Quote: Original post by SeraphLance

Quote: Original post by LessBread
In regard to the 75% extrasupermajority threshold for removal, I find that anti-democratic. What's wrong with 50% + 1?

I can see needing some sort of supermajority. Immunity is kind of important for justices. If an arbitrary committee can remove judges at will with a simple 51% majority, it holds virtually all power over the Supreme Court. With that kind of accountability, what's the point of having a Supreme Court at all?

I just don't see how a justice can be free from political control in this sort of situation. True, the Supreme Court has a great deal of power, but I think Andrew Jackson illustrated the chink in their armor quite well.

Quote: Original post by KaptainKomunist

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I find it strange how libertarian types ramble endlessly about freedom, yet they never seem to actually take advantage of it....

They take advantage of the freedom to rant! It seems that they resent paying taxes, perhaps because they don't directly benefit from them or aren't aware of the ways they benefit from them. They might also have a need to cling to that resentment as a denial of their frailty and a source of self-righteousness. The closer the government gets to providing a universal benefit, such as health care, the more unhinged their opposition to that benefit becomes.

If anybody wants to get a feel for what a nation without strong central government looks like, you don't have to look much further than Somalia.

No useful central government [check]
No arms control [check]
No government funded services, including health care, roads, national army, police force, navy, communications, etc. [check]

Yes, truly this is the Libertarian Utopia. This is the promised land spoken to us by the prophet Ayn Rand.

Cute. However, I find that, when referring to any particular ideology, insults work best when you have some remote understanding of what people of that ideology believe. I've never in my life met a libertarian who didn't believe in some form of taxes, nor have I met one that didn't believe in a national army (though I'm sure a few of these exist somewhere).

While the staw man is amusing, it's about the equivalent of a republican accusing democrats of killing babies for sport, or a democrat accusing republicans of running theocratical oligarchies.

Unfortunately, a lot of idiots do just that. I suppose it's a lot easier to disagree with someone when you villify them.

Hey, I voted for Ron Paul in 08. I've had a change of heart on this issue because I've bothered to educate myself.

The supreme court isn't immune to political pressure.

Quote: Original post by SeraphLance
Taking anything to an extreme is a strawman, which is exactly what has been done.

That's not the definition of a strawman. Perhaps there may be a fallacy that you can cite, but "strawman" doesn't really seem appropriate here.

Quote: Original post by SeraphLance
Their ideas seem absurd, and they are. However, that doesn't equate to an entire political ideology. The notion that Somalia is a "libertarian paradise" was idiotic when that youtube video came out, and is still idiotic today.

When Somalia was cited, there was also clear reference to sects of libertarianism [Ayn Rand, in the instance that seems to have offended you].



In any case, it's not like the more moderate libertarian principles are beyond all criticism. The only complete victim of the financial crisis among the industrialized nations was also one of the most economically "free" nations [5th "freest" according to some research]. Heh.... look at them now:

McDonald's closes in Iceland as currency collapse takes a bite out of Big Mac profits

A Big Mac in Reykjavik already retails for 650 krona ($5.29). But the 20 percent increase needed to make a decent profit would have pushed that to 780 krona ($6.36), he said.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on October 26, 2009 10:57:03 PM]

Here's a new addition to the "idiots on the bench" file: Minn. court: Bong water can count as illegal drug

Quote:
MINNEAPOLIS — In Minnesota, bong water can count as an illegal drug.

That decision from Minnesota's Supreme Court on Thursday raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers in that state who fail to dump the water out of bong — a type of water pipe often used to smoke drugs

The court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.

Lower courts had held that bong water is drug paraphernalia. Possession of that is a misdemeanor crime.

The case involved a woman whose bong had about 2 1/2 tablespoons of liquid that tested positive for methamphetamine. A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later.

And you guys want to make it more difficult to remove a judge from office? Seriously? These judges were too stupid to grasp that they were being lied to. Nobody drinks bong water on purpose, let alone injects it. The narc lied and the judges were too stupid to see it. They ought to be removed for obvious gullibility. Are all the judges in Minnesota that gullible? This case suggests they are.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Here's a new addition to the "idiots on the bench" file: Minn. court: Bong water can count as illegal drug

Quote:
MINNEAPOLIS — In Minnesota, bong water can count as an illegal drug.

That decision from Minnesota's Supreme Court on Thursday raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers in that state who fail to dump the water out of bong — a type of water pipe often used to smoke drugs

The court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.

Lower courts had held that bong water is drug paraphernalia. Possession of that is a misdemeanor crime.

The case involved a woman whose bong had about 2 1/2 tablespoons of liquid that tested positive for methamphetamine. A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later.

And you guys want to make it more difficult to remove a judge from office? Seriously? These judges were too stupid to grasp that they were being lied to. Nobody drinks bong water on purpose, let alone injects it. The narc lied and the judges were too stupid to see it. They ought to be removed for obvious gullibility. Are all the judges in Minnesota that gullible? This case suggests they are.

Speaking as a MN Resident, yes, I can believe some of our judges to be that stupid.

I sent the following in an email to the public affairs officer for the MN Supreme Court.

Quote:
Are all the judges in Minnesota as gullible as the judges on your Supreme Court? The AP reports that they bought the lie that some people keep bong water to drink or inject. That's insane. Only the most gullible would believe that fiction. The agent that told that fib to the court should be held in contempt and the judges should ask themselves if it's time to retire or resign.

Here's his response:

Quote:
> Justices do not accept e-mails regarding cases. You would need to file the appropriate legal paperwork to have your voice heard.
>
> If you haven't done so yet, you may be interested in reading the opinion rather than having to depend on media reports about it: http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA080579-1022.pdf. It may answer your question.

I read the first ten pages of the ruling. The AP story was accurate.

To pile on to my criticism of Tenthers. Here are a couple of articles regarding recent episodes of Federal overreach that Tenthers ought to be raising hell over but aren't. That they aren't betrays their lack of authenticity.

After the Billionaires Plundered Alabama Town, Troops Were Called in ... Illegally

Quote:
One of this year's more disturbing stories that were ignored was the illegal Army occupation of Samson, Alab., in March following a shooting spree that raged across two towns by a disgruntled worker, leaving 11 people dead.
...
One of the creepiest details to emerge in the shooting rampage were reports that troops from nearby Fort Rucker were brought into Samson and other surrounding areas to patrol the streets. This is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, every freedom-loving American's worst nightmare.

And now, finally, the Army officially agrees that its occupation of the Alabama streets was illegal, according to an internal report the Associated Press got a hold of, following a Freedom of Information Act filing:

An Army investigation found that soldiers should not have been sent to man traffic stops in a small Alabama town after 11 people were killed in March during a shooting spree.

An Army report released to the Associated Press on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request said the decision to dispatch military police to Samson from nearby Fort Rucker broke the law. But an Army spokesman said no charges have been filed following the Aug. 10 report.
...

Pentagon Used Psychological Operation on US Public, Documents Show

Quote:
A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration's military analyst program -- aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people -- operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense Department's press and community relations offices.

Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official US military document's definition of psychological operations -- propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.

The investigation of Pentagon documents [2] and interviews with Defense Department officials and experts in public relations found that the decision to fold the military analyst program into community relations and portray it as "outreach" served to obscure the intent of the project as well as that office's partnership with the press office. It also helped shield its senior supervisor, Bryan Whitman, assistant secretary of defense for media operations, whose role was unknown when the original story of the analyst program broke.
...

It seems hard to believe that you guys believe the extremity of your own ideas. Stated nakedly, "America, love it or leave it." wasn't that supposed to be the motto of the "hardhats" that used to try and beat down hippies?

Also, "if you cooperate with a mugger out of self preservation then it's not really a mugging." One must assume the same holds true of rape in your philosophy. "But the mugger spends your money in ways that benefit you!" As if you can take the raw dollar amount, subtract inefficiencies and graft, divide it by the population and net a gain.

The basic premise is absurd, the rationalizations on top of it are meaningless.

Been reading some history? Hard Hat Riot.

Quote:
The Hard Hat Riot occurred on May 8, 1970, near the intersection of Wall Street and Broad Street and at New York City Hall. The riot started about noon when about 200 construction workers mobilized by the New York State AFL-CIO attacked about 1,000 high school and college students and others protesting the Kent State shootings, the American invasion of Cambodia and the Vietnam War.
...
Nearly all the construction workers carried American flags and signs that read "All the way, USA," and "America, Love it or Leave it."[7]
...
A postal worker rushed onto the roof of City Hall and raised the American flag there to full mast. When city workers lowered the flag back down to half-mast, a large number of construction workers stormed past the police. Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio, fearing the building would be overrun by the mob, ordered city workers to raise the flag back to full mast.[2][5][6]
...
On May 11, Brennan and officials of other unions said that the confrontation had been a spontaneous reaction by union workers "fed up" with violence and flag desecration by antiwar demonstrators, and denied that anything except fists had been used against the demonstrators.
...
On May 26, Brennan led a delegation of 22 union leaders to meet with President Nixon at the White House and presented him with a hard hat.
...
Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his Labor Secretary after the election as a reward for his support.[18]

The incident with the raising and lowering of the flag indicates these workers were undergoing serious cognitive dissonance regarding the meaning they had invested in that symbol. The entire incident was an episode of reactionary backlash, where alienated lower middle class workers vented their frustrations on to those they viewed as privileged elites. It's not difficult to frame this with Nixon in the role of Mussolini.

As for the rest of your comment, you're right, the basic premise is absurd, but absurdity is what flows from analogizing taxation with mugging and government with a mugger.