Does look fishy.
no, he said, “pineapple.”
OUCH!!!
That is far and away the funniest expression I’ve encountered in ages! BTW, I’ve never heard of “the lionhearted” being referred to as “a nixon.” Cute.
You guys are toying with elucidator, I think. What Minty didn’t tell him is that the ruling is controversial enough that it is a near certitude that it will be re-heard en banc, by the full panel of 9th C. judges.
Now, I didn’t steal my Black’s Law Dictionary (like I should have) from my last job, so I don’t want to pretend like I know what I’m talking about. But it seems like the logical next step is having the decision reviewed by the full Court–before it has to be appealed. It’s totally legit, and given the refreshingly liberal bent of the Ninth Circuit, it may even be upheld.
The timing is the same timing as always. Federal Circuit Courts follow roughly the same time table as the Supremes, and the session just ran out. That is why we have all these screwball decisions dropping out of the sky at once.
But there is still a case for timing; Supreme courts select what cases they hear and when, and the end-of session ones are often the firecrackers. Since we can count on our “independent” judiciary to slide toward politics in a pinch (ahem, anyone remember that fine election decision?), I think elucidator might be onto something here, although I don’t think either he nor I know exactly what it is.
Actually the news articles are claiming that Goodwin’s a moderate. It seems unlikely that he suddenly dropped wholesale into the Republicans’ pocket, especially with a ruling as liberal as this one. Also if he made this ruling as a backroom favor for someone he would have to realize that it’s not going to do wonders for his career if he decides to move on from the ninth circuit. Realizing that why would he make it if he didn’t think that it was the right thing to do? It seems a more probable scenario that after the ruling pressure was applied to him which resulted in his making the stay.
Elucidator, you claim that the ruling doesn’t benefit the plaintiff but how so? It’s what he wanted. Even though it is likely to get overturned he got the desired ruling from the court and this is in spite of Goodwin’s putting a stay on the ruling. Do you honestly think that the person who brought the suit didn’t know that it really doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being upheld? More likely he brought the case to bring attention to what he perceives to be an unconstitutional practice. Or in other words he wanted to cause a ruckus, which he most definitely got.
It’s also interesting to note that rulings from the Ninth Circuit that make it before the Supreme Court are overturned 80-90% of the time (at least that’s this guy’s educated guess).
[Elucidator, you seem to be under the impression that the stay put on the ruling completely negates its impact. This is simply not true. First, all rulings (I think this might be specific to Ninth Circuit rulings, but I don’t recall) are stayed for 45 days to allow for appeals. Since this one is likely to be reviewed by the full panel, it was stayed for that reason as well.
In other words, the ruling is not being put into effect yet because it’s not final. What the judge seems to be preventing is having the Pledge illegal in the Ninth Circuit for a little while, and then a reversion to the status quo ante. Keeping the law from changing back and forth seems a pretty normal desire for a judge.
In other words, the simpler, more straightforward explanation is that this ruling was the result of the honest opinions of two judges, and was then stayed because it was likely to be reviewed by the entire Ninth Circuit Court, being all controversial and stuff. That the Republicans might benefit from this is completely by accident.
This is a clear case of conspiracy theory logic. An event happens which produces an unexpected fringe benefit, real or imagined, for an uninvolved party. People who think clearly look at the lack of evidence that would suggest that party’s involvement, and decide that this is simply the way life is. Loons who are willing to believe anything about the party that benefits simply ignore the evidence, and logic, and proceed to grasp at straws to show that that party was really behind the whole thing. Regardless of whether or not you are indeed drooling on your keyboard, this is moronic.
Why is it “likely to get overturned?” I see no issue of law, no issue of constitutionality that the appeals court went against.
Could someone please explain to me why the court would rule the entire Pledge to be unconstitutional rather than just the “under God” part? I mean, since that was put in later, and was not part of the original, and since that is the reason that it is a breach of the Constitution, etc., then why don’t they or why can’t these judges just remove “under God”? Would it still be considered unconstitutional to have kid say the pledge without the phrase?
Elucidator, I don’t know if I agree with you because I’m still trying to figure out what youre talking about, but it’s very entertaining, and you’re being very witty about it.
what? the pit?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Okay, umm…fuck off, loser!
Fairblue: The current decision didn’t rule the entire pledge unconstitutional, just the pledge containing the phrase “under God.” Previous court decisions already ruled forcing of the pledge to be unconstitutional and that applied to the version without the “under God” phrasing.
Fiarblue, Congress made the pledge “official”, so the courts can just say whether it’s constitutional or not. It would be up to Congress to change it to be acceptable.
Elucidator, I doubt there is any grand conspiricy here. The case was originally filed in Florida and had to be refiled when the plaintiff moved to California in 2000. I suppose it’s possible that the Republican judge could have dreamed up the scheme or had it suggested to him. I think you’re going to have a hard time proving it though. 
Thank you, Monty and rsa.
It’s a strange circumstance all the way around. I can’t quite reconcile the timing of the decision in the “conspiratorial” sense, though who can say with these people?
It did indeed provide a wonderful opportunity for the Christian Right to get up on a soapbox and allege cultural hegemony: the “how-dare-those-liberals-deny-religion-to-our-baby-children” and the “look-what’s happening-to-our-schools-under-these-liberals” and the “why-god-is-just-as-american-as-apple-pie”, all these pronouncements are a marvelous hot-button issue for the GOP and the credulous voters that act as its enablers. It rallies the base, in other words.
And it does indeed provide a great diversion from the continued forensic unravelling of how the GOP’s recent campaign was supported in part by money created from thin air under fraudulent circumstances. Or the reports about Osama still being alive. Or the creeping disapproval of the adminstration from our allies over our disastrous foreign policy etc. Or our newly-elevated, Reagan-redux debt ceiling. Or … “never mind all that Daschle bullshit! Did you hear about those lllliberal judges gutting the pledge of allegiance?”
So the part I don’t understand is, conservatives, where was this supposed “liberal media” during all this? Why did they make such a big deal over it, if they’re so goddamn secular and non-conservative? The story dominated the news for days, and virtually all the coverage I saw was anti-9th Circuit. Nobody I saw bothered to mention that “under God” wasn’t in the original pledge, either. One would almost think the pledge was given to Moses on a pair of stone tablets.
The disturbing part comes from the murmurs about “reforming” or otherwise “reshaping” the 9th Circuit Court over this decision. Not like that’s ever going to happen (I hope), but when people start talking about taking down an entire court because it doesn’t reflect “true American values”, it’s verrrry scary. Very. Very very.
Why is it no surprise that you’ve decided to blame this on middle class white people, Republicans, and George Bush?
You know, it would be much more efficient for you if you just issued a disclaimer, blaming those parties for everything unless specifically stated otherwise.
Just out of curiosity, what isn’t either their fault or part of their conspiracy?
The designated hitter rule?
I suppose its possible that the felons at the top of these corporations are left-leaning, populist, working class sorts of people.
It is equally plausible that you are the Queen of Romania.
I am, as you hasten to point out, an asshole. I plead guilty. I always plead guilty, it takes less time.
Have you anything of actual substance to add?
You first.
**
I honestly don’t follow. I didn’t think we were talking about CEOs of big business, I thought we were talking about politicians and supreme court justices and such.
What do corporations have to do with this?
I didn’t call you an “asshole,” or imply that you were one. I’m simply trying to point out that your rants are all beginning to sound about as formulaic and strained as a Backstreet Boys cd.
In this case, even if I wanted to give a credible ear to this theory I don’t really see who benefits, or why it’s worth doing in the first place, even granting the pure mindless evil of white men in suits.
Finally, I didn’t call you an asshole, because you’ve been reasonably courteous and decent these last few threads, and though I may be evil incarnate, I try to follow the strictures of good form as a matter of principle.
**
Well, I was also wondering about the fascination with rodentia. This time you “smelled a rat,” last time you complained about “marching lemmings.” Coincidence?
Might I suggest you diversify into marsupials? You can get better metaphors. “Kangaroo court” seems particularly apropos for this, and had you chosen the insect kingdom in the lemmings rant, I think it would have been more effectic hyperbole. I.E. “The ants are marching to war,” conveys a better image of mindless menace.
Marching lemmings are still kind of cuddly and a none too alarming image, whereas ants are mindless, creepy, robots and nobody likes bugs. It would be a better simile for attacking Republicans.
So, if you want something constructive, I’d suggest diversifying away from the rodents on your next rant. You have the whole animal kingdom to work from, not to mention plants.
This fucking kills me. It may be the stupidest thing I’ve read on this board in a couple of weeks, and that’s saying something because, God bless it, this board can be a font of stupidity.
One of the two judges was appointed by Nixon and he still rules the POA is unconstitutional – about as far from the Republican party line as it is possible to get. But it’s still all a big Republican plot! Yes! They will invalidate legislation they themselves passed and actually approve of because there is some larger scheme to pervert not only the legislative branch but also the judicial branch – and, heck, throw in the executive branch as well, Bush is a Republican, he must be in on it! All in the name of “making political hay.”
And if that judge had ruled the other way – the way one might expect him to rule, based on who appointed him – and upheld the Constitutionality of the POA, ELUCIDATOR would be posting that [pi]that’s* a Republican plot as well – those nefarious Republican judges, keeping “under God” in the pledge, no doubt on direct orders of GWB.
Bottom line: The man rules as you yourself want him to rule and he still cannot win, because God forbid a person who might be identified as a Republican ever do something you deem correct. No, you have to stick your head up your ass and rummage around until you can shit out some surpassinly stupid theory by which he still was doing something wrong.
I don’t recall you as a conspiracy-theorist, or as one of the few people on the Board who are so rabidly anti-Bush and anti-Republican that they cross the line to total-fucking-moron-hood, but apparently you are. And I thank you for that: With a mind as brilliant as yours, I’m happy you’re not on our side.
Jodi
Not quite. Well, off by a mile, really.
You’re quite right that I agree with the viewpoint represented by the decision. The decision itself is not the issue, at least, not to me. Its the timing of the thing that makes me, uh, smell a kangaroo.
There was no chance that the decision could be accepted by the public at large. None whatsoever. Nor, as has been pointed out here, was there any likelihood that any legal effect was plausible.
It is, however, ideally suited to the needs of the Forces of Darkness. Our Leader has a long list of candidates for the Federal bench, all of whom have been carefully examined to ascertain whether they have the required “common sense”. The brouhaha generated is manna from heaven.
Further, it draws attention away from Certain Indiscretions committed by business leaders, business leaders closely allied with the above-mentioned FoD. Case in point: WorldCon’s support for the Trent Lott Leadership Insititute. (What sublime poetry! Can the J. Edgar Hoover Center for Truth and Justice be far behind?)
This could all be rather embarassing for the Pubbies. My attitude, as you correctly discern is “Goody gumbdrops! Bring it on! Keep on rockin’ in the Free World!” etc.
I don’t quite believe the ruling was handed down in good faith. Thats really the crux of it. I am suspicious of both motive and timing. But one is mindful of Lord Acton’s dictum “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequatly explained by stupidity.”
As regards your delightful paen in praise of my intellect and probity, thank you very much! Seldom have I been so flattered! But please, I am weak to the temptations of ego, so I must kindly beseech you not to repeat such glowing accolades, as I have it on good authority that I’m already quite insufferable.
Mightn’t it be best if, when seeing my name at the top of a post or thread, that you just pick up your little basket and skip along, skip along…?
To be fair, although Judge Goodwin was appointed by Nixon, he doesn’t have a reputation as a conservative. (Nor as a liberal, either.)
Oh, sure, Andros, just beat me to the punch.
Elucidator, your assignment for this week is to prepare a 1,000 word essay on Nixon’s (successfully confirmed) choices for the judiciary and the, uh, surprises they sometimes held in store for him and his.
Get cracking.