POL: Hijackers win??? WTF

[AlexB]

Of all the things emanating from this country recently, nothing highlights how much we have signed away our borders and autonomy more than this. Plain and simple, it sucks, and there can be no justification for the government allowing this to happen...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3889107.stm

In effect the hijackers won, and this is an endorsement of their actions - hey you hijack a plane to England, you've got a chance.

This is a direct result of the human rights act, which in it's ideology is a good piece of legislation - however, in legalese it is carte blanche for people to claim persecution...

[Dutch]

which in it's ideology is a good piece of legislation

Agreed. So long as you never leave the theoretical world, everything sounds great.

[WVUFAN]

Sorry to see this. I'm surprised something like this hasn't happened in the US yet. With the number of liberal judges we have in this country, it'll probably happen soon.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

With the number of liberal judges we have in this country, it'll probably happen soon.

The thing is, there is not a disproportionate number of liberal judges, so I am going to have to call you on this.

By my estimation, a liberal president has only been available to appoint judges in eight of the last 26 years. This data backs it up (as does most data available):

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=923826

A look at judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents to the federal appeals courts, through June 2004. The study by the Chicago Judges Project at the University of Chicago Law School focused on cases involving ideologically contested issues such as environmental protection, sex and racial discrimination, abortion and campaign finance. For example, President Eisenhower's appointees were seen as voting a liberal position in 31 such cases and a conservative position in 17 others, or 65 percent liberal.

Pres. Lib Cons. Pct. Lib
Eisenhower (R) 31 17 65
Kennedy (D) 40 27 60
Johnson (D) 308 265 54
Nixon (R) 381 435 47
Ford (R) 211 256 45
Carter (D) 1148 956 55
Reagan (R) 1839 2979 38
Bush I (R) 948 1652 36
Clinton (D) 1498 1589 49
Bush II (R) 68 108 39
Total 6472 8284 44

Rather than automatically blaming liberals for problems or potential problems that you perceive, you should just acknowledge that you are far more conservative than those with typical mainstream political leanings.

If that is, in fact the case, and you are considering everyone left of you as liberal, then you are misusing the term. Liberal is not everyone that is left of a far right conservative like yourself.

It gets old to see far right conservatives or far left liberals automatically assign problems to the other side.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The thing is, there is not a disproportionate number of liberal judges, so I am going to have to call you on this.

By my estimation, a liberal president has only been available to appoint judges in eight of the last 26 years. This data backs it up (as does most data available):

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=923826



Rather than automatically blaming liberals for problems or potential problems that you perceive, you should just acknowledge that you are far more conservative than those with typical mainstream political leanings.

If that is, in fact the case, and you are considering everyone left of you as liberal, then you are misusing the term. Liberal is not everyone that is left of a far right conservative like yourself.

It gets old to see far right conservatives or far left liberals automatically assign problems to the other side.

Not to distract further from the original post, but the fact that a Republican appointed more judges doesn't mean the bench itself is more conservative. Judges have a tendency to drift over time. Witness Justice Souter.

BTW, the EU Human Rights Document is a joke. Why not adopt the Bill of Rights and work from there.

[ISiddiqui]

Pssst... Cam... the UK is part of the European Union... just thought you'd like to know .

That and they aren't fond of some of our rights, like how much free speech we have and gun rights.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Not to distract further from the original post, but the fact that a Republican appointed more judges doesn't mean the bench itself is more conservative. Judges have a tendency to drift over time. Witness Justice Souter.

Reread what the study was surveying. It is not appointments, it is votes cast for liberal or conservative positions in politically oriented cases. So drift is accounted for, what you're looking at is actual output. It shows 56% of all votes by judges in federal appeals cases surveyed were for conservative positions... Heck, even the Clinton appointees voted (by a slim margin) conservative more often than liberal. Interestingly, Ike's judges were most liberal of all...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Pssst... Cam... the UK is part of the European Union... just thought you'd like to know .

That and they aren't fond of some of our rights, like how much free speech we have and gun rights.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Pssst... Cam... the UK is part of the European Union... just thought you'd like to know .

That and they aren't fond of some of our rights, like how much free speech we have and gun rights.

The bit about gun rights is accurate - the bit about free speech has left me a little . I may be wrong, as I've never physically or intellectually examined it, but don't we have basically the same free speech ideals?

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The bit about gun rights is accurate - the bit about free speech has left me a little . I may be wrong, as I've never physically or intellectually examined it, but don't we have basically the same free speech ideals?

I think all of this is nature's way of paying you folks back for the Spice Girls.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The bit about gun rights is accurate - the bit about free speech has left me a little . I may be wrong, as I've never physically or intellectually examined it, but don't we have basically the same free speech ideals?

For one, Europeans generally have much tighter laws against defamation (libel, slander). They seem to believe that free speech should be balanced against human dignity. Here in the states we have no dignity, and our speech runs free.

[Super Ugly]

For one, Europeans generally have much tighter laws against defamation (libel, slander). They seem to believe that free speech should be balanced against human dignity. Here in the states we have no dignity, and our speech runs free.

That tickled me. I agree that our libel laws are tight. It seems that a week rarely goes by without someone winning a libel case against one of the newspapers. I don't know what it's like on mainland Europe, though.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

For one, Europeans generally have much tighter laws against defamation (libel, slander). They seem to believe that free speech should be balanced against human dignity. Here in the states we have no dignity, and our speech runs free.

Aha - that does explain it - I assumed 'free speech' was 'free' as in the ability to air your political/reigious/etc opinion - I'd always assumed free speech didn't actually mean I should be able to call Tony Blare a mentally instable incapable kiddie fiddler, and get away with it. Free speech here is indeed based on being truthful free speech, which is how I believe it should be.

(And I do know how to spell our PM's surname, and as the name of the man I refer to is spelt differently, quite clearly I am talking about somebody completely different )