I don't really know what that means. The cute, cryptic stuff really doesn't work in this forum. Mean what you say, say what you mean. One thing leads to another.
The deception with tact, just what are you trying to say? You've got a blank face, which irritates Communicate, pull out your party piece You see dimensions in two State your case with black or white But when one little cross leads to shots, grit your teeth You run for cover so discreet, why don't they: Do what they say, say what you mean One thing leads to another You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long But then one thing leads to another. The impression that you sell Passes in and out like a scent But the long face that you see comes from living close To your fears If this is up then I'm up but you're running out of sight You've seen your name on the walls And when one little bump leads to shock miss a beat You run for cover and there's heat, why don't they: Do what they say, say what they mean One thing leads to another You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long But then one thing leads to another One thing leads to another Then it's easy to believe Somebody's been lying to me But when the wrong word goes in the right ear I know you've been lying to me It's getting rough, off the cuff I've got to say enough's enough Bigger the harder he falls But when the wrong antidote is like a bulge on the throat You runs for cover in the heat why don't they Do what they say, say what they mean One thing leads to another You tell me something wrong, I know I listen too long But then one thing leads to another One thing leads to another (Repeat) D&D. Rinse and Repeat.
No actually judge walton, who was appointed by not one but two president bush's, has already ruled on these exceedingly mediocre arguments. ROXRAN as jailhouse lawyer you barely qualify for the bar of kangaroo court.
I support Bush's decision to commute the sentence because it makes him look like a bigger dipsh!t hypocrite than he ever has.
As Mr Obama said yesterday. “This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law."
Keep in mind Sam, I stated earlier that I am not arguing FOR the reasoning, but I can't help but acknowledge and see the reasoning as a legitimate issue to address on the validity of the commution... Hey, I think I should have finished law school of course (and you know I'd tear you up in court!...you know it, don't even say it...shhhh!), but I will say that walton didn't seem to rule on the arguments from what I have seen: Walton also expressed irritation at a six-page brief filed last week by a dozen prominent constitutional scholars urging that Libby remain free pending appeal, on grounds that the prosecution lacked proper legal authority. The brief from the group, which included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitzbut was dominated by conservative legal luminaries, including former Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, was "not persuasive" and bordered on insulting, Walton said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400199_pf.html As this suggests, walton simply made an assessment of "not persuasive", but it also suggests a crankish judge who has decided to not even respectfully address the legal points of rebuttal... I can't help, but feel the rebuttal of walton's decision and reasoning on the prosecution not being right is credible when you have a Harvard law professor, and former Supreme Court nominee among other prominent constitutional scholars stating so in a 6 page filled brief... As stated, there is reasoning on the commution.
ROX the DC Circuit court (the most conservative in the country presided over by three REPUBLICAN judges) UNAMIOUSLY upheld Walton's decision.
The three judge panel was a GW Bush appointee whose name I forget, Tatel - a Clinton appointee (well respected as a brilliant judge) and arch-conservative Sentelle, who is about as hardcore right-wing as it gets. When you can't get Sentelle on your side you are f-cked. I'm not going to address the issue of the silly attempts of a bunch of law professors to file an amicus brief after the deadline on an issue which the judge has already ruled - that issue has been reached and decided. Perhaps they need a refresher course in civil procedure and the judge's ability to control his own calendar. Profersor Kmiec has tried in retrospect to justify his actions on the brief and he ended up looking like a complete boob. As for Dershowitz and Bobby "Slip and Fall" Bork - please.
I think its important though to look at what Walton said about the brief; This seems to me as indicating that while some scholars might've signed onto it they might not have contributed much to it and that the reasoning of the brief was weak. On a related note this is another quote from Walton from the article: Walton is following the law and is applying an equal application of the law. As others posters have noted this opinion has been supported by the rest of the court. So while the President has the power to commute or pardon Libby has been duly tried, convicted and sentenced according to the law.
I think its important though to look at what Walton said about the brief; Quote: "The submission was not something I would expect from a first-year law student," a frowning Walton told Libby's new appellate attorney, Lawrence Robbins. "It appeared to be produced . . . for the sole purpose of throwing their names out there so somehow I'd feel pressure." I completely saw this portion, and what strikes me again, is walton's refusal to state "why"....walton's refusal to "rebute the reasoning on legal grounds"... Based on that I still stand on what I stated....
YOur reasoning is awful - and the brief is tremendously bad. I have read it. You have not. But anyway here is the fact that you keep forgetting, more likely never knew the brief was not timely filed . The judge did not have to address the SIX WHOLE PAGES of merits ( which consists of a lame policy argument, based primarily on an article from the Harvard Law Review as authority. In the business, we call this type of argument a "loser") because the brief was filed after the issue had been ruled on and thus not timely filed. And if you want to know the kind of sanctity that is currently afforded to deadlines by the supreme court, please read Bowles v. Russell, decided just last month.
^ Walton is stating that the arguments made in brief seem sloppy and unsophisticated and that the names on it rather than contributing just seem to be tacked on. Without reading the brief itself I can't comment on whether that is true or not but I have no reason to doubt Walton's opinion. It seems like the only reason why you, Roxran, are doubting his opinion is that you don't agree with his original ruling but haven't addressed the substance of the brief except in regard to who has attached their name to it.
its amazing what people will justify because of who they support. this administration outed a covert agent, ruining years of her work fighting for this country, because of a personal gurdge. no one can dispute that. yet you still have people actually justifying this pettiness which led to an act that can be considered treason. yet these same people have no problem with citizens being locked up with no formal charges or no due process out of "security". and they don't even see their hypocrisy.
I support the people who support the decision because it just shows where their true loyalty is. if you support this crap in no way can you ever argue an issue based on your concern for the security of this country. just admit you want to kill a bunch of brown people.
I have read it and it is exactly right. It is a six page brief, obviously it was written by one or two of them (badly, I might add - reasearching law and practicing law are not the same) and the other 10 signed on. In any event, some of the names have basically zero value from a scholarship standpoint, like Dershowitz, so I can't think of any other reason why he is there. Finally, one of the professors admitted they were name dropping. Dean Malz: "As we say in my first year Torts class, res ipsa loquitur. I think the fact that such an ideologically diverse group of legal scholars was willing to sign on to the brief speaks for itself. " LOL - translation: "look at all our famous names! please accept our not timely filed brief!" Get a life, guys, you had months or YEARS to file this brief.
Bush Commutes `Scooter' Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak Case how did GWB do it; he did not call a press conference, he did it by leaking it to reporters via a press release. no conviction whatosever; kinda like a kid knowing that he did wrong but too scare to tell the parents When Ford pardoned Nixon, he called a press conference and address the Congress. now, that's a man of conviction.
While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking. 'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/bush-and-tucker.html
