Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3038394041 LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 408

Thread: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

  1. #391
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Right about.....HERE
    Posts
    1,671
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by bombsquadron6 View Post
    There is little to editorialize about. As you pointed out yourself, how do you have a chaplain for a religion that has no religious leaders or a theology? (And no, I don't consider worshipping nature and practicing witchcraft to be a "theology.") The courts are supposed to take into consideration the burden that these decisions place on society. The earlier survey that found less than 200 Wiccan inmates statewide shows that there would be a considerable burden to the public to provide unneeded "chaplains." But of course, the Wiccan minister involved in the case claims that there are now 2000. Well, he isn't really a credible witness, is he? Of course, inmates will want to milk this for whatever they can get out of it. Suddenly everyone is a Wiccan! And the state of California, broke as it is, will foot the bill for this folly. This is religious freedom taken to the Nth degree of stupidity.
    Wiccan minister...that is an oxymoron.... What possible benefit would there be for an inmate to claim they were Wiccan? The only benefit would be to these self-professed Wiccan ministers that can now get a job....
    “I say, imagine in your private life, if you decided that I’m not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two—first of all you’re not saving money by not paying your mortgage. You’re just a dead beat. “

    --Barak Obama


    You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not
    --John Lennon

    Lord of the Pings

  2. #392
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    The only benefit for inmates is they might occasionally get out of some work when their "minister" shows up to tend to their "spiritual needs" but more likely it will simply be a way to harass the prison workers by claiming they have First Amendment rights and then make unreasonable demands. Who knows what the benefits will be but be sure the inmates will find a way to exploit this. And yeah, the self-serving minister will have a job. Great. Can we now look forward to Satan worshippers getting in on this action? Probably.
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  3. #393
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by Pullinteeth View Post
    When it comes to the first case, I am not sure what your beef is. Just because the case is filed doesn't mean the judges did anythign wrong. On the second case, your conclusion doesn't match the facts presented. Just because the appeal was granted doesn't mean he won. It just means he gets to refile. As to the third case, you are incorrect. The judge isn't preventing him from being deposed. He merely ruled that the person(s) petitioning to depose him were not litigants in the matter and thus had no grounds to depose him.
    I don't get your point. What is my "beef?" I made it right there on the post. I said about the first case: "Rather than tell Ms. Childs to act like an adult and sort it out without involving the courts or tell the ACLU to stop wasting limited resources on stupid stuff the judge will probably act as though this is a very serious and important case. GROW UP PEOPLE!" I stand by that. For the record, I checked PACER (a subscription service for all federal cases) and the lawsuit by Ms. Childs was dismissed by the district court judge on February 21. Apparently there was some sort of settlement but the docket doesn't provide the details. There were numerous attorneys involved. So once again my point is: Why are federal courts expected to decide every squabble and can't people be expected to resolve these things without filing federal lawsuits all the time?

    As far as the second case, Swartz did indeed win the appeal and now his lawsuit against the police will be litigated. He started the whole thing by flipping off the police and being a complete dickhead but now he is the victim. Sorry, I don't buy it.

    And as for the third case, "[The attorney] reached by phone on Tuesday, dismissed [the judge's] reasoning as "the most minute technicality imaginable."

    So all I can say is we agree to disagree, Pullinteeth. You defend the actions of the above judges and don't appear to think that their decisions are detrimental to the best interests of the public. I view it differently and think that many of the decisons coming out of the federal courts are harmful to the public. A society with no boundaries is not a nice place to live in.
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  4. #394
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Well, the federal courts give me an unending supply of outrage and disgust. You may well ask “What is it NOW, Lisa?” (Or, as Pullinteeth would ask, “What’s my beef?” Sorry, couldn’t help it.) This week’s rant is about the federal lawsuit filed by the nudists in San Francisco. Many of the nearly all male naked guys who roam around the city, particularly in the Castro district which is a mostly gay enclave, have insisted that it is a “gay rights issue” and not an issue of disgusting naked guys wandering around offending almost everyone who wears clothes in public. The naked people (there are some women) are claiming that their civil rights have been violated because the city of San Francisco has enacted an ordinance banning public nudity. The ban was spearheaded by Supervisor Scott Wiener who represents the Castro area and is himself gay although he chooses to wear clothes. San Franciscans, well known for their tolerance of almost anything except conservative politics, have finally gotten fed up with the situation. The city even enacted a “skid mark law” which requires naked people to bring a towel or cloth to put on the seats of public dining areas. So there are a bunch of blubbery naked guys walking to their favorite bistro carrying towels to place between their hairy asses and the seats. (I have no idea where they carry their wallets.) I am not making any of this up as the link to the following news story will attest.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius...ar-3867094.php

    I will point out that the gay nudies claim that the Castro district is “theirs” and that if straights don’t like it they shouldn’t go there. But according to my friend (I wrote about her earlier because her father was a drug addicted pharmacist) who was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay area and lived in the city for many years, the Castro district was a middle class family area until about the 1960's when gays started moving in. The gay nudies don’t own it and have no right to tell families they should not live there.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius...ge-3917348.php


    The nudies’ lawsuit against the city’s anti-nudity ordinance was filed in district court in San Francisco on November 14, 2012, and was assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen. The nudies asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on February 1, 2013, and they also wanted the judge to certify the suit as a class action.

    The activists, represented by attorney Christina DiEdoardo, argue[d] that being nude is protected on constitutional grounds as expressive speech and that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause by exempting events like Folsom Street Fair and the Pride Parade.
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local-...inst-sf/nTyx5/


    On January 29, 2013, Judge Chen denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case. He said that nudity in itself is not protected free speech because it “is not inherently expressive.” Seems pretty reasonable so far, doesn’t it? But wait! Judge Chen then practically invites the nudies to file and amended complaint after the law goes into effect!


    Chen said the activists could file an amended lawsuit after the law took effect if they wished to argue that the measure was enforced against them in a discriminatory way.
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...Wi7fWc.twitter

    If Judge Chen rules against them on the amended complaint, which was filed on March 15, 2013, the nudies can always take it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has a history of making outrageous decisions that piss off much of the rest of the country. I think there is a fairly good chance that they would rule in favor of the nudies. Watch out, America. A skid mark law may be coming to your community!
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  5. #395
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by bombsquadron6 View Post
    I will point out that the gay nudies claim that the Castro district is “theirs” and that if straights don’t like it they shouldn’t go there.
    Smokers for years tried using that argument against non smokers, wanting to take over their bars/restaurants.. We all know how that turned out.

  6. #396
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Yeah. The belief that you can claim a public area as "yours" is being used in an incredibly hypocritical way right now in San Francisco. The nudies, particularly in the Castro, tell others, "tough luck if you don't like us. Go somewhere else if you're offended." But these are the same people who scream bloody murder if someone shows a dislike of gays, minorities, -fill-in-the-blank- types of people or if someone puts up a cross on public land or makes a public reference to a specific, usually Christian, religion. San Francisco has become a victim of its own permissiveness. There are almost no boundaries to public behavior there anymore and it has degraded the quality of life, not improved it. I sure as hell won't be sitting on any outdoor chairs at sidewalk cafes when I visit San Francisco. (I still have a relative north of the city and my dad is buried at the Presidio National Cemetery so I guess I will go through once in a while.)

    My ire at Judge Chen is because he dismissed the case as he should have but then immediately invited the nudies to refile it as soon as the anti-nudity ordinance went into effect on February 1, 2013. The nudies did just that and now they are busy trying to get arrested so they can demonstrate that they are being discriminated against (since the city still allows nudies to run in the marathon or show it all at the Folsom Street Fair.) Judge Chen may or may not rule against them on the amended complaint but if he does rule against them a second time they will almost surely go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with their case. And, of course, the 9th Circuit will almost surely agree to hear it. I am not saying the nudies will win at the circuit court level but they have a reasonably good shot at it given the history of that circuit. If they were to win at that level, anybody who doesn't want to look at naked people in public will be viewed as intolerant (at least in the states covered by the 9th Circuit.)

    As transit rail workers we spent two years in federal court trying to exercise the well established right to decide for ourselves what union we wanted and unload a corrupt, entrenched, bureaucratic union. The courts ruled we had no right to decide for ourselves who would represent us but the company and existing union, working together, could impose that union on us. Despite the fact that modern labor law overwhelmingly supported our contention, we lost. You can be sure the judge did not invite us to refile our claims at a later date even though a number of our claims are still valid to this day.

    Corporations, who are people in the eyes of the federal courts, can get just about anything they want by going to federal court. The deference they are shown is nauseating. State laws that protect citizens from corruption by corporations have been sytematically struck down. Montana had a century old law that limited the money corporations could donate to political causes but it was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.

    Who benefits most by the federal courts today? Those who choose to live outside the boundaries of decency and big money corporations. The rest of us are SOL.
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  7. #397
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Out of curisosity I decided to look up Judge Edward Chen. Sheesh. It was SO predictable. Chen is a 1975 graduate of the University of California Berkeley and a 1979 graduate of Boalt Hall which is the UC Berkeley law school. He did a stint in a law firm after becoming a lawyer but then spent 16 years as a staff attorney for the ACLU. He was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama and in 2011 was confirmed. The Senate vote was 56-42. Dems loved him. Republicans hated him.

    My point here is that federal judges come from two camps now. The far left, and the corporate right. You can look at their background and predict with some certainty which way they will rule on issues. Ideology is more important than justice now.
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  8. #398
    Senior Member CORNELIUSSEON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bordentown, NJ
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by bombsquadron6 View Post
    Out of curisosity I decided to look up Judge Edward Chen. Sheesh. It was SO predictable. Chen is a 1975 graduate of the University of California Berkeley and a 1979 graduate of Boalt Hall which is the UC Berkeley law school. He did a stint in a law firm after becoming a lawyer but then spent 16 years as a staff attorney for the ACLU. He was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama and in 2011 was confirmed. The Senate vote was 56-42. Dems loved him. Republicans hated him.

    My point here is that federal judges come from two camps now. The far left, and the corporate right. You can look at their background and predict with some certainty which way they will rule on issues. Ideology is more important than justice now.
    You need to go read Machiavelli's "The Prince". He said - in essence - that justice and ideology form the two-edge sword of Politics.
    [FONT=arial black]SSG Cornelius Seon, USA (Retired)
    [/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000][SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]
    [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=4][B][FONT=arial black]We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    H.L. Mencken
    [/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

  9. #399
    Senior Member bombsquadron6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by CORNELIUSSEON View Post
    You need to go read Machiavelli's "The Prince". He said - in essence - that justice and ideology form the two-edge sword of Politics.
    I am familiar with Machiavelli. Everyone has an ideology but I get the impression your real concern here is that I have criticized Judge Chen who was President Obama's choice for federal judge. Chen's ideology is extreme left. I have equally criticized the far right, Federalist Society, corporate attorneys who have been selected for federal judgeships under previous Republican presidents. Extremism is extremism and whether it is extreme left or extreme right doesn't matter. It hurts this nation as a whole.
    Lisa Burke

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

  10. #400
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Right about.....HERE
    Posts
    1,671
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Judicial Salary Increase v. Military Salary Increase

    Quote Originally Posted by bombsquadron6 View Post
    Well, the federal courts give me an unending supply of outrage and disgust. You may well ask “What is it NOW, Lisa?” (Or, as Pullinteeth would ask, “What’s my beef?” Sorry, couldn’t help it.) This week’s rant is about the federal lawsuit filed by the nudists in San Francisco. Many of the nearly all male naked guys who roam around the city, particularly in the Castro district which is a mostly gay enclave, have insisted that it is a “gay rights issue” and not an issue of disgusting naked guys wandering around offending almost everyone who wears clothes in public. The naked people (there are some women) are claiming that their civil rights have been violated because the city of San Francisco has enacted an ordinance banning public nudity. The ban was spearheaded by Supervisor Scott Wiener who represents the Castro area and is himself gay although he chooses to wear clothes. San Franciscans, well known for their tolerance of almost anything except conservative politics, have finally gotten fed up with the situation. The city even enacted a “skid mark law” which requires naked people to bring a towel or cloth to put on the seats of public dining areas. So there are a bunch of blubbery naked guys walking to their favorite bistro carrying towels to place between their hairy asses and the seats. (I have no idea where they carry their wallets.) I am not making any of this up as the link to the following news story will attest.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius...ar-3867094.php

    I will point out that the gay nudies claim that the Castro district is “theirs” and that if straights don’t like it they shouldn’t go there. But according to my friend (I wrote about her earlier because her father was a drug addicted pharmacist) who was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay area and lived in the city for many years, the Castro district was a middle class family area until about the 1960's when gays started moving in. The gay nudies don’t own it and have no right to tell families they should not live there.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius...ge-3917348.php


    The nudies’ lawsuit against the city’s anti-nudity ordinance was filed in district court in San Francisco on November 14, 2012, and was assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen. The nudies asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on February 1, 2013, and they also wanted the judge to certify the suit as a class action.

    The activists, represented by attorney Christina DiEdoardo, argue[d] that being nude is protected on constitutional grounds as expressive speech and that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause by exempting events like Folsom Street Fair and the Pride Parade.
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local-...inst-sf/nTyx5/


    On January 29, 2013, Judge Chen denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case. He said that nudity in itself is not protected free speech because it “is not inherently expressive.” Seems pretty reasonable so far, doesn’t it? But wait! Judge Chen then practically invites the nudies to file and amended complaint after the law goes into effect!


    Chen said the activists could file an amended lawsuit after the law took effect if they wished to argue that the measure was enforced against them in a discriminatory way.
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...Wi7fWc.twitter

    If Judge Chen rules against them on the amended complaint, which was filed on March 15, 2013, the nudies can always take it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has a history of making outrageous decisions that piss off much of the rest of the country. I think there is a fairly good chance that they would rule in favor of the nudies. Watch out, America. A skid mark law may be coming to your community!
    Nope, the only real beef I have with your post is that it isn't clear. You say SF enacted a public nudity clause and LATER say that SF finally got fed up and enacted the "skid mark" clause... In reality, the skid mark clause came first. I am not sure how I feel about it overall though if it prevents even one hot chick from walking around naked, I would say it is a bad idea!!! ;-) Don't think it is a gay issue though. Just because these tubs of goo happen to be gay doesn't make nudity a gay issue. It isn't comparable to smoking either because smoking allegedly causes health problems in others. Seeing these guys naked might cause you to WISH you were blind or give you suicidal ideations but I don't think it would actually cause blindness...
    “I say, imagine in your private life, if you decided that I’m not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two—first of all you’re not saving money by not paying your mortgage. You’re just a dead beat. “

    --Barak Obama


    You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not
    --John Lennon

    Lord of the Pings

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •