigation are the lawyers.
Deicide Corner: “After coming into contact with a religious man, I always feel I must wash my hands. Great intellects are skeptical. There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche,
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide, r22037@yahoo.com Free blasphemous songs on cassette with me on paino. on October 15, 2007 09:52 AMI don't know if anyone else will come back to this, but it is again evident, as I have described in the past, that Truth has no idea about what he writes.
Old Grouch, it is pointless to argue with someone that does not understand the topic to any degree. Truth is, beyond a reasonable doubt, incompetent in his ability to comprehend complex subjects, as evidenced by his attempt to question your ability to answer what would be a summation, with a "yes or no." You did a marvelous job of explaining the law, and the authority of the appellate circuit. However, per usual, it went WAY above the comprehension of Truth.
If Truth's sole purpose is to agitate, he has mastered it. If he truly believes that which he writes, he is insane, and the only thing more insane would be to expect a rational written discussion with someone who has no ability to comprehend, nor carry on a rational discussion. My best advice to you is, ignore his posts, skip over them and don't bother trying to divine the intent of a madman.
Posted by Dan2 on October 15, 2007 03:25 PMHi, Dan2. Always good to hear from an upbeat type guy like you.
By the way, the question is whether an appellate court can reverse a judgment of the trial court if the appellate court finds that there is no evidence to support the facts found by the trial court on which it based its judgment.
And I always do enjoy the whining that I get back from a poster after I have shown time and again how wrong he is. Little people with little minds are that way. I do wonder if you learned all that nice verbiage in one of your college classes.
And I do think you and OG make a really nice couple. Congratulations to you both.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 05:18 PM