"Under God" furor: I smell a rat!

The BBQ Pit
41

St. Peter on a pogo stick – are you for real? You think U.S. Circuit Court judges hold opinions for issuance at politically advantageous times? What the hell? Do you have any idea how your judicial system works?

The Ninth Circuit is inarguably the most overworked U.S. court of appeals in the country – so much so, in fact, that they continually ask to have it broken into two separate circuits. Nearly 10,000 cases were filed before the Court last year – a situation that means that, in a very real sense, filing something with the Ninth Circuit is a way to “lose” it, maybe for years on end, due to how ridiculously overworked and overburdened the circuit is. The latest data I could find indicated an average – average, not long – wait of nearly 14 months between when a case is submitted and when it’s decided.

Newdow was argued and submitted on March 14, 2002. The opinion issued on June 26, 2002, or after only 84 days. That is a freakin’ nanosecond for the Ninth Circuit.

For comparison, look at other cases also issued by the Court on Juney 26th:

Paulson v. City of San Diego – 77 days between submission and opinion (very unusual)

Kukje Hwajae Ins. Co. v. M/V Hyundai Liberty – 132 days (shortish)

U.S. v. Orellana-Blanco – 200 days (closer to norm)

Hawaii v. FEMA – 232 days (closer still to the norm, but low)

These judges are like hamsters on a wheel, they churn out what they can, as fast as they can, and there’s a very real argument that they get a lot of things wrong due to their haste. (The vast majority of Ninth Circuit opinions reviewed by the Supremes are overturned as erroneous.) They do not give a rat’s ass about the timing of their decisions, and truly have very little to say about it: They can delay an opinion, if the author decides to sit on it and not issue it, but that clearly was not the case here. Unless you’re arguing that this judge rushed to issue this opinion because he knew that striking down leglislation strongly favored by Republicans would actually be construed by anyone – other than paranoiac conspiracy theorists such as yourself – as advantageous to the party?

And to assert that this would somehow help Bush’s appointees is bullshit as well – the dems aren’t confirming 'em anyway, as payback for the hammerlock put on Clinton’s nominees.

You have absolutely no evidence that this ruling was “not handed down in good faith” – except “timing,” which is only remarkable, really, because it was so quick so no help for you there, and “motive,” which you naturally have no idea of – could have no idea of – and so are forced to pull right out your ass – which, apparently, you are happy to do, evidence and reality be damned.

And what pisses me off is that this is a ruling you APPROVE OF. But no – because it was issued by someone who may be Republican you have to manufacture some way it’s still the wrong thing to do – or, at the very least, the right thing done for the wrong reasons.

It’s jhorseshit. I swear, if the headline tomorrow read “Republican Doctor Discovers Wonder Drug To Cure Cancer” you’d start a thread about how it was a plot to shore up the pharmaceutical companies. Because God fucking forbid a Republican ever do one thing right.

You wish. :rolleyes: You’re not stupid, and I know it. So don’t post stupid and I won’t chew your leg off.

42

Jodi you seem to know of what you speak, 9th Circuit wise. I’ll accept that you are knowledgeable.

Is it your contention that the furor generated by this decision is of no value to the Republican cause? Well, of course it is, and a person as knowledgeable as yourself darn well knows it! The decision goes against them? Well, then, they stagger away from their defeat at the hands of the Godless Secularists, and cry for reinforcments.

But you see no advantage whatsoever for the Republicans? Really? Honest Native American? How do you think Karl Rove reacted to the news from California? I strongly suspect he rubbed his hands with glee and leapt to the phone.

By your own admission, the decision involved is unusual in its timing. Didn’t you notice that as you were shoving these facts into my virtual face? But now that you mention it, why did a decision so fraught with consequence sail through in record time? And to whose benefit?

Now: it may be that this is just another in a series of coincidences that plopped happily into the laps of FoD. Lord knows, its happened before. The astonishing impact of “Jews for Buchanan” on the last election is an event that buggers any concept of conspiracy, and yet, there it is.

So, sure…it might be a coincidence. No claim of smoking gub has been made here. I don’t claim to be certain. You, however, are not encumbered by any doubts.

Manhattan please be advised, sir, that it has been at least thirty five years since I had to accept a writing assignment. It will be at least that much longer. Would another clueless but determined reading of “A Short History of Time” suffice as penance? This polite demurral is in no way intended to imply anything but the most abject and worshipful regard for a Moderator, who sits at the right hand of Cecil, amen.

43

Oh, as far as defending my contention that this is a windfall for the Pubbies, CNN does it rather better here

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/pledge.politics/index.html

44

So, everything that might possibly benefit the Republican Party should be considered as having been orchestrated by them unless it can be shown otherwise? Let me guess, the forest fires were set by Republican conspirators in an effort to achieve he same result, but it didn’t work well enough, and they had to go for the Pledge ruling?

Also, the World Cup was scheduled to distract world attention away from ongoing corporate malfeasance cases and US foreign policy. And why do you think South Korea won two consecutive controversial games on questionable referees’ decisions? Better look into who appoints FIFA refs… probably Republicans.

Or, in short, perhaps there is some political gain for the Republicans to be found here. It’s debatable, with such personages as Joe Lieberman and Robert Byrd issuing some of the most pro-“under God” statements yet, but perhaps. Even if this is so, IT DOESN’T MAKE IT A CONSPIRACY.

That’s becuase there is no evidence whatsoever that would cause me to have doubts. I’m not the sort of guy that sees a storm coming and starts wondering which political party stands to gain from the rainfall, and whether or not it’s conceiveable that a storm generator has been invented yet.

45

wat, this is a thunderous excercise in belaboring the obvious. Had I indeed suggested that the fact the FoD will benefit is proof of conspiracty, your post would be a stunning rebuttal. Sadly, this is not the case.

Where I got on the subject with Jodi was her denial that there was any such benefit. Clearly, and future conduct will demonstrate, this sort of shit is manna from heaven for them.

If you can quote the phrase wherein I stated that the benefit of the ruling for the Pubbies is proof positive of malign intent, I’ll eat my hat. I’ll buy a hat, then I’ll eat it.

So calm down. Have a nice cup chamomile tea. Not good for you, all this stress.

46

Now I’m really confused.

If you really didn’t think it was a conspiracy or deliberate, than what rat were you smelling?

And what does this whole thing have to do with big business and white people in suits anyway?

47

I was trying to say that there is no reason to be suspicious, to “smell a rat”, as it were, except for your own pre-conceived notions about what Republicans do. In any event, I hardly see it as manna from heaven for the Republicans, merely an issue brought to the public’s attention that they are likely to look good with respect to. For what it’s worth, my own reaction to the events following the ruling was to join the ACLU, so that’s hardly a score for the Republicans.

I could just as easily make the claim that many businesses, such as Enron, engaged in faudulent practices throughout the Clinton administration, then conveniently collapsed at the height of Bush’s popularity. However, in both cases, the conspiratorial theory fails even the test of Occam’s dull butter knife.

In other words, if it really smells like peppermint, don’t try to say that you think it smells like a rat coated with Altoid dust. I suppose it could be true, but the evidence doesn’t warrant taking it as an even half-serious consideration.

48

ELUCIDATOR –

It’s of only tangential value to the Republican cause, and certainly there is no evidence it was a ruling they sought, or wanted, or orchestrated the timing of. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, besides the voices in your head?

Let me ask you this: If the Supremes struck down Roe v. Wade and the dems then got a lot of publicity about their outrage over it, and their efforts to counteract the decision, and their opinion that it was a stupid decision, would you suspect the democrats of being behind the decision, because of “timing” and “motive”? Would you be over in your corner, muttering about how the whole thing was a plot to call attention to the democrats, and away from whatever nonsense you thought they’d done wrong recently?

Hell no, you wouldn’t, and you damn well know it. So this is just some bullshit theory you’ve dreamed up without an iota of basis, because you can’t stand for a Republican to have done something you consider right.

I never said this, though I think the “advantage” would in a heartbeat be given up by most Republicans who are against the decision, if they could have the decision taken back. My problem is with your ridiculous assertion that the timing of the decision was intentional and that the whole thing – a decision hated by many Republicans – was in reality “cooked up” by the Republicans themselve. It’s horseshit, ELUCIDATOR, and you know it.

It’s unusual in that it was so prompt, you idiot. You read some conspiracy into that? Do you think the judge should have waited the usual 14 months before issuing his opinion? No wait! He couldn’t do that, because then he’d be “sitting on the decision” to benefit the Republicans, because he’s a Republican and he’d want to delay it on their behalf, right? You see the problem: He’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t, because there is nothing he could do that you would not insinuate some bad motive to, because the guy may be a Republican.

You have no reason whatsoever to believe the judge acted with any improper motive. To the contrary, there is every reason to think he did not: The issuance of a decision that he must have known would be very unpopular with the very party you still try to paint him as a toady of. (And how you reconcile that with the decision itself is beyond me.) You have no reason to think the timing was in any way suspicion and, again, every reason to think it was not: the unusual promptness with which the judge issued an opinion he must have known would be unpopular.

“Might be a coincidence”? What coincidence? That it’s issued at a time when you take issue with the Republican actions? What time would have been better for issuing it? Has there been a time in the past four months that you’ve felt the Republicans were just golden, and no “distraction” was needed?

I’m a Republican and I was not run over on the way to work today. Coincidence??? I think not!! It’s all a nefarious Republican plot to keep me alive! I am not encumbered by any doubts because there is not a shred – not the single smallest shred – of evidence that what you say may even possibly be true. I don’t bother with “doubts” about the theoretically possible yet totally unsupported and extremely highly unlikely – especially when I slander people by my unfounded and malicious little “doubts.”

I never said there was no benefit, though I think it’s pretty damn minimal and clearly secondary to “hit” the Republicans feel they’ve taken by this decision. So don’t set yourself up to argue with things I didn’t say. What I took issue with, and what pissed me off, was the stupid insinuation that this decison was some “brouhaha” they “cooked up.”

49

“To smell a rat” is to be suspicious,Scylla, as I am reasonably sure you are aware. The phrase does not imply that one has the “smoking gun” in ones’s possession. It means one harbors a suspicion, nothing more, nothing less.

Some of this is way extreme, I dont see myself decked out like some Leninist Torquemada, nor see Republicans as necessarily reptilian minions of Evil (well, except for Gingrich. He’s a pustule. And Trent Lott. And Dick Armey. And, God help us, Jesse “Mr. Warmth” Helms. Oh, and…well. Quite a few, actually, now that I think about it.)

But, please note: the ravening Trotskyists over at CNN, in the link cited, note a directive from the very top, FoD-wise, instructing thier party cells to direct the publics attention to Mr. Daschle’s “obstructionism” and, further, how all these nasty problems might be resolved by confirming the aforementioned slate of “common sense” jurists. Apparently, they seems to feel rather diffently than you as to the relative misfortune this “hit” has visited upon them. Seem to rather regard it as a stroke of luck than as a setback. One does not rush to exploit a setback, now does one? Yet they are on this like a gator on a poodle.

Now, as I said, this might merely be some windfall, like the Jews for Buchanan thing, where good fortune simply falls from the sky into thier laps, which seems to happen with appalling frequency. Then again, maybe not. Hence, suspicion.

I can’t be any clearer than that. Now, if hearing such opinions is going to consistently put a bug up your nixon, you might be well advised to do that thing were you dont see my posts anymore. That kind of stress isn’t good for you, and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for darkening your harmonic convergence, and all.

As for conspiracy…well, I frankly still suspect that Republican money and political operatives had something to do with getting an utterly unelectable George McGovern nominated. Maybe Michael Dukakis as well.

I smell a possum.

50

So is it your contention, then, that the courts only do what they believe the majority of public opinion thinks they should do?

51

For what it’s worth, it’s not uncommon for judges to stay their decisions in appropriate cases while the losing party seeks further review. IMHO, this is a proper case for such a stay and I wouldn’t read anything into the granting of a stay.

I saw an article claiming that many conservatives were secretly gleeful about the decision. There may be some truth to this, since, at a minimum, it will help fundraising efforts by certain groups.

However, it seems a little much to claim that there’s a conspiracy at work. But hey - ya never know. Maybe Jed Rakoff is in on the conspiracy too?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Death_Penalty/

52

ELUCIDATOR –

Oh, it’s clear. You’re a fucking idiot. And I’ll tell you that you are, every time I see you act like one.

53

Excellent! Your rhetorical skills, argumentative probity, and nuanced wit (“fucking idiot”! I really must write that down!) are well suited for the Pit.

I look forward to a long, warm, and productive relationship.

54

Yes, they are. I think my arguments mostly speak for themselves, as do yours. It’s just that I never post crap that is so totally without factual basis of any sort whatsoever as it indicate I receive my “rhetorical skills” and “argumentative probity” through a tinfoil hat.

55

I feel a very tiny disturbance in the Force! No, wait, that’s a pidgeon farting in Cinncinnatti. Never mind.

Since no one else is interested, I propose to let this thread slip down and sleep with the fishes. Last word is yours, my dear, if you so choose.

PS: the foil must be shiny side out if Z-rays from the Trilateral Commission are to be blocked.

Oh, please be cordially invited to attend my “Bush is a crook” thread in the GD, where you can show that you can walk the walk, as well as talk the talk.

See you there, sweetcheeks!

56

Dear Mr. President,

There are too many states these days. Please eliminate three.

P.S. I am NOT a crackpot!