It is, judging by the score, a good week for Justice and a bad week for John Ashcroft:

• Civil Rights Lawyers Sue Ashcroft (http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0204171329370281)

•*Judge Backs Oregon Assisted-Suicide (http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0204171329370281)

Four words nagging at my conscience, but it's not my place to repeat them.

But it seems that early concerns about Ashcroft's stance on civil rights were, in some sense, justified. Civil rights attorneys sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and other U.S. officials Wednesday, alleging widespread abuse of hundreds of Middle Eastern men detained on immigration violations after Sept. 11.

The class action lawsuit filed in federal court says the plaintiffs have been subjected to unreasonable and excessively harsh conditions. It asks a judge to issue an order protecting the detainees' due process rights and to appoint a monitor to oversee their treatment.My own focus was on the drug war at the time of his appointment; 9/11 has certainly shifted that focus. But that drug-war concern arose from Ashcroft's appointment to an office that would prosecute the drug war in a time when civil rights and the US Constitution had been sent packing to hell. In the present situation ... well, I'm not surprised.Handing the assisted-suicide movement a major victory, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Justice Department cannot interfere with Oregon's law allowing doctors to help terminally ill people kill themselves.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones said Oregon voters decided ``not once, but twice'' to support the law and ``have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves.''

The judge declared that Attorney General John Ashcroft had overstepped his authority in trying to thwart the law, and he rebuked Ashcroft for trying to "stifle'' nationwide debate on the issue ....

....The law survived a federal court challenge, a repeal attempt and two efforts by Congress to override it before Ashcroft challenged it last November and set up the closely watched clash of federal and state authorityAshcroft even took some heat last November (http://www.deathwithdignity.org/resources/losangelestimes.htm) for his lack of focus on the immediate challenge (e.g. War on Terrorism) in seeking to rumble with Oregonians. (Click here for a Washington Post editorial on the same. (http://www.deathwithdignity.org/resources/post.htm))

Poor Ashcroft! :rolleyes: Can't the poor guy just win one every now and then? Bush hasn't caught bin Laden yet, and Aschroft keeps slamming into the ground every time he leaps after his quarry. It's starting to look like a Road Runner cartoon over in the Executive.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.

Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.Fair enough. But by that standard there goes President Bush and a good number of Congress. I have to admit, many reasons have occurred to me to oppose the current administration, but outright bigotry hadn't occurred to me in such a directly applicable manner.

Interesting point. Interesting point, indeed.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Is there a "Have some goons try to beat a clue into his thick skull!" option?

Tiassa:
Four words nagging at my conscience, but it's not my place to repeat them.

"He loved Big Brother" ? or are they nasty comments about Lord Protector Ashcroft?

Personally i think that a good week for justice is a bad week for ashcroft by default.

The four words are some that I'll be aiming at my non-electronic circle of associates, which I reserve from Sciforums because they don't apply quite right. But those words are, I told you so.

Really, who that is/was not blinded by devotion to either the right wing itself or the bandwagon of whoever wins each election didn't see this coming? Admittedly, seeing 9/11 coming is its own little thing; I saw it coming but I never could have been so specific as this date, this time, this place, this method, but come on ... who didn't know someone would eventually kick us in the national jimmy?

That aside, when it comes to Ashcroft and trampling the constitution ... yeah, those four words are I told you so.

There's nothing going on here that is surprising, I suppose that's the point.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(PS--as to the goon squad ... do you really think it would have any effect? ;) )

Personally i think that a good week for justice is a bad week for ashcroft by default.Indeed, indeed ... there is nothing going on these days that should surprise anyone.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[nerd joke ]

Ascroft has two neurons to string together, give him that.

Unfortunatly, one of them is inhibitory[/ nerd joke]

Xev,

The other problem of course is that he has only two.

There were many, many who more vigorously opposed Ashcroft over a broader range of issues than I. And here, I must admit to a post-election malaise. I didn't really give a rat's behind what was going on in the Bush White House ... well, I saw the Enron thing coming ... but ... yeah. This is from the left wing, the American people, and anyone else who falls within the We Told You So department ....

•*Anti-Ashcroft Organizations (http://gwu.edu/~action/antiashc.html) pertaining to the nomination of John Ashcroft for United States Attorney General.

•I just checked in with the Capitol Steps (http://www.capsteps.com), a comedy troupe out of Washington, DC. They have a song set to Weber's Music of the Night lampooning Ashcroft (and, incidentally, Diane Feinstein), but the best I've been able to find on the web is a 30-second .ram that only gets to the part about Clinton calling Ashcroft a weenie. (Catch me on AIM and I'll cough up the song--5.8 mb/320kbs .mp3).

But it's all in fun ... well, unless you're of Middle Eastern descent, a woman, a drug user, or the late Senator Carnahan. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law was put in place by democratic means, reaffirmed overwhelmingly by democratic means, then Attorney General Ashcroft, without hearing or request for intervention, attempted to unilaterally over-ride the Will Of The People.

I was glad he got his ass handed to him.

I believe with all my heart and soul that John Ashcroft is the most dangerous high-ranking official in the United States. Thankfully we have judicial review otherwise, Ashcroft could well have his own happy little police state in this country.

Peace.

Originally posted by tiassa
Fair enough. But by that standard there goes President Bush and a good number of Congress. I have to admit, many reasons have occurred to me to oppose the current administration, but outright bigotry hadn't occurred to me in such a directly applicable manner.

Well, I don't like Bush being in office either. I think people moving into public office should have to renouce all affiliations to religious organisations and political lobby groups and such. All agendas apart from those specific to their office should be set aside. This is not bigotry. This is common sense. I suppose, on the other hand, you might prefer it if Billybob Fenton, from a long line of KKK life members, got into office and started distributing leaflets condemning Africans as sub-humans? Freedom of speech laws would seem to protect his right to do just that.

All agendas apart from those specific to their office should be set aside. This is not bigotry.Actually, it is bigotry. The agenda of the human conscience is part of the measure of a person. If you look through American history, you'll see that we have a penchant for electing Christians to public office that is, in fact, excessive of the demographic balance in this country. (I'm perfectly willing to posit that if Al Gore had not selected a Jewish running mate, he would have won the election by a broad enough margin to win the electoral.)

However, it is a far cry from not voting for a black or Jewish or female candidate because of those specific factors to prohibit them from running for office or from being a candidate for public office.

South Carolina forbids atheists from holding public office by requiring all electoral victors to pronounce faith in God. We debated it here once upon a time. A long time ago. While, yes, it's illegal to do so, the people of South Carolina don't seem to mind, and no candidate has ever challenged that law in court, which challenge would win. Just an interesting counterpoint.

We might note, also, that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all people to be treated equally in matters of individual conscience, and in this country both the basis of conscience and the factors of conscience themselves are considered in the public sphere. To forbid Christians from office because they're Christians ... well, it's just flat wrong.

It's not bigotry ... :rolleyes:

Yeah, Adam, actually, it is bigotry.I suppose, on the other hand, you might prefer it if Billybob Fenton, from a long line of KKK life members, got into office and started distributing leaflets condemning Africans as sub-humans? Freedom of speech laws would seem to protect his right to do just that.You've never heard of David Duke? From a KKK heritage? Elected to state and later federal office by the good people of Lou'siana? On the federal level, it was more of a sideshow than anything else, but ask any black American old enough to remember civil rights about such politicians in office. And yes, the First Amendment guarantees Mr Fenton's right to condemn Africans as subhumans. And he's perfectly welcome to run for public office. I actually enjoy watching those types get butchered in the public arena. It serves as a reminder that you can't behave that way.

And, frankly, of those communities that do elect such people? Well? It's Louisiana, or South Carolina. The glory days of the Carolinas are past and Louisiana is best known as the target of incest and stupid jokes. After all, it was the Louisiana state assembly that once tried to legally render
to equal 3.0 because it was too hard for high school students to do math otherwise. Let's put it this way: the Charleston, a famous American dance, is named after the city in South Carolina. The origin of the Charleston is such that the black slaves learned the maneuver because, by certain Christian prohibitions against dancing, the Charleston didn't qualify because you don't cross your feet or your knees, or something quite silly like that. There's a reason South Carolina's glory days are past.

But the law in this country does, indeed, protect such idiocy as free speech.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Adam and Tiassa,

Stop insulting all christians by calling Bush and Ashcroft christian. I wouldn't mind if we had true christians in office. Unfortunately, people like Ashcroft and Bush don't stand for anything(except themselves and corporate America).

Tom

You've never heard of David Duke? From a KKK heritage? Elected to state and later federal office by the good people of Lou'siana? On the federal level, it was more of a sideshow than anything else, but ask any black American old enough to remember civil rights about such politicians in office. And yes, the First Amendment guarantees Mr Fenton's right to condemn Africans as subhumans. And he's perfectly welcome to run for public office. I actually enjoy watching those types get butchered in the public arena. It serves as a reminder that you can't behave that way.

Ah, I see now. It's okay for the people to limit or punish free speech as they see fit, without law or regulation. It's just a problem if the state does it.

It's not the beliefs I really have a problem with. It's the agendas based on those beliefs. Those agendas should be forced aside by the office.

Joeblow, you're right, the whackos don't represent the whole.

Joeblow93132

Stop insulting all christians by calling Bush and Ashcroft christian. I wouldn't mind if we had true christians in office. Unfortunately, people like Ashcroft and Bush don't stand for anything(except themselves and corporate America).

They are Christians, I call them Christians. Let's not be Orwellian.

Xev,

Just because Bush and Ashcroft call themselves Christians does NOT make them so. I would say that their policies are closer to Satan than to Christ.

Which one of their policies would you call a "Christian" policy???Besides their pro-life policy(which is a republican policy, as well) they DO NOT have any Christian policies.


Tom

<b>Joeblow93132</b>,

I see that you'd like to distance both Bush and Ashcroft from Christianity because you see them giving Xtianity a bad image. I'm sure you're very selective in how you want to distance them, however. Would you still say they were closer to Satan when they spout out things like, "Cloning is bad", "Abortion is evil", "Terrorism is evil unless it's supported by allies or the US"?

If you're worried about Christianity's tarnished image, well, then you have a right to be. It's not like people can say, "Remember that one super-evil athiest guy? Yeah, that guy was right off!" As for Christianity, a sample conversation could be, "Remember that one time Christianity really went out of its way to destroy alot of people and destroy its image?" 'Wait a sec, are you talking about recently or not too long ago, or just at its inception?'

Even having any policies closer to Satan is in someway linked to Christianity anyway. Who believes in Satan? Christians.

Thanks!

prag

Ah, I see now. It's okay for the people to limit or punish free speech as they see fit, without law or regulation. It's just a problem if the state does it.Um ... Adam, to what do you refer?

(I would clarify what appears to be the problem here, but since we know zero on the subject of Adam, and since you've already bitched that I ramble in my posts, I'll just wait for you to explain what the hell that means. Nor will I hold my breath while waiting.)It's not the beliefs I really have a problem with. It's the agendas based on those beliefs. Those agendas should be forced aside by the office.Write the legislation and e-mail it to me. Can you find the US Constitution and its Amendments online or do I need to post links for you? Just make sure that your proposed legislation does not violate the standards prescribed by the Constitution or its amendments.Joeblow, you're right, the whackos don't represent the wholeNow, the fact that Bush lost the total popular vote aside, it's worth pointing our just how many people those whackos represent. After all, Bush got enough support where it counted. But who did the "real" Christians vote for? Gore/Liebermann?

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Um ... Adam, to what do you refer?



You've never heard of David Duke? From a KKK heritage? Elected to state and later federal office by the good people of Lou'siana? On the federal level, it was more of a sideshow than anything else, but ask any black American old enough to remember civil rights about such politicians in office. And yes, the First Amendment guarantees Mr Fenton's right to condemn Africans as subhumans. And he's perfectly welcome to run for public office. I actually enjoy watching those types get butchered in the public arena. It serves as a reminder that you can't behave that way.

You support the politician's right to have an opinion, and you support that opinion being his/her downfall due to public harrassment? Then why not state harrassment?

You support the politician's right to have an opinion, and you support that opinion being his/her downfall due to public harrassment? Then why not state harrassment?Because that's the point.We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Thus begins the US Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html).

The First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) to the US Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievancesAnd this is the reason why not state harassment.

And let's put it this way: JB's rejection acknowledged, it doesn't change the fact that many of the people who voted for Bush--the majority of people who voted for Bush--are comforted by the fact that there's a good Christian sitting in the Oval Office.

Bush can assert his conscience as much as he wants as president, so long as his actions remain within Constitutional boundaries. And that is, indeed, quite a bit of leeway. Just watch his handling of "unlawful combatants". His conscience is laid naked there for everyone to see. In that case, JoeBlow has a point. But only if you really believe this kind of result to be a deviation from the Christian norm.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

So Party A can't do Action X, but Party B can, and that makes it okay because the mighy old Constitution says so. Fair enough.

Adam, I would attempt to answer that but I'm not sure what you're asking.

Were I to take a guess, I'd still be wrong because the nearest thing I can figure that you're asking isn't a real condition for consideration, but merely a theoretic to which I can only say, "I have no clue".

So I'll leave it to you to decide how important the point is.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

How important? Not very important at all. It won't matter until/unless I decide to go into politics. I'm reasonably certain that if I do go into politics, I'll end up the most productive and most hated man in Australian political history, even more so than Jeff Kennet.

Not very important at allFair enough. Thanx for clearing that up,

--Tiassa :cool: