If you answer serious questions like this you and your opinions simply have no credibility.

But it's obvious to the others that you can't answer, which is why you don't. Fox News fascists don't do thought or thinking.

I asked "Wilczek" to specifically answer how his "rule of law" claim jibed with Flight 800. He declined. So I'll take that as a concession that he admits he is wrong and does so by not answering.

This is the new rule in America. Saying something that isn't true, declining to answer, then arrogantly shoving it in your face to show that they have power no matter what - which is the real 'rule' here...


Lying hypocrits.

He does not say the constitution is "NOT" a living document intended to change to meet societies needs. But, he demands that it "evolve" by the mandated methodology. And that would be through "amendment" thereof. Not "opined" decisions from the bench of unelected political appointees. What I find very amusing is the fact that around the early 1920s this nation was "duped" by secular law degree producing institutions like "Harvard", "Yale", ....etc., into doing away with the precedence of referencing Blackstone's Theory of Law in rendering decisions from the bench. They shelved this Book of Laws which was used to draft the very laws that the judges were to "judicially review" in favor of looking at what other sitting judges had "opined" from the bench in consideration of interpreting the constitution. This nation's legal system of jurisprudence has indeed went to hell in a hand basket from that time froward. As now Supreme Court Judges consider their right of "judicial review" to be paramount to even words found in the constitution, and worse yet, they are allowed to make opinion from some other sources other than what the intent of the writings were drafted from in the first place....that being Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law. Just how indeed can anyone opine about what any intentions of the Law refers to when the original source is not used to reference such opinion? Can anyone say.....SOCIAL COMMUNISM? As "we the people" have been taken completely out of the loop, when any consideration is to be given on the evolution of the constitution and placed it in the hands of life time political appointees who have never even had to "sniff" a ballot in consideration of holding that self professed position of "legal dictatorship". BD

I hope nobody is baffled by this crap.

1) The quote by justice Marshall is nice, but lately it has no real meaning considering that James Sanders pled to be availed of those very laws "Wilczek" cites and was denied by that same judiciary. If anyone is reading this, note that our eloquent friend here is adept at citing higher writ but somewhat noticeably lacking in response when it comes to actually answering how that fine law he references isn't actually practiced by its promoters. To say the sword of justice cuts both ways is to ignore how the blade was illegally held back in the case of Flight 800 and how that original framework has been broken by bureacrats abusing their authority at the expense of what he professes.

2) It once again grinds against reality for persons to use a Guantanamo case to boast about how beneficial or system of government is when in fact Guantanamo is the spearhead of the destruction of our previous Constitutional understanding and the entry point of a new type of military government in America that has introduced things like torture and the destruction of basic habeus corpus. This is exactly what I was talking about when I referred to the current hubris of conservatives and how safe they feel living within their own self-description of what they do. As you can see, they don't hesitate to take one of the worst examples of the deterioration of what they speak of and turn it into a self-congratulatory approval. There's something sick and backwards happening in this country that is probably a common symptom of a nation in decline. The atmosphere of the case of which he speaks is one where innocent people were tortured and denied representation because the government had bypassed the very framework he cites and imposed a more primitive authority more common in lesser states. Typically, from this he derives a positive reinforcing conclusion, when all things known about this situation say the opposite. This is what Scalia is courting and helping on and exactly what he represents.

3) What "Wilczek" writes might sound good, but it isn't very honest. The Military Commissions Act of which he speaks was just a change of scripts after the Supreme Court overturned the first act (or it expired). What happened was the corrupt and contemptuous Bush administration siezed power and wrote the MCA to reinstate their powers. It is just as abusive and just as threatening to our rights as the first Act, yet "Wilczek" poses it as if it was some kind of profound victory. Probably few in here are familiar with the Act. I read a Nat Hentoff article on it - it grants Bush huge invasive powers just like the Act it replaced. So "Wilczek" gives us a good example of what I'm talking about in the original post. These people don't hesitate to flagrantly lie, distort, and pander as if they were in obeyance of something they clearly are not.



But the silence in response to a specific case, like Flight 800, speaks more than anything I can type. The Constitution is mainly the play thing and prop of power abusers making sure you can never touch them in their real workings. It serves as good cover. All they are left with is recitations of formal puffery that isn't really practiced any more.

If you look at recent events the most flagrant case of "political appointees" has been the Bush Administration's manipulation of federal district attorney's to the states and jailing of an ex-governor in the south. This was done by and for the side Scalia represents, that is, the conservatives. The Attorney General ended up resigning because of this. Contempt citations were given to cabinet members.

It is this very position and sense of untouchable authority from which Scalia got his smug 'tone' on '60 Minutes'. It's the same thing that made him remark contemptuously about torture and give those unsophisticated street-level replies. If anything his calling for Constitutional fidelity is obviously his conscience bothering him or some kind of freudian reaction.

If I blew-off contempt citations I would have federal marshalls in my driveway. Do it as a high government member and nothing happens. That in itself is an abrogation of the Constitution.

Good posting, Jetblast.

Keep up the good work, citizen.

There is nothing wrong with the "political" appointees this is the constitutional right of any sitting president, it is the position they have assumed as LAW GIVER, instead of the constitutionally mandated position of being only an arbitrator of any impasse to the law. The system has become nothing short of a circus at the confirmation hearings. As EVERYONE knows exactly were the true power in this nation now rests and it sure as hell is not with "we the people" any longer, it rests with we the people that have the power and the money to buy sitting judges that dictate law from the bench.

Like the American Communist Lawyers Union rep...Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is nothing short of a full fledged communist supporter of the European Ideology...etc. The system has been hi-jacked while we have slept. We need true "judicial reviews" not new laws masked as reviewable impasses. Just as with 73 Roe. V. Wade case. It never should have been allowed to even be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the first place....state law should have been declared paramount just as it had been declared as precedent in the previous two hundred years prior. The system is a joke, as murder has been justified to fall at the feet of personal choice, by OPINION ONLY, not by amendment of the people. Does anyone really believe that .75% of the population would be in favor of legalized abortion in 1973, or hell, right now for that matter...the best might be around 50% the same as the liberal idiots that support murder in payment of sexual indiscrection. BD

The question regarding Flight 800 is inapposite. That case involved the limitation of damages for maritime accidents under the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920 (DOHSA). In 2000, the Congress passed FAA Reauthorization Bill, including an amendment to DOHSA; which was made retroactive to the day before the Flight 800 crash. See 46 U.S.C. Sec. 761-68. It was not for the courts to rewrite the law; but rather the Congress. By the bye, this is happening in many areas that Congress as enacted limitations on your right to seek redress in the courts. So, if you have a bone to pick, it is with the legislature, not the courts.

(smile) You don't ask serious questions, you state hate filled rhetoric. You get the answers you deserve. When you indeed ask a "serious" question, let me know. You do realize that your opinions don't mean squat?

You have to understand Jet's M.O., when he gets cornered he throws out all kinds of things that do not pertain to the original subject, this is the case with his Flight 800 obfuscation.