Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Of the 30 or so lawyers I've talked with since this started through today, I'd say 80/20 in favor of the ruling. And even those opposed admit the law is "technically" in favor of this ruling, but an exception should somehow be made>> UN-be-lievable. Did these lawyers finish law school? There is NO way this insane ruling will stand. None. Zero. It is that flawed. Tell all of these crack legal eagles someone wants to bet them $500 each this ruling gets overturned since they all agree with the big ACLU supporting lib judge.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<All they have to do is obtain a warrant. How unreasonable is that? >> Very unreasonable to get a warrant to monitor thousands of calling patterns and words. You need to learn what it actually going on with the NSA program. << Unsubstantiated neo-con rumor. Credit on exposing this terror plot is going to pakistan and scotland yard. There has been no mention of bush, the US, or the NSA wire-tapping program. Wishful thinking on your part. >> The brits were in touch with the Bush administration on this a long time ago. They used a lot of tools to break this plot up. Torture, a mole, spying on their conversations. I can't believe people are for NOT listening to a terrorist phone call. That is EXACTLY what liberals are pushing for, you know, the terrorist bill of rights to talk in private. Then the libs give us some BS about civil rights and the constitution when these things are not even in play here. You would think people would be upset that this ACLU, Jimmy Carter judge just made all of our lives more dangerous.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Come on beau, a concise legal analysis of why this ruling is flawed. Not just parroting some radio blather or whining it isn't right because somebody else told you so. Let's see if you have it in you, let's see if you're able to come up with your own analysis without plagiarizing from somebody else, because that can be traced in a heartbeat. No name calling, no rhetoric, no lib this or lib that, just straight forward analysis.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I could give you a head start, because there are some weaknesses in the judge's rulings. But I just don't feel it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I can't believe people are for NOT listening to a terrorist phone call. That is EXACTLY what liberals are pushing for, you know, the terrorist bill of rights to talk in private. Then the libs give us some BS about civil rights and the constitution when these things are not even in play here." This little passage shows you're probably just not smart enough. If you're going to lie and twist facts, the sure sign of someone on unsteady footing, it doesn't look good. People are all for the wiretaps. Just get a warrant. It's that simple. You understand the word simple, don't you?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You don't need a warrant with this program. It's that simple. It's been proven legal, it's a program that works during a time of war. You might want to round up your buddies and learn the law.
Originally Posted By mele Why don't you take the Bar exam, Beau? Obviously you have an incredible grasp of American law and you feel that a college degree is worthless. Why not prove your superiority by passing the exam?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why not prove your superiority by passing the exam?>> Everyone knows that that the Bar Exam is written by Libs and the ACLU. Anyone who takes the test is Anti-American and wants Saddam back in control of Iraq. If you weren't such a stupid moonbat liberal you'd realize this.
Originally Posted By mele Oh yes, I'd forgotten. I was distracted by getting high while making a bracelet.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Oh yes, I'd forgotten. I was distracted by getting high while making a bracelet.>> That's OK. You can always sell ice cream at a Ben & Jerry's. (Is that better or worse than Beau's last Lib occupation... working at Starbucks?)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You can't take the bar in Oregon unless you've graduated from an approved law school.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can't take the bar in Oregon unless you've graduated from an approved law school.>> Are you telling me that Beau's degree from the "Back of the Matchbook Institute of Law" doesn't qualify? Crap... he'll be PO'ed when he finds out he wasted $50.
Originally Posted By mele <<You can't take the bar in Oregon unless you've graduated from an approved law school.>> So, Beau isn't even qualified enough to take the test. And yet, he knows more than every lawyer that SPP spoke with yesterday. I guess Beau got mad law skills, yo. (If you think that last line was painful to read, it was worse to write. LOL.)
Originally Posted By mele <<Matchbook Institute of Law>> I will think of that everytime he states his "legal" opinion. LOL
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, Beau isn't even qualified enough to take the test. And yet, he knows more than every lawyer that SPP spoke with yesterday. I guess Beau got mad law skills, yo.> Or he reads the thoughts of lawyers who are actually involved in these matters, like I do. Experts in Constitutional law say this ruling will be overturned.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I wish the lawyers, here, who so the wonderful posting of the actual legal documents and arguments, would stop erasing the rulings that show why they are illegal. What i want to know is not just how the criminals tried to make a mockery of the constitution. I also want specifically pointed out in the ruling, where they broke the law intentionally, since every action was part of a plan, that followed a pattern, acording to a clock. I think what is important is the american people understanding why george bush isn't legally president, and how he is constantly breaking the law, and making a mockery of our constitution.
