| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2005 5:18:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
new thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446387/posts |
Posted on 07/19/2005 9:23:04 AM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:12:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
TICK TOCK...............
I hope you are being sarcastic, but I don't think you are.
Source?
Try not to expect the worst in every single situation; melodrama doesn't suit you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446143/posts
Sec. Specter's Staff Just Sent This Note Around The Senate
The Supreme Court Nomination Blog ^ | Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 02:31 PM | Tom Goldstein
Posted on 07/19/2005 2:50:17 PM EDT by Checkers
"The October 4, 2001 confirmation hearing for Edith Clement is available full text online. See S.Hrg. 107-584, Pt. 1 on GPO Access http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate14ch107.html. This includes submissions to the record, any follow-up questions, and her questionnaire."
Check this out in breaking news
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446143/posts
Re: Post 814
Democrat Underground thanks you for the fodder.
Dope.
Why waste time with the comment line?
Call Karl Rove directly.
Rove:
202-456-2369 (I had posted another number previously, but it was incorrect....mildly big oopsie since it was actualy the WH situation room number.....but, this is the number listed on the results.gov appointee directory site, so it has to be right).
Fax for Rove's office: 202-456-2461 (make sure to say it is for him on the cover sheet...seems there is just one big WH fax number that is public).
Timothy Goeglein, WH Public Liaison, at (202) 456-2930
Andrew Card's office, WH Chief of Staff: 202-456-6798
Well, there are plenty of people on this very thread who think they are MORE than qualified than anybody Bush can nominate, so there will be plenty of applicants. :-)
And, if most of the people knew that, the majority would oppose Roe. What Roe did was take power from the people and give more power to judges that want to act as dictators.
that's American how?
jeepers..you just confirm the worst fears of the "coming" theocracy" crowd with comments like that.
One more exclamantion point and I would have insisted you medicate yourself.
I've said it before, Boxershorts reminds me of the little old lady on GOlden Girls.
Here:
Business Casescontinued below...
Bratcher v. Nat'l Standard Life Ins. Co. (In re Monumental Life Ins. Co.), 365 F.3d 408 (CA5 2004) - dissented from panel decision authorizing class action to challenge racial discrimination in sale of life insurance policies.Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (CA5 2003) - held that disgorgement of past profits was not a proper equitable remedy under RICO where defendant was no longer producing product that gave rise to RICO claim and, therefore, disgorgement would not serve to deter similar RICO violations in the future.
Commerce Clause
GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, 362 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2004): Judge Clement joined Judge Edith Hollan Jones's dissenting opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc. The opinion argued that the Endangered Species Act could not be applied to protect a rare species of underground bug since this act of preservation was not connected with "any sort of commerce, whether tourism, scientific research, or agricultural markets."Federalism
U.S. v. McFarland, 311 F.3d 376 (CA5 2002): A defendant who had been convicted of violating the Hobbs Act challenged his conviction on the grounds that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish a nexus to interstate commerce. Judge Clement joined Judge Garwood's dissent from the en banc opinion, arguing that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to reach local robberies under the Hobbs Act.Standing
Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc. --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1385197 (CA5 2005): joined a majority opinion by Judge Jerry E. Smith holding that an employee who failed to disclose her pending EEOC charge and potential title VII claim to a bankruptcy court was judicially estopped from asserting Title VII claims pending at time she filed bankruptcy petition, as well as claims filed while bankruptcy was pending.Punitive Damages
Vogler v. Blackmore, 352 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2003): Judge Clement authored a majority opinion reducing a jury verdict for pain and suffering damages to the estates of a mother and three-year old daughter killed when an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer crossed the highway center-line and ran over their car. The damages to the mother were reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 and the pain and suffering award for the daughter was eliminated entirely based on the lack of specific evidence about the daughter's "awareness of the impending collision."Criminal Sentencing
United States v. Houston, 364 F.3d 243 (CA5 2004) - held that consensual sex, constituting statutory rape, between 20 year old male and 17 year old girl was not a "crime of violence" for purposes of provision requiring sentencing enhancement for crimes of violence.United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement, writing for a unanimous panel, found that possession of a deadly weapon was not a crime of violence within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and therefore overturned an enhancement to the defendant's sentence.
United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement found that the district court erred in attributing five kilograms of cocaine to the defendant for sentencing purposes. Although the defendant was in fact part of a conspiracy to distribute that amount of drugs, only quantities which the defendant was actually involved with or could have reasonably foreseen (however, the sentence was upheld because Judge Clement found the error to be harmless).
United States v. Vargas-Duran, 319 F.3d 194 (CA5 2003) - Judge Clement dissented from the panel's decision that a conviction for "intoxicated assault" was necessarily a conviction for a "crime of violence" because it necessitated the use of force against another person. Judge Clement argued that under binding precedent, use of force was only a "crime of violence" if it was intentional. On rehearing en banc, the full circuit adopted Judge Clement's position.
Death Penalty/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Riley v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 302 (CA5 2004) - rejected habeas claim by capital defendant whose defense attorney disregarded IQ test showing that inmate was retarded because attorney believed, based on personal observation and family and school records, that his client was not retarded.Beltran v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a defense attorney's failure to impeach eyewitness identifications with prior inconsistent statements by the witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and was grounds for habeas relief.
United States v. Harris, 408 F.3d 186 (CA5 2005) - reversing district court?s grant of habeas corpus and reinstating sentence in post-conviction proceeding brought by police officer convicted of federal civil rights violations for excessive use of force with his baton on a drunken suspect in police custody. Writing for panel, rejects defendant's argument that his counsel failed to call witnesses to rebut government evidence that defendant was a racist, explaining that none of the witnesses would have been able to testify to defendant's guilt or innocence and that in any event government could have obtained a conviction b/c of evidence that he used a dangerous weapon. Also, defendant was not charged with a hate crime. Also rejects defendant?s argument that failure to allow him to testify on his own behalf constituted ineffective assistance, explaining that there was no prejudice.
Criminal Due Process
United States v. Mason, 293 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a prosecution witness's misleading statements about the nature of his agreement with the government violated the defendant's due process rights.United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666 (Jan. 2005) - Panel affirms district court's grant of new trial to defendant tried at the same time as absent co- defendant, explaining that defendant had been clearly prejudiced by being tried along an "empty chair," particularly when much of the evidence that the jury heard was inadmissible as to her. Judge Clement dissents, finding clear and compelling evidence that defendant received a fair trial - including the limiting instructions issued by the district court to the jury, the fact that defendant was acquitted as to one charge, and the evidence itself.
First Amendment - Free Speech Generally
Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 339 F.3d 273 (5th Cir., 2003) - held that school district's policy requiring pre-approval of protest fliers handed out by parents at the school's "math night" constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint, in violation of the First Amendment.Finch v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.3d 555 (5th Cir., 2003) - held, among other things, that former principal's First Amendment retaliation claim failed when the retaliation was allegedly in response to her proposals to other school officials and school board members that the school create a special curriculum for older students who had failed several grades. The speech was not entitled to protection, the court held, because the principal failed "to show how her proposal was actually aired or considered in any 'widespread debate in the community.'"
Precisely. Your reasoning RULES!
It's a good day to just stay in and watch the telly. It's only 109 degrees out there right now....in a few hours I can pop the corn on the sidewalk.
Though not nearly as endearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.