Limits on Supreme Court needed

[Timothy Leary]

IMO,

I think we need to require a higher majority in the Supreme Court in order for a case to be decided one way or another. Currently, if you've got a 5-4 vote then the votes win. Yes, the 9th vote only gets cast in case of a 50-50 split, but that's the point - the Supreme Court is supposed to be, for the most part, politically nuetral. In those cases, the decision is essentially made by the politics of the Chief Justice.

I think I would raise the requirements so that a vote of 6 or more would be required. That's a 75% majority - the same required to alter the constitution by Congress. Given that these rulings have almost as much effect as a constitutional ammendment, I don't see why we shouldn't increase the % of the vote required.

[Jimmy Higgins]

IMO,

I think we need to require a higher majority in the Supreme Court in order for a case to be decided one way or another. Currently, if you've got a 5-4 vote then the votes win. Yes, the 9th vote only gets cast in case of a 50-50 split, but that's the point - the Supreme Court is supposed to be, for the most part, politically nuetral. In those cases, the decision is essentially made by the politics of the Chief Justice.

I think I would raise the requirements so that a vote of 6 or more would be required. That's a 75% majority - the same required to alter the constitution by Congress. Given that these rulings have almost as much effect as a constitutional ammendment, I don't see why we shouldn't increase the % of the vote required.Most rulings don't get much attention Neo. The USSC sees hundreds of cases a year... how many do you hear about on the news? You are making a molehill into a mountain.

[Teallaura]

Okay, what happens to the cases that they cannot get decided? We just defer to the lower court decision? :twitch: All that does is move the power from the SC and into the Circuits - you really want the Ninth Circuit having the final say on issues significant enough to make the SC docket? I sure don't!

[rogue06]

What Teallaura said.





Always a day late and a dollar short :glare:

BTW: The "wonk" abbreviation is SCOTUS

[casaba]

IMO,

I think I would raise the requirements so that a vote of 6 or more would be required. That's a 75% majority - the same required to alter the constitution by Congress. Given that these rulings have almost as much effect as a constitutional ammendment, I don't see why we shouldn't increase the % of the vote required.

Just to be the nit picker: a majority of 6 of 9 would be a two thirds majority, or 67%. If I remember right, this is also what is required in each house of congress for a constitutional amendment. The amendment must then pass in 75% of state assemblies to become part of the constitution. [Again, this is testing memory from Government class 16 years ago; correct me Teal if I off.]

As far as the suggestion goes, anybody have any figures on what fraction of cases before SCOTUS are decided 5-4? Anything to be said about these cases in particular that differentiates them from the other cases (i.e. those decided by a majority of 6 or more)? Also, Teal, when you say there are 'hundreds' of cases before the SCOTUS [do like that acronym] each year, is that cases that they write decisions on, or does that also include the cases they deny to act upon?

[NeilUnreal]

We could use a modified form of drawing lots. Ten tokens could be added to a pot. Each justice would add one, say a red token for "nay" and a green token for "yay." The tenth would be yellow and would mean "re-argue the case." A token chosen at random from the pot of ten would decide the issue. As an alternative, you could also allow the justices to add yellow tokens.

-Neil

[Teallaura]

When did I say there were hundreds? :hrm:

The docket varies each year. There really aren't that many cases heard by the Court - I'd guess maybe 75 to 100 in a busy year if that (I think it's less). They make more decisions such as stays and certiorari than full hearing of cases, I would imagine. (Those things do not always require decisions from the full Court - stays can be granted or denied by a single Justice.)

If they decline to hear a case (fail to grant certiorari) it would never be on the docket for oral arguments.

Yes, a 2/3 rds majority is required in both Houses - or 2/3 rds of the state legislatures - to get an amendment presented for ratification. It then must be ratified by 3/4's of the state legislatures (or conventions).



Without looking, what's the one part of the Constitution that cannot be amended?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html



I hate that abbreviation and either use SC or the Court (the latter being the proper abbreviation).




Edit: I see it now - that was Jimmy - and he's wrong. The Court isn't constantly in session and usually only hears 2 cases a day when hearing oral arguments, which is why I said 75 to 100 would be a busy year.

[Teallaura]

We could use a modified form of drawing lots. Ten tokens could be added to a pot. Each justice would add one, say a red token for "nay" and a green token for "yay." The tenth would be yellow and would mean "re-argue the case." A token chosen at random from the pot of ten would decide the issue. As an alternative, you could also allow the justices to add yellow tokens.

-Neil

:twitch: Which brings a whole new meaning to 'Jackpot justice'....




Please tell me you're kidding... :happymoss:

[NeilUnreal]

Please tell me you're kidding...

I get paid to think outside the box :lol:

-Neil

[Teallaura]

I get paid to think outside the box :lol:

-NeilThere's 'outside the box' and then there's 'outside the bounds of reason'....:gack:




Just so ya know. :wink:

[Arnold]

I think the Court should be bound by the limits of a document outlining the principles governing the nation. Too bad that hasn't happened...

[Darth Executor]

We could use a modified form of drawing lots. Ten tokens could be added to a pot. Each justice would add one, say a red token for "nay" and a green token for "yay." The tenth would be yellow and would mean "re-argue the case." A token chosen at random from the pot of ten would decide the issue. As an alternative, you could also allow the justices to add yellow tokens.

-Neil
This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I read all day. :lol:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, what happens to the cases that they cannot get decided? We just defer to the lower court decision? :twitch: All that does is move the power from the SC and into the Circuits - you really want the Ninth Circuit having the final say on issues significant enough to make the SC docket? I sure don't!I hate that! I hate it when someone says something so unbelevably ignorant. What is so special about what the 9th Circuit does with respect to the remaining ones?

I remember hearing Glenn Beck complain that the 9th Circuit gets over ruled by the USSC by a large margin compared to the other Circuit Courts. He neglected to note that the 9th Circuit sees around, what... 40% of all the cases that go to the Circuit Courts? And percentage wise, I believe it's a wash with the other Circuits.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Edit: I see it now - that was Jimmy - and he's wrong. The Court isn't constantly in session and usually only hears 2 cases a day when hearing oral arguments, which is why I said 75 to 100 would be a busy year.Interesting. And what about the cases that goes to the USSC that they don't even bother hearing about?

[Timothy Leary]

Okay, what happens to the cases that they cannot get decided? We just defer to the lower court decision? :twitch:

If it were practical, I would have it sent back to the people during elections. However, given the number of cases, it isn't. So all I can say is "I don't know yet"

Something possibly more feasible would be to send it to the state legislatures. But I really don't know.

BTW: The "wonk" abbreviation is SCOTUS

Teal & I both hate that abbreviation. And if we agree on something related to politics, then you know it's the truth :grin:


Just to be the nit picker: a majority of 6 of 9 would be a two thirds majority, or 67%.

That depends on how you look at it. Currently, the Chief Justice only votes in cases where the court is split.

As far as the suggestion goes, anybody have any figures on what fraction of cases before SCOTUS are decided 5-4?

That's a good question, and if those type of cases are extremely rare then the issue of whether or not to restrict the SC in this manner would be largely moot.

Without looking, what's the one part of the Constitution that cannot be amended?

The first doesn't matter, the second is the part which would make the income tax unconstitutional if we actual adhered to the constitution *evil grin*

I think the Court should be bound by the limits of a document outlining the principles governing the nation. Too bad that hasn't happened...

Well, that actual creates an issue in and of itself - what of the issues where the constitution is essentially silent?

[Teallaura]

I hate that! I hate it when someone says something so unbelevably ignorant. What is so special about what the 9th Circuit does with respect to the remaining ones?

I remember hearing Glenn Beck complain that the 9th Circuit gets over ruled by the USSC by a large margin compared to the other Circuit Courts. He neglected to note that the 9th Circuit sees around, what... 40% of all the cases that go to the Circuit Courts? And percentage wise, I believe it's a wash with the other Circuits.

Nope, only about 17.4 % - the Ninth Circuit has a large geographic area - but the population density is lower than that on the east coast. Further, the Ninth Circuit takes up a disproportionate amount of the Court's docket and has the most uninanimous reversals. Translation, the Ninth Circuit has more 9-0 reversals than any other Circuit Court of Appeals. That's a truly bad thing.


Over the last four Supreme Court terms, cases from the Ninth Circuit have accounted for 31.5 percent of the cases that the High Court heard on appeal from federal appellate courts and 25.6 percent of the total Supreme Court docket, a far greater share than any other court in the country. Some argue that the Ninth Circuit’s tremendous geographical area of responsibility accounts for its lopsided share of the Supreme Court’s docket. However, the Ninth Circuit hears only 17.4 percent of all federal appellate cases nationwide, meaning its share of the Supreme
Court’s docket on appeal from the federal circuit courts is nearly double its share of the federal appellate caseload.

Source (http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/ninth_study/ninth_circuit_study.pdf)

Do be sure to scroll down to page six for all the pretty pie charts. :smile: Don't miss the bar chart on page seven!

And look at the dates - the Rehnquest Court, not the Roberts Court, is doing those reversals - that's a 5-4 liberal Court saying that the Ninth Circuit did something really stupid and saying it a lot more than once.


Next time, do your own homework before accusing someone else of not doing their's.

[Any bets he doesn't even read the paper?]


Interesting. And what about the cases that goes to the USSC that they don't even bother hearing about?What are you talking about? The Court itself selects its own docket - no cases go to the SC without it hearing about it. Or do you mean those cases it turns away? Those never make the docket, aren't heard and usually are given nothing more than a decline to issue certiorari. The Court doesn't decide anything other than to not hear the case - that's not a decision on the case proper; it lets stand the lower court ruling without addressing the issue at all.

Here's (http://supreme.nytimes.findlaw.com/supreme_court/resources.html) the docket history - knock yourself out.

[Teallaura]

If it were practical, I would have it sent back to the people during elections. However, given the number of cases, it isn't. So all I can say is "I don't know yet"

Something possibly more feasible would be to send it to the state legislatures. But I really don't know.Fair enough - but neither of those proposals will work - state legislatures would just start bogging down from the additional work and the deluge of lobbists that would result.


Teal & I both hate that abbreviation. And if we agree on something related to politics, then you know it's the truth :grin:So true! :rofl:


That depends on how you look at it. Currently, the Chief Justice only votes in cases where the court is split.Huh? I think you've got that confused with the President Pro Tem of the Senate - the Chief Justice usually votes in all cases (excepting those he's recused himself for or is unable to hear for whatever reason - the latter being a fairly rare state of affairs).

The first doesn't matter, the second is the part which would make the income tax unconstitutional if we actual adhered to the constitution *evil grin*Uh, what? :huh: I get what you're driving at - but I think you took a detour from the question.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nope, only about 17.4 % - the Ninth Circuit has a large geographic area - but the population density is lower than that on the east coast. Further, the Ninth Circuit takes up a disproportionate amount of the Court's docket and has the most uninanimous reversals. Translation, the Ninth Circuit has more 9-0 reversals than any other Circuit Court of Appeals. That's a truly bad thing.My error. The 9th District Court of Appeals handled over 20% of all the filings (in 2006) in the US. Sorry, it'd been a bit since I looked at the numbers (http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2006/appendices/b0.pdf). It is true that the ninth district court of appeals hears a lot more cases than any other district... only the 11th District comes anywhere close.

I'm sorry for the error, though, I'm not as perfect as you. Granted, I'm no where near as arrogent a jerk either, so I guess 50/50 is pretty good. No, I'm serious... you act like such an adolescent jerk here. What are you DDW's understudy? Lighten the heck up!

Do be sure to scroll down to page six for all the pretty pie charts. :smile: Don't miss the bar chart on page seven!This is the crap I'm talking about. I'm an engineer. I don't need pie charts. Give me a plain chart, give me statistics. I'm not inerrent. I make mistakes. You don't need to be a jerk about it. Also, being an engineer, I'm rather good at numbers and critical thinking and your wonderful page 7 graph... it really is meaningless. You should have noticed.

First off, the 9th Circuit had how many filings in 2006? 14,000+. What percentage of cases seen by the court in that 4 year period (81) on that number alone is that? Well, that'd be 0.6% of the filings the 9th District had in 2006. The paper goes on to say that the USSC reversed the 9th District in 74% of those 81 cases or in 60 of those cases. So the 9th district was reversed 60 times in the last 4 years. That'd average 15 cases in each of those years (oh my gawd! 15 cases out of a docket of 14,000... 0.1% of the docket). On page 8, the report goes on to note that the 6th District averages only 6 reversals a year. They forgot to note that the 6th District saw about one-third the filings the 9th Circuit saw in 2006. So, based on extrapolation the 6th District is getting reversed at a higher rate!

A person of your intelligence should be able to tell when statistics are being manipulated to form a certain story or bias. That paper you cite, is guilty of doing just that!

I'd go into more detail to show how the cited PDF is full of bubkis, but I've got a life to live and can't go debunking every right-wing trash bucket that gets flung around.

[Timothy Leary]

Fair enough - but neither of those proposals will work - state legislatures would just start bogging down from the additional work and the deluge of lobbists that would result.

Would they really?
According to a website I read, in 2001 & 2000 the Supreme Court ruled on ~160 cases each year. Even if half of those cases were 5-4 scenarios, that wouldn't be too much to pass through state legislatures, considering the types of laws that go through every year - like an idiotically stupid one passed in my state that now bans seach engines from displaying ads for lego competitors if the keyword they entered was "lego". :ahem:

Huh? I think you've got that confused with the President Pro Tem of the Senate - the Chief Justice usually votes in all cases (excepting those he's recused himself for or is unable to hear for whatever reason - the latter being a fairly rare state of affairs).

Actually, after reading up, it appears that our onederphul publik edookation system had taught me incorrectly.

Uh, what? :huh: I get what you're driving at - but I think you took a detour from the question.

Uh, wasn't one of those areas that can't be changed the part about direct taxes, etc?

[Timothy Leary]

Wow Jimmy, I have to say... good work with those numbers. If they're correct, I don't think I'm ever going to listen to any complaint against the 9th court any more...

[Arnold]

Well, that actual creates an issue in and of itself - what of the issues where the constitution is essentially silent?You are putting the cart before the horse. If the court doesn't acknowledge the place of the constitution (which for the most part it does not), of what significance is your question? The obvious answer to your question is that if an issue is not addressed by the constitution the court should send it to congress. How can a court in a constitutional republic rule on something that is not covered by the constitution? If it does rule on it, then the court is stepping outside of its bounds. Congress is for making laws. The courts are only for interpreting them. If they have no law to interpret it is congress' job to fill the void, not the courts.

[Timothy Leary]

You are putting the cart before the horse. If the court doesn't acknowledge the place of the constitution (which for the most part it does not), of what significance is your question? The obvious answer to your question is that if an issue is not addressed by the constitution the court should send it to congress. How can a court in a constitutional republic rule on something that is not covered by the constitution? If it does rule on it, then the court is stepping outside of its bounds. Congress is for making laws. The courts are only for interpreting them. If they have no law to interpret it is congress' job to fill the void, not the courts.
You missed my point.
Or I'm being really blonde.
Or both :hehe:

What about cases that say, the constitution is completely silent on a matter - making it impossible for them to honestly judge one way or another?
Congress is where the problem started...

[Arnold]

My error. The 9th District Court of Appeals handled over 20% of all the filings (in 2006) in the US. Sorry, it'd been a bit since I looked at the numbers (http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2006/appendices/b0.pdf). It is true that the ninth district court of appeals hears a lot more cases than any other district... only the 11th District comes anywhere close.

I'm sorry for the error, though, I'm not as perfect as you. Granted, I'm no where near as arrogent a jerk either, so I guess 50/50 is pretty good. No, I'm serious... you act like such an adolescent jerk here. What are you DDW's understudy? Lighten the heck up!Jimmy quit being such a crybaby twit. You made a mistake and in the process called Teallaura "unbelevably ignorant" [sic]. She let up on you more than you deserved. Now play nice...

[Arnold]

You missed my point.
Or I'm being really blonde.
Or both :hehe:

What about cases that say, the constitution is completely silent on a matter - making it impossible for them to honestly judge one way or another?
Congress is where the problem started...Then it goes right back to congress. It is not the job of the court to make law.

[Teallaura]

My error. The 9th District Court of Appeals handled over 20% of all the filings (in 2006) in the US. Sorry, it'd been a bit since I looked at the numbers (http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2006/appendices/b0.pdf). It is true that the ninth district court of appeals hears a lot more cases than any other district... only the 11th District comes anywhere close.

I'm sorry for the error, though, I'm not as perfect as you. Granted, I'm no where near as arrogent a jerk either, so I guess 50/50 is pretty good. No, I'm serious... you act like such an adolescent jerk here. What are you DDW's understudy? Lighten the heck up!:lmbo: Translation - it's okay when he goes off screaming that I'm ignorant but if I show him to be wrong suddenly I'm an 'adolescent jerk'. Well, he might be right - after all, it takes one to know one. And he sure proved what he is.

Oh, and it's the percentage of the docket that's at issue - surely they taught you how to figure that out in engineering school? They hear 17.4 % of the aggregate caseload - but take up 31 % of the docket - managing to exceed the Third, Fourth and Fifth Circuits put together by 7 %!

The raw number of cases they hear cannot account for the percentage of cases that the Court ends up taking. The Court doesn't review a case for the fun of it - they only take cases that they see a need for the High Court to rule on. That means that 26 % of their docket is consumed by one Circuit Court because there is something about those decisions that the High Court sees a need to review.

They could hear ten times more cases than the other courts and still not be the most reviewed, let alone overturned, court because the High Court won't choose cases it sees no need to review. Having so many reviewed and then overturned is a very bad thing - no matter how you slice it.

I will give you one thing though - that's the first time I've seen you own up to a mistake - even if you did pitch a fit like a little girl to do it.

Did I miss something? Where the heck in your numbers are the reviews by the High Court? All I see are pages of Circuit Court Dockets - nothing on which cases are reviewed or denied by the High Court. If you are trying to prove that the Ninth Circuit hears more cases in raw numbers you're proving an established point - no one disputed that. But when compared to the three next largest so that you have a comparable number of cases to work from they are still taking up more of the docket. That's important because of the High Court's selectivity - they only choose cases they think something needs to be addressed by the Court. Sometimes that's merely because two courts have ruled differently and the High Court needs to make the final ruling - that happens to every court. But with the huge number of 9-0 reversals that cannot be the case for most of the Ninth Circuit.

This is the crap I'm talking about. I'm an engineer. I don't need pie charts. Give me a plain chart, give me statistics. I'm not inerrent. I make mistakes. You don't need to be a jerk about it.You started the being a jerk thing - when you wanna be treated like an adult quit acting like a baby.

Also, being an engineer, I'm rather good at numbers and critical thinking and your wonderful page 7 graph... it really is meaningless. You should have noticed.Jimmy, when you start off by calling someone ignorant you do not get the kind of consideration you are whining about here. You cited a ludicrious figure and got called on it. Quit crying and suck it up like a man.

As for the charts - go back to kindergarten - you've applied the wrong criteria. Let me give you a hint - it's called 'external validity' or does the test tell us something about the real world - specifically the something we think it does.

First off, the 9th Circuit had how many filings in 2006? 14,000+. What percentage of cases seen by the court in that 4 year period (81) on that number alone is that? Well, that'd be 0.6% of the filings the 9th District had in 2006. The paper goes on to say that the USSC reversed the 9th District in 74% of those 81 cases or in 60 of those cases. So the 9th district was reversed 60 times in the last 4 years. That'd average 15 cases in each of those years (oh my gawd! 15 cases out of a docket of 14,000... 0.1% of the docket).Nice - but the issue isn't what percentage of its cases overall are reversed but the percentage of cases heard by the High Court which are reversed. Nice dodge, trying to hide behind the Circuit but it's the High Court that counts. That's why the percentage of the docket is key - that tells us how much of the High Court's time the Ninth Circuit takes up. It's also important to compare apples to apples - when you equalize for the number of cases it hears it's still being reversed too frequently.

But the killer is the number of 9-0 reversals - those are an indication of a major league screw up not a lapse.

On page 8, the report goes on to note that the 6th District averages only 6 reversals a year. They forgot to note that the 6th District saw about one-third the filings the 9th Circuit saw in 2006. So, based on extrapolation the 6th District is getting reversed at a higher rate! No, because you're only looking at the cases heard by the High Court - none of the rest have an opportunity to be reversed. What counts are the percentage of cases heard which are reversed. What's really scary is the number of those reversals that end up 9-0.

And again, compare that to the Third, Fourth and Fifth combined and you still see the discrepancy.

A person of your intelligence should be able to tell when statistics are being manipulated to form a certain story or bias. That paper you cite, is guilty of doing just that! No, but you just did. I'm going to be nice and assume that since you understand so little about the Court you just don't realize that you misapplied the criteria. The overall percentage of their case load reversed doesn't tell us nearly as much as the percentage of their cases heard by the High Court being reversed. There's this thing we like to call external validity - your numbers don't have it.

Why not? Because the best case you can possibly make from those numbers is that the Ninth Circuit is overloaded and needs to be divided - heck, I already agree with that! What it cannot do is tell us about the quality of the cases they are being reviewed for - the percentage of reversals heard tells us that. I know the Ninth Circuit is big - and I agree it's overworked - but that cannot be an excuse for so many 9-0 reversals and it isn't an excuse for the percentage of the High Court's Docket that it occupies either.

Face it, the Ninth Circuit is doing a crappy job - and you just made a great case for it being overworked, but not for why it keeps being reversed 9-0. You might have a point though - maybe it is time to seriously consider dividing the Ninth Circuit.

I'd go into more detail to show how the cited PDF is full of bubkis, but I've got a life to live and can't go debunking every right-wing trash bucket that gets flung around.You haven't managed to debunk anything yet - nice try but the High Court's docket is what counts - not the Circuit Court's docket. External validity - the other white meat.

[Teallaura]

Would they really?
According to a website I read, in 2001 & 2000 the Supreme Court ruled on ~160 cases each year. Even if half of those cases were 5-4 scenarios, that wouldn't be too much to pass through state legislatures, considering the types of laws that go through every year - like an idiotically stupid one passed in my state that now bans seach engines from displaying ads for lego competitors if the keyword they entered was "lego". :ahem:Unfortunately, the states aren't likely to quit looking at frivolous stuff just because they have real work to do. And you have to consider that most states don't have full time legistlatures (Alabama's meets a whooping 3 months out of the year - not counting the inevitable special Session - which might last a couple weeks) - short sessions plus controversial issue = gridlock. Further, they don't all meet at the same time of year - it could take a couple years to work throuugh the ratification process depending on when it went to the states.


Uh, wasn't one of those areas that can't be changed the part about direct taxes, etc?Nope, only one thing cannot be amended. The 16th Amendment would be invalid if it were taxation.


It's the state suffrage in the Senate - the Constitution cannot be amended to remove the representation of the states in the Senate - they must always have equal representation.

[NeilUnreal]

Here's another idea:

Give each justice a certain number of votes for the entire legislative season. Say, a number of votes equal to twice the average number of cases. Then, let each justice spend as many or as few of those votes as they want on each case. If a justice feels passionately about a case, he or she can spend more votes on it. However, when you're out of votes, you're effectively moot until the next season.

This would have the effect of allowing the moderates to make the decisions on most of the cases, since presumably the more opinionated justices would spend more of their votes on a few key cases.

-Neil

[dizzle]

Teal, don't tell Jimmy you're a democrat.

That was an award-winning hissy fit he threw there though. Bravo.

[Teallaura]

Here's another idea:

Give each justice a certain number of votes for the entire legislative season. Say, a number of votes equal to twice the average number of cases. Then, let each justice spend as many or as few of those votes as they want on each case. If a justice feels passionately about a case, he or she can spend more votes on it. However, when you're out of votes, you're effectively moot until the next season.

This would have the effect of allowing the moderates to make the decisions on most of the cases, since presumably the more opinionated justices would spend more of their votes on a few key cases.

-Neil




:jd: Please, someone tell me he's kidding...


:happymoss: Pretty please?









:bigeyes: The Supreme Court should decide cases using parilimentary representation as the model?





















































:gaah: Help!!!!!!

[Timothy Leary]

...Teal is a democrat?

She's more authoritarian (with all due respect, teal) than Utah Democrats - and in general (Rocky Anderson does not count) Utah democrats = Republicans in the rest of the nation

[Teallaura]

:eh: You're lucky I like you... I'm gonna let that one pass...





:ahem:





:brood: I'm a Southern Democrat, thank you very much....





:huh: I thought you knew that - Ry and I were joking about you finding out in that other thread.

[Timothy Leary]

Southern Democrat? You don't seem to be like Jesse Jackson... (which is a *good* thing)

[Timothy Leary]

oh, and "that other thread"?

[Teallaura]

Jesse Jackson is his own catagory... :ahem:


Yeah, yeah, I know - I just can't remember which one it was. :argh:

[Arnold]

:brood: I'm a Southern Democrat, thank you very much....Why? :huh:

[Teallaura]

Inertia, I think.

[Arnold]

That's it?!? :dizzy:

[Timothy Leary]

Seriously, Teal, you're a NeoConservative. Why are you a registered democrat?? Or do you live in an area where you have to have (D) by your name to get elected?

[Teallaura]

Actually, I have more in common with the Dems here than the Repubs - although I grant it's not a huge disparity. I'll probably vote for the Repub Rep candidate next election - kinda a shame. Our guy does pretty good work but I can't agree with much of his ideology.

Our state legislature is still Dem controlled but I'm not sure how much longer that will be. The BC (Black Caucus) is having trouble holding together - it's currently heavily liberal and winning more on identification than anything else. If it comes unglued then the Repub's will take the legislature sooner but it's still a few cycles away, I think.

[Timothy Leary]

Actually, I have more in common with the Dems here than the Repubs - although I grant it's not a huge disparity.

I'd be interested in hearing about that sometime.
Sometimes I have no idea where you're coming from politically - though I'm sure you've no doubt thought the same of me (:hehe:)- and it helps to understand where a person is coming from.

[casaba]

Just wanted to chime in on the statistics issue from way back. That 'report' on the Ninth Circuit court (linked by Teal) is quite poor, I must say. It does appear that the court has a slightly higher rate of overturning lower courts, but the actual results before the Supreme Court are quite comparable to the other Circuit courts. This I base on the raw statistical data for 2000-2003. The interpretation of data presented in the report is horribly skewed, combining 4 year, 10 year, and 20 year statistics haphazardly. While I didn't follow Jimmy's claims about the results, he was absolutely right about the bar chart promoted by Teal: plotting absolute values when the case load is so lopsided is ignorance at best, and this is a 'statistical analysis'. The author, from the opening, has a bone to grind with the Ninth Circuit court, and procedes to twist the numbers to 'prove' his point. I challenge anyone to go into the only raw data he includes (appendices for 2000-2003) and make any strong conclusions.

(Also, thank you Teal for correcting "tax-is-evil" Arnold about the constitutionality of the income tax. It is quite explicit in the Constitution that the limitation on taxation ran out two hundred years ago. A nit picky point on your suggested answer, however: a state can have reduced representation in the senate if the state agrees to it.)

[Teallaura]

Psst - if all you read is the single chart you're only fooling yourself. The issue isn't the percentage of the Circuit Court's docket that is overturned - which is all Jimmy analyzed. The issue is the percentage of the Circuit Court's cases heard by the Supreme Court which are overturned - that's why the paper I linked to didn't bother with the CC's raw docket - because that percentage doesn't tell us anything about how the CC fairs on review.

The vast majority of the cases in the Circuit Court's docket cannot be overturned directly because they will never be reviewed. Therefore indirect overturns aren't in the calculations of the analysis paper - nor should they be. But if we want to analyse the way that Jimmy is doing then the indirect overturns should be calculated as well - in fact it's a huge error in Jimmy's calculations (although good luck getting the indirects to add into the calculations). Done correctly, it would bring up the percentage of the CC's docket being overturned. Have no idea how significantly - nor do I care. It's a stupid measure. The Supreme Court's docket is the important one because we are looking at how well the Ninth Circuit is performing when being reviewed by the SC - not the percentage of the CC's docket bring overturned.

It's Jimmy's calculations, not the paper's, which are deceptive, albeit inadvertently because he didn't realize why the paper had made its calculations the way it did. The first thing you have to know before you calculate anything is what exactly you what want to know. If you want the percentage of cases overturned so that you can look at what is happening when the SC reviews those cases then you want the percentage of cases reviewed that are overturned - not the percentage of cases reviewed which is what Jimmy calculated.

A poorly performing court would also be expected to take up more of the supervisory court's docket - which was part of that bar chart you guys were complaining about. It tells us that there's a discrepancy in the amount of time that the SC spends dealing with the Ninth Circuit even when we allow for the size of the Ninth Circuit's docket (the pie chart shows that better - but actually reading the text would have told you that).

You need to let your brain and not your prejudices talk more - I didn't address Arnold about that at all - that was Neo. I can't remember ever seeing Arnold make a 'taxation is unconstitutional' argument - he usually opposes excessive taxation but that'a an entirely different issue.

There is such a thing as 'effectively impossible' - getting a state to consent would be impossible unless a heck of a lot of money passed hands somewhere - which the SC would never uphold were it demonstrated. Otherwise, no state in its right mind would consent. :ahem:

[Timothy Leary]

(Also, thank you Teal for correcting "tax-is-evil" Arnold about the constitutionality of the income tax. It is quite explicit in the Constitution that the limitation on taxation ran out two hundred years ago. A nit picky point on your suggested answer, however: a state can have reduced representation in the senate if the state agrees to it.)

1) I'm *not* Arnold
2) She didn't correct me
3) If that's true, why is it the IRS refuses to answer the objections raised against income theft?

[Kristian Joense]

Well the argument that the federal income tax is constutional assumes that the 16th amendment is valid, there are those that contend that it was invalidly ratified. I am just stating this, not making that claim my self.

But Teallaura, have you ever heard about that viewpoint ? What are your thoughts about that ?

[Teallaura]

Never heard of a complaint about the ratification proper - I'd have to look at it. :shrug:

[Kristian Joense]

Maybe this (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Mises?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=16th+amendment&btnG=Search) search will help you.

Edit:

A blog comment I found via that search, this is all I found so far:

"As for the actual validity of the 16th Amendment, since the amendment process was flawed and filled with errors by the States...well, another time perhaps."

Edit2:

A later comment to the same blog post is more elaborate:

" I strongly urge all parties, concerned, to read the well written and researched "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson. The fact remains that the income tax amendment was NOT ratified as reported by the Secretary of State at the time Philander Knox. Note that this is also the origin of the term "philanderer". In fact, Benson obtained certified documents from all 48 states proving that only a handful voted for ratification of the 16th amendment. New research indicates that the 13th amendment creating the Federal Reserve may also have been foisted upon the American People in the same manner! In either case we have gone from a free people to financial serfdom. regards,
Mark"

[Teallaura]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17398

Found this article - I'm dubious. I'll have to look in more detail but the Constitution proper doesn't require some of the technical issues he's discussed so that's not compelling. The supposed rejections claimed as ratifications are more interesting - but make no sense. Surely the states knew what they had or had not ratified - why didn't any of them kick up a fuss then?

[casaba]

First, sorry Neo, for confusing you with Arnold; my bad memory. So now to you, do you agree that the constitution does allow for amendments allowing taxation? (I also have not heard about the possibility that the ratification was flawed; still doesn't mean taxation is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution--even by amendment, which was Teal's first 'riddle'.)


Psst - if all you read is the single chart you're only fooling yourself. The issue isn't the percentage of the Circuit Court's docket that is overturned - which is all Jimmy analyzed.

I thought that I made it clear that I didn't follow Jimmy's line of attack, but that the plot you suggested looking at was a near meaningless bar graph.

The issue is the percentage of the Circuit Court's cases heard by the Supreme Court which are overturned - that's why the paper I linked to didn't bother with the CC's raw docket - because that percentage doesn't tell us anything about how the CC fairs on review.

I can agree. Now look at the numbers: For the time 2000 to 2003, 70.4% "of the Circuit Court's cases heard by the Supreme Court [/B[were] overturned[/I]". For this same time the SC [happier?] overturned 76.1% of Ninth Circuit Court decisions that came before it. So the Ninth gets overturned a shocking 1.08 times more often than the average. (This isn't shown in the report because he plots numbers as opposed to percentage; as the ninth court sees the most cases, you would expect it to have the most cases before the SC as well as the most cases overturned.) As far as unanimous reversals, the Ninth gets those about 1.14 times (or 14%) more often than the average. For a sample size of only 69, 14% is far from conclusive.


The vast majority of the cases in the Circuit Court's docket cannot be overturned directly because they will never be reviewed. Therefore indirect overturns aren't in the calculations of the analysis paper - nor should they be. But if we want to analyse the way that Jimmy is doing then the indirect overturns should be calculated as well - in fact it's a huge error in Jimmy's calculations (although good luck getting the indirects to add into the calculations). Done correctly, it would bring up the percentage of the CC's docket being overturned. Have no idea how significantly - nor do I care. It's a stupid measure. The Supreme Court's docket is the important one because we are looking at how well the Ninth Circuit is performing when being reviewed by the SC - [B]not the percentage of the CC's docket bring overturned[my emphasis].


Firstly, "how well the Ninth Circuit is performing when being reviewed by the SC": as we saw above, just in line with the other Circuit Courts. However, it is in the statistics that you call a "stupid measure" where your arguments against the Ninth may have some merit. In an 'average' world, we'd expect that if all Circuit Court decisions were equally likely to be appealed, and equally likely to be upheld or reversed by the SC: if one CC heard 20% of initial appeals, that 20% of the cases before the SC would come from this court. The first pie charts you referred to shows that this isn't the case: a larger percent of the decisions by the Ninth are reevaluated by the SC than any other CC (I haven't run a full analysis to check if this is valid, but initial inspection of the numbers lead me to think it is significant: essentially, a decision by the Ninth is nearly twice as likely to be reviewed by the SC.) So, a larger percentage of the SC reversals come from the Ninth (

It's Jimmy's calculations, not the paper's, which are deceptive, albeit inadvertently because he didn't realize why the paper had made its calculations the way it did. The first thing you have to know before you calculate anything is what exactly you what want to know. If you want the percentage of cases overturned so that you can look at what is happening when the SC reviews those cases then you want the percentage of cases reviewed that are overturned - not the percentage of cases reviewed which is what Jimmy calculated.

Again, look at the numbers: For the Ninth CC, the "percentage of cases reviewed that are overturned" is in line with the average. Jimmy's calculations, if carried through, actually show the possible problem with the Ninth Court: 0.3% of Ninth CC decisions get overturned by the SC while the average is only 0.15%. Likely, a significant difference.

...if all you read is the single chart you're only fooling yourself...

...but actually reading the text would have told you that...

You need to let your brain and not your prejudices talk more...

Lighten up, Teal. I am not trying to make any personal attacks (again, I apologized to Neo for my bad memory). I do read, and reanalyze data continuously. The report you linked was clearly prejudiced. In looking at the numbers, there may be a valid conclusion to be drawn from the raw data. However, the manner in which the author presented it, and attempted to explain and re-explain it, was not helpful.

There is such a thing as 'effectively impossible' - getting a state to consent would be impossible unless a heck of a lot of money passed hands somewhere - which the SC would never uphold were it demonstrated. Otherwise, no state in its right mind would consent. :ahem:
When I write "to nit pick" it means that I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out specifics. If you want to correct yourself by changing "cannot be" to "'effectively impossible'", amuse yourself. My nit pick was still the correct answer to your riddle. Actual answer: The number of Senators from a state, without that states consent, cannot be changed by amendment.

[Teallaura]

First, sorry Neo, for confusing you with Arnold; my bad memory. So now to you, do you agree that the constitution does allow for amendments allowing taxation? (I also have not heard about the possibility that the ratification was flawed; still doesn't mean taxation is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution--even by amendment, which was Teal's first 'riddle'.)Teal never asked any such of a thing. :ahem:

I'm not sure his objections have merit (bear in mind I've looked at very little thus far). 38 states of the necessary 36 ultimately ratified the thing. He only contended two had not actually ratified at all so even if he were right it wouldn't matter.

I thought that I made it clear that I didn't follow Jimmy's line of attack, but that the plot you suggested looking at was a near meaningless bar graph.Actually, it's not meaningless but at that point I was denigrating Jimmy for having called me ignorant - the text is better.

I can agree. Now look at the numbers: For the time 2000 to 2003, 70.4% "of the Circuit Court's cases heard by the Supreme Court [/B[were] overturned[/i]". For this same time the SC [happier?] overturned 76.1% of Ninth Circuit Court decisions that came before it. So the Ninth gets overturned a shocking 1.08 times more often than the average. (This isn't shown in the report because he plots numbers as opposed to percentage; as the ninth court sees the most cases, you would expect it to have the most cases before the SC as well as the most cases overturned.) As far as unanimous reversals, the Ninth gets those about 1.14 times (or 14%) more often than the average. For a sample size of only 69, 14% is far from conclusive.Big time error - you're looking at the pop, not a sample. 14% of a population is huge - or would be if you were looking at the percentage of their reversals instead of the mean. Either way, 69 is your population, not a sample. Hence the mean isn't a good measure here (for once the raw numbers tell the story better - but that's usually true of a pop).

The mean isn't a good measure here period. The better measure is simply comparing the percentages of reversals outright. You might get away with it were we dealing in samples but we aren't. Those are whole populations.

I don't care how you abbreviate it - as long as I can figure out what you mean - but I'm not using the 'wonk' (whatever that means) version. :eww:

Does bring up something I need to look into - why the heck is the Ninth seeing so many cases? Looking at it geographically I wouldn't think it had that big of a population comparatively.

Firstly, "how well the Ninth Circuit is performing when being reviewed by the SC": as we saw above, just in line with the other Circuit Courts. No, because you made the eror of mistaking a population for a sample. And mean is not the best measure.

However, it is in the statistics that you call a "stupid measure" where your arguments against the Ninth may have some merit. In an 'average' world, we'd expect that if all Circuit Court decisions were equally likely to be appealed, and equally likely to be upheld or reversed by the SC: if one CC heard 20% of initial appeals, that 20% of the cases before the SC would come from this court.I think you are in error here - there's no reason to expect the reviews to average out. They are not selected randomly.

The first pie charts you referred to shows that this isn't the case: a larger percent of the decisions by the Ninth are reevaluated by the SC than any other CC (I haven't run a full analysis to check if this is valid, but initial inspection of the numbers lead me to think it is significant: essentially, a decision by the Ninth is nearly twice as likely to be reviewed by the SC.) So, a larger percentage of the SC reversals come from the Ninth (Okay, oddly enough we come to the same conclusion. :shrug:

Again, look at the numbers: For the Ninth CC, the "percentage of cases reviewed that are overturned" is in line with the average. Jimmy's calculations, if carried through, actually show the possible [B]problem with the Ninth Court: 0.3% of Ninth CC decisions get overturned by the SC while the average is only 0.15%. Likely, a significant difference.
:shrug:

I'm tired and given that you're coming up with similar conclusions despite using what I consider a poor measure I probably should come back at it again when I can think more clearly.


Lighten up, Teal. I am not trying to make any personal attacks (again, I apologized to Neo for my bad memory). I do read, and reanalyze data continuously. The report you linked was clearly prejudiced. In looking at the numbers, there may be a valid conclusion to be drawn from the raw data. However, the manner in which the author presented it, and attempted to explain and re-explain it, was not helpful. You did make a personal attack - reread your wording. That's smear. While I'm hardly innocent on that count I do try not to smear people I'm not directly addressing (and then I actually do try not to when I'm ticked off - having some trouble with that lately. :blushing:)

:argh: An analysis paper is supposed to take a position!!!! That's blatantly unfair to dismiss something as biased simply because it does what it's supposed to do.

When I write "to nit pick" it means that I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out specifics. If you want to correct yourself by changing "cannot be" to "'effectively impossible'", amuse yourself. My nit pick was still the correct answer to your riddle. Actual answer: The number of Senators from a state, without that states consent, cannot be changed by amendment.Okay.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Face it, the Ninth Circuit is doing a crappy job - and you just made a great case for it being overworked, but not for why it keeps being reversed 9-0. You might have a point though - maybe it is time to seriously consider dividing the Ninth Circuit.

You haven't managed to debunk anything yet - nice try but the High Court's docket is what counts - not the Circuit Court's docket. External validity - the other white meat.I'm not going to waste any additional time debunking that document. If you don't have the ability to see that it has a bias and is mixing and matching numbers, and you don't want to even consider that possibilty, I can't help that.

Simply put, you are grossly overstating the issue at hand here... the ole molehill into a mountain deal... if it amounts to even a molehill to begin with.

[Timothy Leary]

First, sorry Neo, for confusing you with Arnold; my bad memory. So now to you, do you agree that the constitution does allow for amendments allowing taxation? (I also have not heard about the possibility that the ratification was flawed; still doesn't mean taxation is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution--even by amendment, which was Teal's first 'riddle'.)

I never claimed that taxation was prohibited by Arnold, you really should read what I write the first time. Very specifically, I am claiming that the method/type of tax in specific is what is unconstitional.

[Teallaura]

I'm not going to waste any additional time debunking that document. If you don't have the ability to see that it has a bias and is mixing and matching numbers, and you don't want to even consider that possibilty, I can't help that.

Simply put, you are grossly overstating the issue at hand here... the ole molehill into a mountain deal... if it amounts to even a molehill to begin with.
Translation: "I'm right; you're wrong! Nah, nah, nah boo boo!!!!"

:ahem:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Seriously, Teal, you're a NeoConservative. Why are you a registered democrat?? Or do you live in an area where you have to have (D) by your name to get elected?

Hmm, when I hear "NeoCon," I think PNAC. But it's not like my perception of the terminology could be colored by the media. No way.

Of course, I don't know why anyone would be a registered Democrat at this point! (Sorry, Teal :blush:)

[Timothy Leary]

I never claimed that taxation was prohibited by Arnold, you really should read what I write the first time. Very specifically, I am claiming that the method/type of tax in specific is what is unconstitional.

OOOOPS!

I mean to say "by the constitution", not "by arnold"! :LOL!

[Arnold]

OOOOPS!

I mean to say "by the constitution", not "by arnold"! :LOL!Don't worry - if it was up to me taxes would be prohibited... :hehe:

[casaba]

Don't worry - if it was up to me taxes would be prohibited... :hehe:

Not even Queen Rand promotes the abolition of all taxes. Someone has to pay for the police state, no?

[casaba]

Teal never asked any such of a thing. :ahem:
This is a bit silly going on about this: You asked what part of the constitution cannot be changed by amendment; Neo (incorrectly) responded something about taxation, which was prohibitied for the first thirty or so years of the Republic; you provided the correct answer, the number of Senators from each state; and I simply added that it could not be changed without the state's consent. Finished?


Big time error - you're looking at the pop, not a sample. 14% of a population is huge - or would be if you were looking at the percentage of their reversals instead of the mean. Either way, 69 is your population, not a sample. Hence the mean isn't a good measure here (for once the raw numbers tell the story better - but that's usually true of a pop).

The mean isn't a good measure here period. The better measure is simply comparing the percentages of reversals outright. You might get away with it were we dealing in samples but we aren't. Those are whole populations.

I don't care how you abbreviate it - as long as I can figure out what you mean - but I'm not using the 'wonk' (whatever that means) version. :eww:
'Wonk'? Don't know what you are refering to.

As far as mean versus sample, yes, you are right, I was wrong in calling it a "sample" of 69; it was a "population" of 69, as you indicated. However, the differences, 8% and 14%, are still small. I change my last statement (from "For a sample size of only 69, 14% is far from conclusive") to "A difference of 14% in reversal rate is far from overwhelming". Agreeable to that?

Now, going back to your initial statement, I see what you intended and how I read it. You wrote "the percentage the Circuit Court's cases heard by the Supreme Court which are overturned". I took "the Circuit Court" to be the Ninth. I am guessing that you meant "the Circuit Courts' cases" meaning of the total CC cases (sorry, but the placement of that apostrophe does change the meaning).


Does bring up something I need to look into - why the heck is the Ninth seeing so many cases? Looking at it geographically I wouldn't think it had that big of a population comparatively.
Huh? I guess you are not from California. Yes, the Ninth Circuit Court's jurisdiction encompasses more than 20% of the nation's population, far larger than any other CC.


[/B]I think you are in error here - there's no reason to expect the reviews to average out. They are not selected randomly.

The entire claim that the Ninth CC is out of line with the other courts is relative to the average. I agree completely that they are not selected randomly. There may be good reasons for the differences: maybe lawyers in the west are more adventuresome, maybe the western states are more likely to pass original leglislation (e.g. assisted suicide, three-strikes, medical marijuana), or maybe it's the other courts that are unnecessarily afraid of being overruled by the SC and are thus over conservative. I suggest we look at the caseload of the SC: if they are overloaded, then the Ninth Court should let up a bit, but if they can handle more cases, it is the other courts that are not doing their job.


[/B]Okay, oddly enough we come to the same conclusion. :shrug:
...
:argh: An analysis paper is supposed to take a position!!!! That's blatantly unfair to dismiss something as biased simply because it does what it's supposed to do.

Okay.

I do not claim that the Ninth Circuit Court is in line with the other Circuit Courts. I can't say I have conclusive evidence either way. The actual data in the 'analysis' you linked suggest a posible problem. However, my bone of contention has been that the source you quoted was far from an analysis. I don't know if 'analysis' means something different in legalese. An analysis should analyze the data and draw conclusions from said data. More than 25% of the paper is dedicated to anecdotal evidence while another 20% is attacks on individual judges, giving individual statistics while providing no other statistics for comparisons. If I was being nice, I would call the paper a position paper: it took a position and tried to present data to support it. Most of the time, I'd call this paper a hack job. Of particular note were the uninformative, even misleading plots. I do thank you for linking it, as the appendices did provide actual data; however, I was disappointed that you directly refered Jimmy to these plots.

[Arnold]

Not even Queen Rand promotes the abolition of all taxes. Someone has to pay for the police state, no?I was joking - to a certain extent. But if I could have my druthers I would have a state that provides security, policing, economic policy, safety regulation and not much else. The rest would be left to the free market. Funding of the government would be mostly from investment, user fees, goodwill donations, and the purchase of resource rights and voting rights. Some taxes might be necessary, but I would hope not.

[casaba]

I was joking - to a certain extent. But if I could have my druthers I would have a state that provides security, policing, economic policy, safety regulation and not much else. The rest would be left to the free market. Funding of the government would be mostly from investment, user fees, goodwill donations, and the purchase of resource rights and voting rights. Some taxes might be necessary, but I would hope not.

Providing economic policy? Again, stepping out of line with Rand, no?

So the government is essentially a police force, funded by user fees? Sort of a reverse corruption: Don't pay the bribe and the police won't come after you... or protect you.

Investment? Of what assets?

Resource rights? So the government owns resources? Sounding a bit like a pinkie to me.

Selling voting rights? So it's not the Individual that matters, it's the dollar. Good to have that straight. And what would an elected official have power to do?

Good to see that the Objectivist / Individualist / Capitalist / Libertarian metality is alive and confused as ever.

[Timothy Leary]

Not even Queen Rand promotes the abolition of all taxes. Someone has to pay for the police state, no?

Does modern liberalism cause denseness?\
Arnold was making a joke

[casaba]

Does modern liberalism cause denseness?\
Arnold was making a joke

To quote Arnold, "to a certain extent" he was making a joke. Why don't you catch up in the thread before launching insults?

And by the way, I won't call you 'dense' but did you catch the phrase I used: 'police state' as opposed to simply 'police'? I really am getting discouraged here, Neo. The conservatives throw jokes/insults left and right, yet when someone from the more humane side of the spectrum replies in kind, he gets a reply like yours above. Oh well, there goes the my belief that Obj/Indi/Libertarians tend to be intelligent but simply misguided souls...

[Arnold]

Providing economic policy? Again, stepping out of line with Rand, no? Rand who?

So the government is essentially a police force, funded by user fees? Sort of a reverse corruption: Don't pay the bribe and the police won't come after you... or protect you.Oh of course - I wouldn't have it any other way but corrupt. :ahem:

Investment? Of what assets?Surpluses of course.

Resource rights? So the government owns resources? Sounding a bit like a pinkie to me.Access rights. :ahem:

Selling voting rights? So it's not the Individual that matters, it's the dollar. Good to have that straight. And what would an elected official have power to do?People should pay to have the privilege to vote and pay for the voting process. Those who do not wish to vote need not pay. Elected officials would hopefully do as little as possible.

Good to see that the Objectivist / Individualist / Capitalist / Libertarian metality is alive and confused as ever.You have obviously never entertained any ideas outside of your own small world, so you automatically think the worst of anything new - hence your assumptions about police corruption, etc.

You simply MUST be a liberal. Let me guess:

You think the economy is terrible, W's tax cuts were a disaster and Bush lied about Iraq.

Correct?

Oh, and maybe you are one of the 37% of Democrats that think that either Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or he actually caused it to happen.

[casaba]

Rand who?

Oh of course - I wouldn't have it any other way but corrupt. :ahem:

Surpluses of course.

Access rights. :ahem:

People should pay to have the privilege to vote and pay for the voting process. Those who do not wish to vote need not pay. Elected officials would hopefully do as little as possible.

You have obviously never entertained any ideas outside of your own small world, so you automatically think the worst of anything new - hence your assumptions about police corruption, etc. [etc. etc. etc.]

Well, I'm guessing I have a few more years under this sun than you, as well as having entertained a few more ideas. I'm sorry if I confused you with an Ayn Rand devotee; the last few threads in which we have crossed paths, I took you to be a Libertarian (in line with Neo), perhaps even Objectivist. But seeing how little thought you put into the statements and rebuttals we've exchanged (admittedly, light-heartedly), I can now restore my belief that Libertarians/Objectivists tend to be quite intelligent.

Now, I'm guessing you are a rather plain, partisan Republican: Taxes bad, GW good. (This is just a guess; my error if I am wrong.) Somehow, you see surpluses occuring while getting rid of taxes? You think that government can somehow collect on access rights on natural resources without claiming ownership? As far as I can tell, your thought processes go about as far up the dial as it takes to find the Rush Limbaugh show.

Before you start calling people 'liberals', I suggest you go out and find out what the term really means. You'll find that there are much more descriptive terms out there for the politics that you disagree with (e.g. socialist, bureaucratic, authoritarian, ; not everything you disagree with falls under one banner. People will actually listen to what you say if you criticize things intelligently. When you shout your 'liberal' accusation everytime you read something you disagree with, you don't appear to have ever "entertained any ideas outside of your own small world". Prove me wrong, please.

[Arnold]

Now, I'm guessing you are a rather plain, partisan Republican: Taxes bad, GW good. (This is just a guess; my error if I am wrong.) Somehow, you see surpluses occuring while getting rid of taxes? You think that government can somehow collect on access rights on natural resources without claiming ownership? As far as I can tell, your thought processes go about as far up the dial as it takes to find the Rush Limbaugh show. Really, you should stop illustrating that you get your "info" from Daily Kos. JFK lowered taxes and government revenues went up. Ronald Reagan lowered taxes and government revenues went up. W lowered taxes and government revenues have been going up.

Before you start calling people 'liberals', I suggest you go out and find out what the term really means. You'll find that there are much more descriptive terms out there for the politics that you disagree with (e.g. socialist, bureaucratic, authoritarian, ; not everything you disagree with falls under one banner. People will actually listen to what you say if you criticize things intelligently. When you shout your 'liberal' accusation everytime you read something you disagree with, you don't appear to have ever "entertained any ideas outside of your own small world". Prove me wrong, please.Ah... my mistake - I see now that you are an ashamed liberal.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Not even Queen Rand promotes the abolition of all taxes. Someone has to pay for the police state, no?

Rand proposes a voluntary tax scheme. So, it's a rather loose interpretation of the word "tax."