Timing is everything, isn't it? (political thread)

[Briar Rose 7457]

Padilla info declassified

why release the information now, instead of six months ago or a week after the court reaches a decision, except to improperly influence the court?

I read excerpts from the oral argument, I don't think the moderate Republicans on the court were happy with the president...

 

[AirForceRocks]

If the court is "improperly influenced" seems that the problem is with the court, not with the release of the information.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

you know, I don't think the court will be influenced by this...though this is the smae court that let politics make their decision in the 2000 election ...but I do question the timing.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
you know, I don't think the court will be influenced by this...though this is the smae court that let politics make their decision in the 2000 election ...but I do question the timing.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but that certainly doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

I read the decision, Brenda, and it was strange to read the conservtive judges espousing what is usually a liberal position and the liberal judges espousing a traditionally conservative opinion.

I also read excerpts from the oral argument before the court on the Padilla case, and Justice O'Connor was not happy if you know what I mean.

but you're sidetracking back to the 2000 election when the real issue is why did they release the Padilla information now? why not six montha ago? why not a week after the court comes to a decision on his case?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I read the decision, Brenda, and it was strange to read the conservtive judges espousing what is usually a liberal position and the liberal judges espousing a traditionally conservative opinion.

I read the decision too, and 7 out of the 9 justices (liberals and conservatives) agreed that the recount in FL, as it was being carried out, was unconstitutional. The only difference was in the remedy.

but you're sidetracking back to the 2000 election when the real issue is why did they release the Padilla information now? why not six montha ago? why not a week after the court comes to a decision on his case?

I'M sidetracking back to 2000? I think you need to re-read your own post - YOU'RE the one that brought up the 2000 election, not me.

As for why now, I have no idea, and frankly, I don't care. If it affects the court's decision, it affects the decision. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

Brenda, I made a passing reference to 2000 in a post that was otherwise devoted to Padilla, and you took that ball and ran with it...

but the release of the information does raise another interesting point --- if the material can be declassified, why is Padilla being held without charges, without a trial date, etc.? wasn't the justification for his secret imprisonment the "sensitive nature" of the material?

and doesn't the release of the information mena the government can now go ahead and charge him and try him, rendering his secret improsonment moot?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Brenda, I made a passing reference to 2000 in a post that was otherwise devoted to Padilla, and you took that ball and ran with it...

Nice try, but you didn't make a "passing reference" at all, almost the entire post was about the politics of the Supreme Court as it pertained to the 2000 decision. As for me running with it, try again. I simply said I disagreed with your opinion, at which point I was treated to your ever popular "I read the decision" (translation: "I'm a lawyer, and I know best and you're wrong, so let's end the discussion now") If you didn't want to discuss the 2000 election, you had two chances: 1) Don't bring it up in the first place and 2) Agree to disagree on the reasoning behind the decision. But please don't launch into analysis of the decision and then say that someone else is taking the thread off track.

 

[Melora]

I think they better charge him with something.

And I do believe that Briar Rose only made one passing statement about the 2000 election, ("you know, I don't think the court will be influenced by this...though this is the smae court that let politics make their decision in the 2000 election ...but I do question the timing"). It didnt sound like she was trying to bring it up as a matter of debate. I cant see how one line can be misconstrued into "almost the entire post was about the politics of the Supreme Court as it pertained to the 2000 decision". Unless there was more that was edited out that I didnt see.

Funny how some people (Bush supporters) are still so touchy about that unfortunate decision.

 

[Melora]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
but the release of the information does raise another interesting point --- if the material can be declassified, why is Padilla being held without charges, without a trial date, etc.? wasn't the justification for his secret imprisonment the "sensitive nature" of the material?

and doesn't the release of the information mena the government can now go ahead and charge him and try him, rendering his secret improsonment moot?

I totally agree with you and its very frustrating watching some aspects of out government in action....

 

[AirForceRocks]

It didnt sound like she was trying to bring it up as a matter of debate.

Hmm...then why did she continue to debate it after all I said was "I disagree"? Seems like that would have been the perfect opportunity to drop the entire 2000 election subject, no?

Funny how some people (Bush supporters) are still so touchy about that unfortunate decision.

Funny how some people (Gore supporters) can't let it go after almost four years, and have to bring it up for a wah wah session even when it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

[Van Helsing]

Lost again Afr - well done Briar Rose 7457

 

[cheyita]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Funny how some people (Gore supporters) can't let it go after almost four years, and have to bring it up for a wah wah session even when it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

That is exactly how I saw it!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Lost again Afr - well done Briar Rose 7457

Wow, that's gotta make her feel good. Being on the same side as you!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
Brenda, I made a passing reference to 2000 in a post that was otherwise devoted to Padilla, and you took that ball and ran with it...

but the release of the information does raise another interesting point --- if the material can be declassified, why is Padilla being held without charges, without a trial date, etc.? wasn't the justification for his secret imprisonment the "sensitive nature" of the material?

and doesn't the release of the information mena the government can now go ahead and charge him and try him, rendering his secret improsonment moot?

Yep, it's a conspiracy for sure. And from a predominantly liberal SC. Who woulda thunk?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Wow, that's gotta make her feel good. Being on the same side as you!

No doubt!!!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
Padilla info declassified

why release the information now, instead of six months ago or a week after the court reaches a decision, except to improperly influence the court?

I read excerpts from the oral argument, I don't think the moderate Republicans on the court were happy with the president...

Why...............you answered the question in the thread title ...............Politics.

This summer season ought to be a doozy. The "cover our ***" machinations this administration is doing is truly a wonder to behold.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If the court is "improperly influenced" seems that the problem is with the court, not with the release of the information.

Wrong again, AFR.

The problem is not only with the court, but the ones attempting to do the influencing through the release of information.

 

[Van Helsing]

DawnCt1 its always feels great to be on the side of good

Wrong again, AFR.

Aww no not again

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I read the decision too, and 7 out of the 9 justices (liberals and conservatives) agreed that the recount in FL, as it was being carried out, was unconstitutional. The only difference was in the remedy.

The remedy being a 5/4 decision to stop the counting of legal votes instead of devising a remedy to count all legal votes.

There was no way on God's green earth the more conservative members of the SC were going to take the chance that Bush would legally lose.

And the rest, as they say, is history which includes 3 million lost jobs, a quagmire in Iraq, record deficits, derailing the war on terror, loss of allies, loss of the moral highgrouond, and on and on.