NYT Editorial on the Bushie Federalist Judicial Fairies.

NYT Editorial on the Bushie Federalist Judicial Fairies.

To: zerhoune@od.nih.gov, SpinLyme@yahoogroups . com ,
kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail . com , patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov,
modelt1918@sbcglobal . net , jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant . com ,
Jgerberding@cdc.gov, lender@courant . com , michael.cole@po.state.ct.us,
conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-editor@nytimes . com , managing-
editor@nytimes . com , news-tips@nytimes . com , the-arts@nytimes . com ,
bizday@nytimes . com , foreign@nytimes . com , metro@nytimes . com ,
national@nytimes . com , dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline . net ,
trvl@hotmail . com , ubinas@courant . com , mas1@concentric . net ,
campbell@courant . com , jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost . com ,
georgewill@washpost . com , horgan@courant . com ,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, cohencolumn@aol . com ,
FalNields@aol . com , bransfield@comcast . net , vtsherr@comcast . net ,
oca@po.state.ct.us, dand@davila-dilzer . com ,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn@usdoj.gov
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost . com , horgan@courant . com ,
bmiller@newstimes . com , trvl@hotmail . com , rastro18@aol . com ,
billcurryct@gmail . com , thomas.carson@usdoj.gov, amcguigan@rms-law . com ,
rjmurzyn@aol . com , paulcraigroberts@yahoo . com ,
sidney_blumenthal@yahoo . com , criminal.division@usdoj.gov,
karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov, christopher.christie@usdoj.gov

Subject: NYT Editorial on the Bushie Federalist Judicial Fairies.

Date: Apr 18, 2008 6:21 AM

EDITORIAL BELOW
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Well, the simple version is that these Federalist Society "judges" and
"lawyers" are all fairies. Authoritarians. It's they, themselves,
who are scared.
But they're not afraid of terrorists. They think they're the elite,
but
they don't look into the matters of science and facts, because, like
most American
MDs, it's the facts themselves - the science - that is scary.

You know, like, if they don't cave to the imaginary authorities, they
may have
to do the hard work of thinking for themselves. It might upset their
little tummies
or give them a headache, or worse: They might find that they are
cognitively inferior
to the material.

Federalists - authoritarians- are fairies, plain and simple.

It's the same concept as (and this was stated by a man to a woman
reading a
magazine in a cafe): "Men prefer to date and marry women who are silly
and
stupid, because those kind of women are not threatening."

Women know it, too, which is why most of them pretend to play damsels
in distress,
and girls lose their ability to be competent at around 14-15 and start
acting stupid
and silly in order to be popular and hook a man. There are many
similarities between
lawyers and teenage girls; they all love gossip, for instance, and are
inclined
to it.

You really get a strong sense of the effeminate from lawyers. They're
impossible
to talk to, since they always have these "what ifs..." as if they're
***totally unaware*** of science ("scientifically valid") and the
purpose
of it.

It's kind of amazing to me how many men won't stand on principle. It
did
not used to be this way in America. A man who could not say a simple
"YES"
or "NO," or suffer the consequences of his lies or misbehavior was
frowned
upon and considered EFFEMINATE. A coward. Yet, today, these fairy-
males are the
dominant species and characterized nearly 100% of US lawyers.

Today it apparently takes extremely rare or unsurmountable courage for
a man to
simply say, "I DON'T KNOW." Most males, and especially lawyers, think
it is more important to have friends than facts - JUST LIKE TEENAGE
GIRLS !!

Kathleen M. Dickson
* w w w .actionlyme.org
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* w w w .nytimes . com /2008/04/18/opinion/18fri1.html?hp=3D&pagewanted=3Dpri=
nt
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 18, 2008
Editorial
Whose Privilege?

In the name of fighting terrorism =97 and with a clear goal of avoiding
accountability
=97 the Bush administration has imposed a level of secrecy on its
operations that
has no place in a democracy.

One of its most disturbing tactics has been seeking early dismissal of
lawsuits
alleging serious government misconduct, claiming they would reveal
national security
secrets. The Senate is now considering a good bill that would rein in
this misuse
of the state secrets privilege and give victims fair access to the
courts and the
public a fuller understanding of their government=92s actions.

In recent years, a number of important lawsuits have raised credible
allegations
of government abuses including torture, kidnapping, rendition and
domestic eavesdropping.
All too often, judges have blocked these suits without examining how
and why going
forward would compromise the nation=92s security.

Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the
administration
undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks
and balances.
It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the
State Secrets
Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of
Massachusetts,
and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder
for this
or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid
exposure
of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes
important safeguards.
But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would
require them to
first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is
invoked =97 rather
than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too
sensitive
to be disclosed.

To allow cases to go forward, judges would also be given authority to
order the
government to produce unclassified or redacted versions of the
evidence.

Not surprisingly, the administration is trying to defeat this
essential reform.
In a recent letter to the Senate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey
raised the prospect
of a veto and insisted that the president =97 and not the courts =97 must
have the final
say over when and whether the privilege applies. Incredibly, and with
no legal basis,
he also expressed doubt that Congress has the power to mandate closer
review of
state secrets claims.

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is also trying to undermine
the act with
a damaging amendment that would require judges reviewing state secrets
claims to
give =93utmost deference=94 to the government, a standard intended to
thwart meaningful
judicial review.

That, of course, is the problem. The courts have deferred far too
often to the president.
Passing the Kennedy-Specter bill, without Mr. Kyl=92s amendment, would
go a long way
toward restoring the balance and the accountability and openness that
are essential
for a democracy.

Home

* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science

ot alt.support.child-protective-services


"McSweegan is INSANE" <mcsweegan_is_insane@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:a8efec7c-38f8-4f02-a317-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz