The Ding-Dongs in the 9th circus court (US) are at it again

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Still, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has earned the ire and ridicule it draws from the right wing through a long history of decisions that seem based more on the current Politically Correct climate rather than on the U.S. Constitution. It is a documented fact that the 9th Circuit has more of it's decision overturned than any other Circuit of the Court of Appeals. The "right wing media" is not attacking the entire Court of Appeals...just the one Circuit that has an established history of rendering decisions that do not stand up under closer, legal scrutiny.

Yep. If there is any one court that truly exemplifies an active judiciary, it would be the 9th Circuit. Remember, these guys are the ones who had a beef with "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. [/QUOTE]With good reason, someone needs to put the breaks on the christianizing of the US Governement.


Grojlach, but it is so much more fun to argue and only use the facts that support your side, ignoring all others! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

LOL, Rokenn, you mean the de-Christianizing of the US government, I'm sure. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

I disapprove of an active judiciary. If it is anyone's job to CHANGE law it is the legislature's. The Court should APPLY the law as it is. If the people want it to change, well, that's what lobbyists are for.

While I share the liberal views with most active judiciaries in the last 50 years, I also realize that the Court usurping its own function and performing one it was not meant to perform cuts at the very foundation of our governmental structure.

Plus, the intelligencia elitists that make up legal professionals have placed themselves at the helm of public policy, when the vast majority of Americans are not of a like mind and are more conservative -- no matter what West Wing may have you believe.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Grojlach - I will agree that the American Media Machine is not something to be particularly proud of. Few newspapers (if any) offer opposing views of controversial news items. They only report the part that their readers want to see. Again, this is true for both sides of the political spectrum. It is also true for television media. There is no way Fox News is going to report this story without attacking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Likewise, CNN will focus more on the fact that the gun was not used (nor mentioned) during the robbery...but even CNN will likely ignore the fact that Odom's prison sentence won't be reduced because he faced other charges. It's kinda hard to paint him as a "victim" when he is guilty of more than one crime.

It would be refreshing if news sources actually just reported the FACTS (not suppositions or assumptions) of a story and allowed their viewers or readers to make their own decisions...but this doesn't happen. Why? Primarily because of marketing strategies. Most of the American media outlets are controlled by a very small handful of corporations. Their goal is to get maximum distribution of their papers or networks...so rather than offer one "unbiased" news source (as CNN was heralded to be), they purchase and use multiple media vehicles and target them towards specific demographic groups.

If you offer a newspaper that only reports facts and doesn't slant the news in any way, there will be a fair number of people interested, but an equal number that will not...because they will disagree with at least part of your coverage. However, if you produce TWO newspapers, and tailor one for the left-wing and the other for the right, you will get MANY more readers that will argue among themselves and against their opponents over the issues..which will inevitably lead to them buying the next edition of your paper to see which side was "correct" in their arguments. Of course, both sides will receive "supporting documentation", because the two newspapers are selectively choosing which facts are included and how they are presented.

In the end, it's all about the bottom line....MONEY!!!!

I followed the links you provided and was impressed with the Guardian's coverage of the mad farmer. As you say, they are at least trying to present both sides of the issue in an equitable manner.

[pritchke]

If the gun was concealed and he didn't use it during the robbery, then it *wasn't* armed robbery was it?

I thought carrying a concealed weapon was illegal.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by pritchke: If the gun was concealed and he didn't use it during the robbery, then it *wasn't* armed robbery was it? I thought carrying a concealed weapon was illegal.

Depends if you have a permit or not and those laws vary from state to state (sometimes even city to city). So they could find him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, but not armed robbery.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: LOL, Rokenn, you mean the de-Christianizing of the US government, I'm sure. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I disapprove of an active judiciary. If it is anyone's job to CHANGE law it is the legislature's. The Court should APPLY the law as it is. If the people want it to change, well, that's what lobbyists are for. While I share the liberal views with most active judiciaries in the last 50 years, I also realize that the Court usurping its own function and performing one it was not meant to perform cuts at the very foundation of our governmental structure. Plus, the intelligencia elitists that make up legal professionals have placed themselves at the helm of public policy, when the vast majority of Americans are not of a like mind and are more conservative -- no matter what West Wing may have you believe.

I could Kiss you TL, But I'll refain from it Your post brings to mind the question which is greater the Created (U.S. Government) or the Creator (U.S. Consitution)?