Reagan-appointed judge has words for Ashcroft

Seattle Post-Intelligencier ^ | JOEL CONNELLY

[Viva Le Dissention]

No one.

And, incidentally, I support the free speech rights of NAMBLA, as I do everyone else. They aren't any different than anyone else.

[AmishDude]

Strike one: You lied about your political and ideological affiliations.

Strike two: You made me look up a nongermane case.

Want to go for strike three?

As to the non-sequitur you mentioned about the hitching post:

1. I am not sure why you mentioned Scalia (unless you wanted to be ad hominem), because Thomas wrote the dissent, Scalia and Rhenquist joined.
2. I scanned the dissent. It's an interesting read and a careful and delicate treating of the facts, but the bottom line is: They sued the wrong guys. God forbid Thomas, Scalia and Rhenquist pay attention to the actual case at hand instead of throwing their judicial weight around.

[AmishDude]

And be sure to check out the footnotes on that dissent!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I support the free speech rights of NAMBLA

So I wasn't wrong, thank you.

They aren't any different than anyone else

Are you trying to tell me we are a complete nation of sicko homosexual Gender Identity Disorder, soddomite, statutory rapist, boy destoying, pederast, uncurable perverts?

May be ok for you, you can be judged by the company you keep.

I stand in opposition.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I mentioned Scalia because he thought it was perfectly acceptable to chain a prisoner to a hitching post. I don't know why you're reading more into it than what it is.

#2, I never lied about my political affiliations. I said I am ultra-conservative. That's totally true. I've voted straight libertarian in every election I've ever voted in, with the exception of a a friend of mine who was running for Governor on the Republican ticket and a friend of mine who is a judge, a Democrat.

[AmishDude]

ultra-conservative

Who is a member of the ACLU, does not believe in judicial restraint and apparently gets his information from NPR (to wit: have you read those footnotes yet?)

[Lancey Howard]

There are so many things wrong with this article and this Judge's pretense of indignation that there's hardly the time to refute it point by point.

But generally speaking, the false premise that this "War on Terror" has a specific country upon which Congress could "declare war" is patently absurd on its face. Sorry, but there is no comparison to WWII.

I am more interested in the author, Joel Connelly, and this Judge Coughenour. Connelly's description of this judge as a strict, no-nonsense guy, and the fact that Reagan appointed him does not convince me that the judge is not a scumbag liberal or a scumbag "moderate". It is interesting that Connelly doesn't have any specific "conservative" rulings to cite.

I also wonder what the leanings of Connelly are - - is he always impressed by statements like, "The Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says", or does he only like it when it gives him a hammer to beat up on a conservative?

I will be interested to see what other posters have to say about these guys. Posters who are familiar with Connelly and Coughenour. Is Coughenour legit? Or is he a Souter-style scumbag? And is Connelly just another sneaky liberal mouse? What do you know about these people, 'count me in'? I found your "not the words of a liberal" statement.... interesting.

By the way, welcome to Free Republic.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yep, and to steal a line from Reggie Miller, I love being the enemy.

I have no problem being branded as a "radical" or "unamerican," or "terrorist lover" or whatever name comes up that day. In fact, I sort of enjoy it.

So all the same, I think I'd rather be judged as an outcast than as a man who kept quiet at the government's actions.

[Lancey Howard]

By the way, the ACLU isn't a "liberal" organization. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I'm about as conservative as a person gets.

You are either a liar or a fool.
I'm a nice guy so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you are a very young fool.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I have no problem being branded as a "radical" or "unamerican," or "terrorist lover"

Well, if the shoe fits......

[mrsmith]

"Or, as a ACLU devotee, does the fact that you know he has exercised his habeas corpus right not matter to your complaint that he has been denied it? "

How can this be done I wondered?
By claiming that the court must grant the petition! Of course!

I already knew that the ACLU tells us the constitution says that anyone who petitions for a writ of habeas corpus must be granted it and released.

Neither should I be surprised that they think it is the Executive Branch that is at fault if a court doesn't grant it quick enough!

Oh, and the Justice department filed it's response on the H-C petition June 26, and an Amica Curie brief has been filed this month- that might explain why the court is still considering the matter.

The Anti-Constitution League of the Unconcerned with reality just cracks me up.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I haven't read the case other than a brief once-over when it was issued. The right decision was made, so I gave it a quick glance and nothing else. If I have time tonight, I might read it again when I get home.

Secondly: I usually don't have a problem with so-called judicial activism, because it nearly always expands the rights of the individual against the rights of the government. That includes the right to privacy (although I'm pro-life), and the right to travel, and the right to "speech-plus," none of which are actually mentioned in the constitution, but a product of judical activism.

The judicial activism I have a problem with is the type that shrinks the rights of the individual v. the government.

Being a conservative is all about personal responsibility and a small government. No matter what the vehicle is that gets us there, the end result is what we should judge by.

[Lancey Howard]

Bump for great research and great freeping.

Now that we know the judge is a liberal scumbag, let's see about the author, Connelly.

[AmishDude]

The ends justify the means, eh?

[mrsmith]

The Administration response is that the petition should be filed in South carolina, where the petitioner is held; and on Commander Marr who holds him!

Oh what a travesty of the ACLU's (supposed) constitution that a habeas corpus petition must be filed in the court that has jurisdiction against the person who holds him!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Idiots, idiots idiots.

[AmishDude]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as "liberal scumbag". He definitely seems to have some "issues" to work out on the psychiatrist's couch, though, IMHO.

I am convinced that the writer is far worse than the judge and took a squishily-liberal judge's remarks out of context, embellished them and made an unrelated point.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yes: I would say that expansion of individual liberty is justified by any means, including violence, if necessary. This, of course, would be a last resort, but still a tool at our disposal.

[AmishDude]

Including restricting freedom for a short time?

[Lancey Howard]

I am convinced that the writer is far worse than the judge and took a squishily-liberal judge's remarks out of context, embellished them and made an unrelated point

Yep, you got it.
I searched the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's archives (search: Connelly) and found that indeed, Connelly is a liberal scumbag. Two of his recent columns decried tax cuts (the needs of the state come first) and smeared Jennifer Dunn for daring to question the unbridled power of the EPA. A sneaky scumbag.
Case closed.

Oh, and to 'count me in' - - nice try. Now get lost.

[Viva Le Dissention]

restricing freedom to advance liberty? I'm not sure I follow.