Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004.

[Nil Desperandum]

Originally Posted by SomeNutWitChristian

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Holy shit.

Billy-Bob Judge of South Carolina, acting in his capacity as an officer of the local government, declares the sovereignty of God in your case, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review, by any means. Or better yet, Alabama, where the author of this atrocity is from.

http://aderholt.house.gov/NR/exeres/...3F4DB0866D.htm

What in the fuck is this country coming too?

H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

To install a fucking theocracy. Federalism, my ass.

Look up Dominionists. Apparently reaching some news.
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199

One Pissed Off Atheist.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Nil Desperandum

Billy-Bob Judge of South Carolina, acting in his capacity as an officer of the local government, declares the sovereignty of God in your case, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review, by any means. Or better yet, Alabama, where the author of this atrocity is from.

http://aderholt.house.gov/NR/exeres/...3F4DB0866D.htm

Hey, I actually know the author of that atrocity. I don't live in his district, but I have met him and I have hosted one of his speaking engagements. My sister went to school with him and knows him well. She cares little about politics, and she would never malign him. I, on the other hand, disliked his politics after less than a minute or so into his speech. After the third or fourth mention of Jesus in the first couple of minutes of his speech, I knew right away that his views were way outside my comfort zone. I know that he alienated many of the persons in the audience that day, as they told me so.

What in the fuck is this country coming too?

To install a fucking theocracy. Federalism, my ass.

Yeah, I just read the bill, and I think it's a pretty brazen attempt to usurp much of the power of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. If enacted, this ridiculous bill would become an unconstitutional encroachment on the powers granted to the judiciary in Article III, and contrary to the fundamental legal principles espoused in Marbury v. Madison and its progeny. That is, it is the exclusive province of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution's text means, and to declare acts of Congress which exceed Congress' authority under Article I unconstitutional, and to strike them down as such.

Congress can't limit the Supreme Court's authority to determine what the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is simply by enacting a law. Article III already says what the judicial power of the United States (the federal courts' jurisdiction) is; it extends to all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The only way to limit it further would be by Constitutional Amendment. Such an amendment would be the most radical upsetting of the balance of powers since Chief Justice John Marshall authored Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

This bill is just grandstanding. I doubt that Congressman Aderholt actually believes that Congress has the authority to remove by means of a statute the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction over a matter. Aderholt is a lawyer himself and should understand something as basic as this principle. If not, he and his staff attorneys must have slept through constitutional law.

FWIW, this kind of nonsense pisses me off too.

Cool Hand

[Nil Desperandum]

Cool Hand, that is fucking HAWT.

I want your brain.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

This bill is just grandstanding. I doubt that Congressman Aderholt actually believes that Congress has the authority to remove by means of a statute the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction over a matter. Aderholt is a lawyer himself and should understand something as basic as this principle. If not, he and his staff attorneys must have slept through constitutional law.

FWIW, this kind of nonsense pisses me off too.

Cool Hand

Coupla questions:

1. Does this only amount to grandstanding because there are enough sane folks left to stop it going through?
2. If the answer to (1) is Yes, doesn't this speak rather compellingly against voting for this dipshit's party?

[Nil Desperandum]

Very compelling, sir.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Nil Desperandum

Very compelling, sir.

Heck, that's what I thought. But others, especially the morally turpitudinous and politically scallywagian, might disagree.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Coupla questions:

1. Does this only amount to grandstanding because there are enough sane folks left to stop it going through?
2. If the answer to (1) is Yes, doesn't this speak rather compellingly against voting for this dipshit's party?

CM,

1. I think it's grandstanding because I believe even Aderholt doesn't actually believe that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction with a simple statute that says so. If he does, then his legal acumen is poorer than that I credit him with having. I suspect that Aderholt is co-sponsoring the bill, along with our Senator Richard Shelby and others, to play to his Christian right-wing constituents.

On the other hand, Aderholt may in fact be a hard right-wing Christian Dominionist who believes this nonsense. I don't know him that well. I've only met him; it's my sister who went to school with him.

2. I don't think so. The party sponsors and endorses plenty of candidates other than just those of the Christian right-wing. Senator John McCain, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, for instance, are all moderates on social issues whose views are at odds with many of those of the Christian right-wing. They are all Republicans. If given the chance, I'd probably vote for any of them. None of them has endorsed the idea of establishing a Christian theocracy. I'm quite sure all of them would be very much against it. I suspect very much that Schwarzenegger is in fact an atheist, although it has been decades since he would even hint at it publicly.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Nil Desperandum

Cool Hand, that is fucking HAWT.

I want your brain.

LOL. Thanks.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

LOL. Thanks.

Cool Hand

Nobody has ever said that about me.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

CM,

1. I think it's grandstanding because I believe even Aderholt doesn't actually believe that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction with a simple statute that says so. If he does, then his legal acumen is poorer than that I credit him with having. I suspect that Aderholt is co-sponsoring the bill, along with our Senator Richard Shelby and others, to play to his Christian right-wing constituents.

On the other hand, Aderholt may in fact be a hard right-wing Christian Dominionist who believes this nonsense. I don't know him that well. I've only met him; it's my sister who went to school with him.

2. I don't think so. The party sponsors and endorses plenty of candidates other than just those of the Christian right-wing. Senator John McCain, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, for instance, are all moderates on social issues whose views are at odds with many of those of the Christian right-wing. They are all Republicans. If given the chance, I'd probably vote for any of them. None of them has endorsed the idea of establishing a Christian theocracy. I'm quite sure all of them would be very much against it. I suspect very much that Schwarzenegger is in fact an atheist, although it has been decades since he would even hint at it publicly.

Cool Hand

You morally turpitudinous and politically scallywagian... uh, hang on... scallywag of great moral turpitude?

I think there's a portion of middlingly evangelical Repubs who wouldn't sponsor such legislation but might support it -- outta fear of their constituents if nothing else -- in the event of its being pushed by a non-trivial core of extremists. That there are also more politically realistic, even secular (secretly or not) Republicans strikes me as insufficient grounds not to worry, in light of this. I mean, how does extremism find itself in a position to do actual harm? One harmless step at a time, I expect.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

You morally turpitudinous and politically scallywagian... uh, hang on... scallywag of great moral turpitude?

I think there's a portion of middlingly evangelical Repubs who wouldn't sponsor such legislation but might support it -- outta fear of their constituents if nothing else -- in the event of its being pushed by a non-trivial core of extremists. That there are also more politically realistic, even secular (secretly or not) Republicans strikes me as insufficient grounds not to worry, in light of this. I mean, how does extremism find itself in a position to do actual harm? One harmless step at a time, I expect.

Heh heh. Man, does anyone other than lawyers still use the term "moral turpitude?" It needs to recede further into arcanedom. It's not even in Rule 404(b) anymore.

I think you're right about there being middling evangelical Republicans who would support this legislation for the reason you state. Senator Shelby is one of those middling Rs, and he's sponsoring it. I don't have a firm grasp on the numbers of such persons in that middling category, but I am not convinced they are as large a group as many fear. I agree also that even more secular Rs and Democrats alike would support it due to perceived support from their constituents. Those are the ones to worry about, in my opinion. You have to remember also that President Carter was a born-again evangelical Christian and he was and is a very loyal Democrat. He is not the only evangelical member of his party.

Liberty is lost incrementally. This legislation, if enacted, is not an increment. It's a quantum leap. It would likely lead to an interesting power struggle among the three branches of government. I have little doubt that myriad interested groups would bring immediate legal challenges to the law's legitimacy and constitutionality, and that the courts would recognize it as the unjust assault on the judiciary that it is. How the enforcement of its being struck down or even challenged would play out is the biggest mystery.

I hope we don't ever find out. I'm not so fearful that we will.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Heh heh. Man, does anyone other than lawyers still use the term "moral turpitude?" It needs to recede further into arcanedom. It's not even in Rule 404(b) anymore.

I ain't no lawyer, and I can prove it by not having a schmick what Rule 404(b) is.

Liberty is lost incrementally. This legislation, if enacted, is not an increment. It's a quantum leap.

Understood and agreed. There is, however, a single factor both susceptible of incremental increase and which, after a simple tipping point, is sufficient to effect the "quantum leap" -- namely, numbers of extremists and sheep elected. That's why it matters.

Just like to bitch about "quantum leap", btw -- understood properly, it's the smallest state change. I never understood its popularization to mean the largest state change. Waaayyyy worse than "moral turpitude".

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Just like to bitch about "quantum leap", btw -- understood properly, it's the smallest state change. I never understood its popularization to mean the largest state change. Waaayyyy worse than "moral turpitude".

I thought it meant more 'fundamental change', which a quantum state-change is -- fundamental.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Corona688

I thought it meant more 'fundamental change', which a quantum state-change is -- fundamental. </derail>

Corona688,

I think you understood my meaning correctly and that your definition of "quantum leap" is correct.

Clutch Munny,

Bitching about the meaning of "quantum" might be unduly pendantic in this context, in my opinion. In physics, quantum does mean "the smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation."

"Quantum leap," however, has a definition outside the lexicon of physics. It means "an abrupt change or step, especially in method, information, or knowledge." In the context I used it above, I think it is correct usage, and apparently you both understood my meaning.

I apologize for my aside about "moral turpitude." It wasn't meant to be a criticism of you or your usage. I mistook you to be a fellow lawyer. That's simply because I've never heard anyone use the term outside the context of describing the evidentiary rule addressing the kinds of crimes which can be used properly to impeach the credibility of a witness in the courtroom. That rule has been amended in recent years to remove the reference to "moral turpitude." I was making an inside joke or reference to that fact. It was unnecessary of me to do so.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Pshaw... Believe me, Clutch has been called far worse things than a lawyer.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Pshaw... Believe me, Clutch has been called far worse things than a lawyer.

Hey....

[D. Scarlatti]

Moral turpitude is still a functional term of art in immigration law as grounds for deportability. Cool Hand is subtly making a record detrimental to Clutch Munny, a Canadian, in case the latter attempts entry into the United States to vote against any present or future members of the Bush dynasty.

[livius drusus]

Damn, you lawyers shore are devious.

[Clutch Munny]

Cool Hand, you might be on eggshells cuz of recent hissy fits hereabouts, or because you don't know me. Very courteous of you, and much appreciated, but rest assured that I was just playing along, inviting ridicule with "morally turpitudinous" (what, got nothing for "politically scallywagian"? eh?) and merely waxing Carlinesque about quantum leaps. I understand the distinction between the technical and common usage -- just strikes me as funny that two should be so opposed. Notwithstanding Corona's effort to rationalize 'em.

In any event I disagree about removing the term "moral turpitude". Its utility is clearly revealed by the etymology of the term, a combination of attitude and turpentine; hence moral turpitude: copping a moral 'tude so nasty it'd peel paint. You tell me what expression could take its place.

[Nil Desperandum]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Heck, that's what I thought. But others, especially the morally turpitudinous and politically scallywagian, might disagree.

I should have clarified that waht I meant was, this is another reason for me to not support Bush, Religious Right, et cetera.

It would be unfair to characterize all Republicans in such a manner, as Cool Hand pointed out, with his listing of several moderates not falling in line with Far-Right Idealism®.

So, yes, I just wanted to clarify.

And, this may be reaching, but could we possibly merge quantum leap and butterfly effect here? While technically, a quantum leap is indeed the most elementary leap one can effectively make, isn't it possible that it may indeed reach into the macrocosm, and cause "non-quantum leaps"?

Chris

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Moral turpitude is still a functional term of art in immigration law as grounds for deportability. Cool Hand is subtly making a record detrimental to Clutch Munny, a Canadian, in case the latter attempts entry into the United States to vote against any present or future members of the Bush dynasty.

Shit, you're on to me. Damn those Canadians.... sneaky bastards with their hockey and their Rush music and ... and their hockey.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Cool Hand, you might be on eggshells cuz of recent hissy fits hereabouts, or because you don't know me. Very courteous of you, and much appreciated, but rest assured that I was just playing along, inviting ridicule with "morally turpitudinous" (what, got nothing for "politically scallywagian"? eh?) and merely waxing Carlinesque about quantum leaps. I understand the distinction between the technical and common usage -- just strikes me as funny that two should be so opposed. Notwithstanding Corona's effort to rationalize 'em.

In any event I disagree about removing the term "moral turpitude". Its utility is clearly revealed by the etymology of the term, a combination of attitude and turpentine; hence moral turpitude: copping a moral 'tude so nasty it'd peel paint. You tell me what expression could take its place.

Shit, no problem, CM. You're probably right about the eggshells business. Hell, I thought another guy was joking by calling me Mr. Limbaugh, and I joked back at him. I learned later that he wasn't joking. Yeah, there's also this chick here who apparently thinks I'm a real big dick.

I'm very glad to hear you're an irreverent son of a bitch with a Carlinesque sense of humor. I tend to be one too, although it may not appear so in my serious political discussions. Fuck it. I probably should take a break from all this serious shit and relax. People get too upset over this polarizing political bullshit, including me.

I love your dissection of moral turpitude. If you came up with it, props to you. If not, take credit for it anyway. It's funny.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Yeah, there's also this chick here who apparently thinks I'm a real big dick.

No, no. I said you have a real big dick.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

No, no. I said you have a real big dick.

Shhhhhhh.....you want your husband to find out? I don't mind if you tell your girlfriends, but have some discretion, OK?

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Husband?! Fucking lawyers. Sign here; initial there. Next thing you know you wake up with a hangover and the bartender has your last name.