Bush's respect for the Supreme Court and privacy

Gemini Cricket · 01-19-2006, 10:50 AM

Surely Bush has the country's best interest in mind. We shouldn't question him, it's wartime, don't you know? MSN shouldn't have published this story, do they want our enemies to know what the president is doing? Besides, you're not supposed to be paying attention to this story nor the president's ratings nor the Dems new ethics plan that came out today... don't you know that a new Bin Laden tape came out today by those al Jazeera bastards? Besides, the last five years or so have been the Clintons' fault. Did you hear Hillary call Congress a 'plantation'? Surely she's a racist. Don't you just hate her? Why talk about all this, liberal whiner? You don't want the terrorists to win, do you? To disagree with me is unAmerican. Why does GD hate America?

Alex · 01-19-2006, 11:24 AM

Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do.

The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (PDF).

This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court.

I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit.

(By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)

Alex · 01-19-2006, 11:26 AM

Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do.

The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (PDF).

This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court.

I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit.

(By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)

01-19-2006, 10:50 AM	#1
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Surely Bush has the country's best interest in mind. We shouldn't question him, it's wartime, don't you know? MSN shouldn't have published this story, do they want our enemies to know what the president is doing? Besides, you're not supposed to be paying attention to this story nor the president's ratings nor the Dems new ethics plan that came out today... don't you know that a new Bin Laden tape came out today by those al Jazeera bastards? Besides, the last five years or so have been the Clintons' fault. Did you hear Hillary call Congress a 'plantation'? Surely she's a racist. Don't you just hate her? Why talk about all this, liberal whiner? You don't want the terrorists to win, do you? To disagree with me is unAmerican. Why does GD hate America?
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 11:24 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional. I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do. The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (PDF). This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court. I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit. (By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2006, 11:26 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional. I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do. The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (PDF). This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court. I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit. (By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)
	Submit to Quotes