Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? "

-- John Moody, 04/06/04

Ty, I know most things SS posts support my points in an Adder-sort of way, but I swear he isn't my sock.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, I know most things SS posts support my points, but I swear he isn't my sock.

Do you think pictures of fighting in World War II are also anti-American?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you think pictures of fighting in World War II are also anti-American?

Which ones? the flag going up at Iwo jima? No, not anti -american. but let me clarify.......

i think the original point was AP's photos were all negative as to our efforts in Iraq. to the extent I used anti-American in hasty reply to your flurry of attack dog posts, i misspoke. As Sidd is quick to point out, I am not up to your level as a lawyer, and you may count this as half a win. I still win the main point however with my proof that AP is horribly biased in showing only negative images as if there is no positive at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Which ones? the flag going up at Iwo jima? No, not anti -american. but let me clarify.......

i think the original point was AP's photos were all negative as to our efforts in Iraq. to the extent I used anti-American in hasty reply to your flurry of attack dog posts, i misspoke. As Sidd is quick to point out, I am not up to your level as a lawyer, and you may count this as half a win. I still win the main point however with my proof that AP is horribly biased in showing only negative images as if there is no positive at all.

You're winning no points here, pal. Pictures of fighting tend to win more awards than pictures of roads and bridges and schools, even if the latter are "positive" and the former "negative" (what does that mean here, exactly?), because photographing combat is difficult and dangerous and hard to do well. You've got nothing here that shows bias on the part of the AP or the Pulitzer committee.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Which ones? the flag going up at Iwo jima? No, not anti -american. but let me clarify.......

i think the original point was AP's photos were all negative as to our efforts in Iraq. to the extent I used anti-American in hasty reply to your flurry of attack dog posts, i misspoke. As Sidd is quick to point out, I am not up to your level as a lawyer, and you may count this as half a win. I still win the main point however with my proof that AP is horribly biased in showing only negative images as if there is no positive at all.

I notice that the winner in that category in 2001 was the infamous Elian Gonzalez pic. Was that picture biased because it failed to present the viewpoint of those who thought Elian should be returned to his biological father?

In 2000, the winning serieswas of students after the Columbine massacre. Were they biased because they failed to present the side of Harris and Klebold?


In 2002, the winning series depicted the aftermath of 9/11. Were these photos biased against the terrorists?

eta Last years winners here, also dealing with the Iraq war. Lots of "positive" images.

[Replaced_Texan]

Senator Shelby's S.520

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Via 100 monkeystyping

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're winning no points here, pal. Pictures of fighting tend to win more awards than pictures of roads and bridges and schools, even if the latter are "positive" and the former "negative" (what does that mean here, exactly?), because photographing combat is difficult and dangerous and hard to do well. You've got nothing here that shows bias on the part of the AP or the Pulitzer committee.

ummm, there were 20 pix. and some of them just people crying. If people crying is good can't some show people smiling?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I notice that the winner in that category in 2001 was the infamous Elian Gonzalez pic. Was that picture biased because it failed to present the viewpoint of those who thought Elian should be returned to his biological father?

In 2000, the winning serieswas of students after the Columbine massacre. Were they biased because they failed to present the side of Harris and Klebold?


In 2002, the winning series depicted the aftermath of 9/11. Were these photos biased against the terrorists?

eta Last years winners here, also dealing with the Iraq war. Lots of "positive" images.

Dimwit. I didn't question who picked who won, I questioned who entered. AP sent 20 1 sided pictures. AP is a big press source, right?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Senator Shelby's S.520



Via 100 monkeystyping

And the kicker: "Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dimwit. I didn't question who picked who won, I questioned who entered. AP sent 20 1 sided pictures. AP is a big press source, right?

They appear one-sided to you because your monitor works that way, but I have it on good authority that the AP actually sent the panel ten double-sided pictures.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Senator Shelby's S.520



Via 100 monkeystyping

Good lord, he wants the Supreme Court of Massachusetts having the final say in church-state matters?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And the kicker: "Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution."

Query--is that provision constitutional? Can Congress by statute define "good behavior"? If so, of what consequence is it? Congress would still have to vote to impeach, no?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Query--is that provision constitutional? Can Congress by statute define "good behavior"? If so, of what consequence is it? Congress would still have to vote to impeach, no?

I doubt it's constitutional, but I'm wondering if he isn't (inadvertently, perhaps) trying to get them in a catch-22 . . .

If they are deemed to have violated the standard, wouldn't Congress be impelled to vote to impeach?

ETA uh, I think I mean compelled.

EFTA I want a bonus for not using the word "evocative" in my response.

The moderator duly moves to award fringey a bonus for not using the word "evocative."

Hearing no objection, the motion is carried and the bonus is awarded.

Legislatively,
t.s.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Can Congress by statute define "good behavior"?

This is an interesting question, evocative perhaps of Chadha. If it would take another vote of Congress to impeach a judge, then what difference would it make? So to give the statute effect, it might be that Shelby means that someone can impeach a judge by going to court to enforce the statute. But then a judge could narrow the effect of the jurisdiction-limiting provision by ruling that whatever the judge did was not bad behavior. But maybe that statute would be unconstitutional, under a sort of non-delegation doctrine. So does the whole thing get tossed?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's assholosity.

I like your reason too. I didn't get to the part about the Judiciary Committee because I couldn't bring myself to read any of the headings, or past the sentence I quoted.

ETA Sessenenensnbrenner appears to be on whatever committee oversees the FCC. Obviously I am missing something (shocker).

Sensennbrenner's son was at Stanford when I was advisor to the Stanford Republicans. The Apple didn't fall very far from the tree. He was an arrogant little Jerk, and his IQ was lower than most of my Hawaiin shirts.