The FS under GW Bush
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
cjcj
New member
FAIRCHASEBEN said:If Buzz and Dubya could just sit down and share a pipeload the world would be a better place .
Now that is FREAKING HILARIOUS.....RFLMAO..
Ten Bears
New member
Well said RINGER, and concise too.
Ringer- When you talk about the last few "judicial decades" could you tell me how "liberal" the courts have been. Can anyone tell me how many Supreme Court Justices have been nominated and seated by Democrat Presidents? Then please explain to me how "liberal" the courts are.
Nemont
Well-known member
MattK,
I don't know that Ringer was talking strictly about the Supreme Court. I don't think there is any denying that judges have become much more activist in the preceding decades. Judicial activism at the state level is very apparent. Look at our own state and the Activism of our Supreme Court.
Nemont
I don't know that Ringer was talking strictly about the Supreme Court. I don't think there is any denying that judges have become much more activist in the preceding decades. Judicial activism at the state level is very apparent. Look at our own state and the Activism of our Supreme Court.
Nemont
Nemont- First, I believe Ringer was speaking about Judicial appointments on the Federal level. I don't have the stats but I wonder how many appointees have been made by Republican Presidents? Ringer quote "As for the 44 suits we should see an improvement when Dubya's court appointees start working for the taxpayers."
You give Montana as an example of a liberal court? By definition our state court is non-partisan (look at a ballot). Although I agree some court cases have hit the headlines that make me shake my head, over-all it seems the courts through out Montana have been primarily conservative in their judgments. I'm sure you and I can bring up court cases proving both sides. Since Montanans have elected Republicans for the past many years, I would tend to believe the courts would have a similiar make up.
As the article states, the courts are ruling against the FS. You can blame whomever you wish but "the buck stops at the top". The CIC is accountable for the leadership of this nation and enforcing the laws of this nation. He should either get better advisors or start putting department heads on the chopping block to make sure laws are being enforced.
You give Montana as an example of a liberal court? By definition our state court is non-partisan (look at a ballot). Although I agree some court cases have hit the headlines that make me shake my head, over-all it seems the courts through out Montana have been primarily conservative in their judgments. I'm sure you and I can bring up court cases proving both sides. Since Montanans have elected Republicans for the past many years, I would tend to believe the courts would have a similiar make up.
As the article states, the courts are ruling against the FS. You can blame whomever you wish but "the buck stops at the top". The CIC is accountable for the leadership of this nation and enforcing the laws of this nation. He should either get better advisors or start putting department heads on the chopping block to make sure laws are being enforced.
I was referring more to the 9th circus and their rulings which do not impact your state. Similar lower federal courts and judges have definitely pushed the limits and although many are overturned by the Supremes some odd ones do get through. The point is that if the government has to pay costs every time they lose then why not the whackos that make a living suing our government?
cjcj
New member
Right on Ringer.
Ithaca 37
New member
ringer, "The point is that if the government has to pay costs every time they lose then why not the whackos that make a living suing our government?"
I wonder what the costs are to the so called "whackos" if they lose. Haven't they lost filing fees, man hour wages, attorney fees, etc. if they lose?
If they actually win their lawsuit against the gummint because the gummint wasn't adherring to the law, are they still a "whacko"? Among the suit winners, how do you identify which winners are "whackos" and which ones are legitimate concerned citizens or groups who are doing us all a favor by watchdogging the gummint??
I wonder what the costs are to the so called "whackos" if they lose. Haven't they lost filing fees, man hour wages, attorney fees, etc. if they lose?
If they actually win their lawsuit against the gummint because the gummint wasn't adherring to the law, are they still a "whacko"? Among the suit winners, how do you identify which winners are "whackos" and which ones are legitimate concerned citizens or groups who are doing us all a favor by watchdogging the gummint??
Nemont
Well-known member
MattK,
Please note I did not say the courts have been more liberal or conservative. I said they have become more activists. Meaning the courts, more and more, are legislating from the bench. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
Nemont
Please note I did not say the courts have been more liberal or conservative. I said they have become more activists. Meaning the courts, more and more, are legislating from the bench. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
Nemont
Ithaca 37
New member
ringer, It was a sincere legitimate question. I'm not surprised you won't answer it. You know you'll look stupid if you do. Feeble minded people usually dodge the tough questions, and that one wasn't even very tough.
Feeble minded people usually dodge the tough questions, and that one wasn't even very tough. IT-Sorry I didn't answer right away but I forgot how much I drank and passed out. At my age I deserve to be feeble minded. As for whacko I am referring to groups that continually sue the government in an attempt to clog the system with a remote chance of finding a judge along the line who leans their way politically. Huge costs to taxpayers and I wonder why your side thinks it's good to see the government pay legal costs but not the other side. Maybe you can explain why that is fair or right so my feeble mind can comprehend. If you speak slowly I will then be able to submit to your logic and willingly pay my share.
Well said ringer!
Ithica,
Yes they may lose some in Moneys and manpower, but that is obviously not much compaired to the amount that seems to flow into these organizations from people that don't really understand what they are sending money into, but feel good about it.
If they were forced to pay compensation for losing as the Government does, I think they would soon go bankrupt.
Ithica,
Yes they may lose some in Moneys and manpower, but that is obviously not much compaired to the amount that seems to flow into these organizations from people that don't really understand what they are sending money into, but feel good about it.
If they were forced to pay compensation for losing as the Government does, I think they would soon go bankrupt.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
IT,
Most of these whacko groups that you like to defend are comprised of trust funder lawyer types who don't need to work a real job and couldn't if they did.
Most of these whacko groups that you like to defend are comprised of trust funder lawyer types who don't need to work a real job and couldn't if they did.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ringer,
I would agree with you more if the FS hadnt lost 44 law suits in 2 years over non-compliance of environmental law...
Frivolous law suits are nothing but a waste of money, but ligitimate use of the legal system is not. Unforunately, for the system to work for the right reasons...some will use if for the wrong reasons as well...nothing new there. Its also fair to note that the enviro whackos arent the only ones abusing the legal system...
I would agree with you more if the FS hadnt lost 44 law suits in 2 years over non-compliance of environmental law...
Frivolous law suits are nothing but a waste of money, but ligitimate use of the legal system is not. Unforunately, for the system to work for the right reasons...some will use if for the wrong reasons as well...nothing new there. Its also fair to note that the enviro whackos arent the only ones abusing the legal system...
Elkhunter
New member
Very well said Buzz.
Buzz-Agree on that. The system is to right wrongs but many times it has created them for both sides. Unfortunately the law can back the enviro groups ie closing all forests to all logging then the law of unintended consequences has a drought and beetles with too much underbrush and there goes millions of acres up in flames. I expect our judiciary to weigh the issues and protect the greater good but they don't always do it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ringer,
The reason for laws is so the judiciary CANT do what they want. Their job is to interpret law...simple as that.
Their job has nothing to do with protecting the greater good, thats the job of of the BLM, FS, etc. along with environmental law and public involvement (which Shrub is trying to take away).
Courts intervene when there is no clear resolution to interpretations.
In this article, I think its pretty darn clear that existing law is not being followed...and the courts have given out spankings for the violations...
The reason for laws is so the judiciary CANT do what they want. Their job is to interpret law...simple as that.
Their job has nothing to do with protecting the greater good, thats the job of of the BLM, FS, etc. along with environmental law and public involvement (which Shrub is trying to take away).
Courts intervene when there is no clear resolution to interpretations.
In this article, I think its pretty darn clear that existing law is not being followed...and the courts have given out spankings for the violations...
Similar threads
