Dolphin (fish) are good eating; at some point restaurants began using the Hawaiian name on their menus to avoid outraging customers who would have thought that Flipper was on the menu.
The dolphin/mahi mahi, above
Posted on 09/15/2006 8:09:05 AM PDT by AdAstraPerArdua
Hoow big an army does this judge have?
Just throwing this out there, but where exactly in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does in fact have the *final* say on what is, or isn't Constitutional ? I wholeheartedly would put more faith in a jury to decide a law's alignment with the Constitution, rather than a single judge, or even SCOTUS.
A few of my favorite quotes:
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. "
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong. "
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. "
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
I contend what I said -It would be fine if people stayed in the water.
It's the fact that people won't stay off the private land and use the "access" as carte blanche to tresspass.
Suppose the problem were the yard in front of your house that is accessible to the public from the street. If people continually pulled down your mail box or fence, so that they could cut across on your yard, how would you feel about having to stand guard and catch them in the act?
The custom for people using street access seems to be different from that expected by people on rivers and lakes. Part of the problem is the propaganda that "access" means more than staying in the water.
Clinton/Carter/Democrat criteria for Federal Judge:
You must be
a) A horse's ass
b) have an IQ of 50 or less
c) be utterly corrupt ("activist")
It is a title held in trust for the people of the State that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing free from obstruction or interference from private parties. --"
Common law is common sense, and if a landowner is damaged, he can put his claim before a jury. -- Apparently, in this case the owner appealed the jury decision, and got the judge to 'see it' his way..
It's the fact that people won't stay off the private land and use the "access" as carte blanche to tresspass.
Its a fact that 'we the people' have a right to access navigable waters for sporting purposes.
Suppose the problem were the yard in front of your house that is accessible to the public from the street. If people continually pulled down your mail box or fence, so that they could cut across on your yard, how would you feel about having to stand guard and catch them in the act? The custom for people using street access seems to be different from that expected by people on rivers and lakes. Part of the problem is the propaganda that "access" means more than staying in the water.
There is no 'propaganda' being presented here that I can see.. Can you?
Isn't Mahi-Mahi dolphin fish, as opposed to the mammal called dolphin? That's been my understanding - dolphin fish are not the same thing as dolphins, and mahi are dolphin fish.
Don't take it personally. As I said, the customs seem to be different in a boat, and I've heard all sorts of rumors like 10 feet or 20 feet from the water, etc.
Wouldn't it be great to storm this judge's office in pirate garb, nab him, and then force him to walk the plank?
Noted NOPD had/has plenty of problems (glad the FBI sorted all that out /s).
I seriously doubt any LEO is going to want the paperwork and lawsuit that will follow the first confiscation under this judge's ruling. I suspect that there would be a long list of them looking to impound the judge's boat, though.
I suspect that this misadventure into the legal system will cost the judge (either in votes or in loss-of-face as it gets overturned).
It never was a public waterway until the Government declared it so.
Property rights anyone?
WHAT? How do we get rid of these Dictator judges who are ruling the country these days?
Dolphin (fish) are good eating; at some point restaurants began using the Hawaiian name on their menus to avoid outraging customers who would have thought that Flipper was on the menu.
The dolphin/mahi mahi, above
Time to Confirm 'Constitutionalist' Judges, Conservatives Warn
excerpted from CNSNews.com, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200609/NAT20060914b.html
September 14, 2006 12:13PM EST
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 14, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - With time running out and conservative activists fuming, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday is expected to discuss at least four of the five federal appeals court candidates recently renominated by President Bush.
Conservatives want those nominations to be sent to the full Senate without further delay.
The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary says the Senate must take an up-or-down vote on Terrence Boyle and William Haynes (nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.), William Myers and Norman Randy Smith (9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco) and Michael Wallace (5th Circuit in New Orleans).
Most of the nominees have been waiting for two or three years for a "yes" or a "no" from the full Senate.
"The obstruction of the president's judicial nominations is wholly without merit," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.
"The extremists in the Senate are playing with fire. The electorate wholeheartedly rejected their obstruction in 2002 and 2004 and woe be to those who continue down this foolhardy pathway. The clock is ticking."
The coalition says it is time to put the brakes on "activist judges" (such as Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit) who are "working overtime to thwart the war effort" by stripping the nation of its ability to catch terrorists.
Judge Taylor, a Jimmy Carter appointee, recently declared President Bush's terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional.
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.