Open Thread

23 Comments

1. 

   sybil on July 23, 2005 at 2:30 pm

   in reviewing Roberts’ record.
   From Salon.com

   Don’t be surprised to see GOPers on the talk-show circuit this weekend downplaying Roberts’ conservatism. We’ll be listening for earnest avowals that Roberts does not hate toads.

   — Aaron Kinney

   • 

     BooMan on July 23, 2005 at 3:15 pm

     I think it is an interesting debate.

     Non-migratory animals living their entire lives in one state vs. the commerce clause.

     I haven’t seen the arguments though.

     • 

       sybil on July 23, 2005 at 5:05 pm

       I saw the arguments about Roberts’ ruling on the fences that would destroy the arroyo toads written out on DKos and lawyers were laughing at them.
       Slate:

       In one recent case, Roberts ruled that feds can’t use the Endangered Species Act to protect (endangered) arroyo toads since the case doesn’t involve interstate commerce. “The toad,” he wrote, “for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California.”

       People for the American Way

       John Roberts, DC Circuit
       In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney’s energy task force.

       Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003): constitutionality of Endangered Species Act
       This case involved a real estate development company’s contention that the application of the Endangered Species Act to its construction project in California was an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. After the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the company’s project “was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad,” placed on the Endangered Species List by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, the company filed suit “[r]ather than accept an alternative plan proposed by the Service.” Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court dismissed the company’s complaint, and a panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the dismissal (323 F.3d 1062), following prior D.C. Circuit precedent upholding congressional authority under the Endangered Species Act. By a vote of 7-2, the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc (by the entire court) of the panel’s ruling.
       The only dissenters were Judges Roberts and Sentelle. All of the other Republican-appointed judges on the court – Judges Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph – joined the court’s Democratic appointees in voting to deny rehearing en banc. The panel’s opinion upholding the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause in this case not only followed D.C. Circuit precedent, but was also consistent with a recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 (2001). The opinion in that case upholding the authority of Congress to protect endangered species on private lands was written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative Republican-appointee.
       Roberts’s dissent in Rancho Viejo strongly suggested that he thought it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in this case. By his vote to rehear the case and thus potentially reverse the district court, Roberts indicated that he may well be ready to join the ranks of such right-wing officials as Judge Michael Luttig (who dissented in Gibbs) and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor – nominated by President Bush to the Eleventh Circuit – in their efforts to severely limit the authority of Congress to protect environmental quality as well as the rights and interests of ordinary Americans.

       Besides that it looks like the Bush admin really owe Roberts. He assisted in the stopping the Florida recount in 2000 and he squashed the demand for the records of Cheney’s Energy meetings.

       • 

         Mnemosyne on July 23, 2005 at 5:16 pm

         I’m less troubled about toads and more worried that Roberts apparently ruled in favor of BushCo’s torture policies, only a few days before the SCOTUS nomination was announced.

         • 

           sybil on July 23, 2005 at 8:00 pm

           both rulings are indicative of a person who doesn’t care about human rights or endangered wildlife.

2. 

   Sven Triloqvist on July 23, 2005 at 3:17 pm

   From what I have read, there are a large number of  unanswered technical questions about these events.

   Until those questions are answered, the case cannot be closed.

   • 

     BooMan on July 23, 2005 at 3:24 pm

     The main problem with the Commission’s report is that is simply ignored dozens of questions that had been posed to it by the 9/11 Steering Committee.

     Many of them had nothing to do with conspiracy theories.  But their failure to address so many questions assured that those questions would persist.

     They focused heavily on the future, and how to better protect the country.  IMO that should have been a seperate commission.

     • 

       Sven Triloqvist on July 23, 2005 at 3:28 pm

       I agree totally.

       The ‘Rush to Fudgement’ may well be the eventual undoing of the Administration on any number of fronts.

       But in the case of the twin towers, only facts will work.

   • 

     Sven Triloqvist on July 23, 2005 at 3:25 pm

     In the standard analysis of ‘motivation, opportunity and method’, there are a number of different interpretations of the events.

     In the ‘black’ world, anything is possible. But theories mean little – facts rule. That is why we are here.

     Just one memo, one quote, one indiscreet remark, may prove to be a tipping point.

     Vigilance!

3. 

   catnip on July 23, 2005 at 4:03 pm

   Is there video of those hearings somewhere?

   28 pages of redacted information related to Saudi Arabia and 9/11: there is still much to be suspicious of.

4. 

   Anomalous on July 23, 2005 at 4:10 pm

   Is there a permanent link somewhere to purchase BT merchandise? (I thought there’d be a link in the advertising section, but I didn’t see one) Thanks!

   • 

     Man Eegee on July 23, 2005 at 4:16 pm

     Hello my friend  😉

     There is a store link on the top right of the main menu at the top of the page.  It’s right above the World/Open thread.

     • 

       kansas on July 23, 2005 at 4:31 pm

       My coffee cups arrived.  Yours, too?

       • 

         Man Eegee on July 23, 2005 at 4:38 pm

         LMAO, I’m working today so I haven’t been home.  Alright, Alright, you can win this time.  =)  hahaha

         • 

           kansas on July 23, 2005 at 5:37 pm

           Ha! I KNEW if I hung in there. . .

           They’re purty. I’ll buy the coffee for them at the cafe in the morning, okay?

         • 

           Mnemosyne on July 23, 2005 at 5:49 pm

           I thought of a coffee cup, or tea mug, but the description says 12 ounces. That’s humongous. Are they significantly bigger than conventional mugs? Storage space is limited here.

         • 

           kansas on July 23, 2005 at 6:07 pm

           I just tested it and I can tell you it does hold 12 oz.  It doesn’t seem humungous to me, but then I like slightly bigger than average coffee cups.

         • 

           kansas on July 23, 2005 at 6:08 pm

           I’d say it’s taller, rather than wider, if that helps.

         • 

           Man Eegee on July 23, 2005 at 6:03 pm

           Sounds good, can’t wait!

     • 

       Anomalous on July 23, 2005 at 5:56 pm

       Gracias por su amabilidad! (And have a great weekend, mi amigo!)

5. 

   urizon on July 23, 2005 at 4:12 pm

   Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

   Well, you have now.

   I along with many of my friends suspected something like this might have happened.

   Then there’s the quote form the PNAC manifesto (pdf):

   “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

       -“Rebuilding America’s Defenses — Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century,” page 51 Project for the New American Century, September 2000

   My, what a coincidence. These guys always seem to get just what they need to fulfill their agenda.

6. 

   dtlc on July 23, 2005 at 8:17 pm

   This is funny and informative too.  Another Oscar winning filmmaker, another celebrity, another trial and another movie.

   “Fugitive Filmmaker Roman Polanski’s Film “Vanity Affair” – Closed With A Disappointing $88,000″

   http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

7. 

   deano on July 23, 2005 at 11:00 pm

   Has this thought ever crossed anyone’s mind?

   That if there are enough current scandals going on, eventually the amount of scandals overbears the media and subsequently the crooks and liars get away with at the least some of it and it seems plausible to say, most of it.

   I don’t think of it necessarily as a conspiracy, I only wear my tin-foil hat in private sometimes for real short periods of time, but I do think this phenomenon is going on.

   I mean if we were not at war and there was no Rovegate, would Tom Delay be in the spotlight for Coingate? What about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the magazine scandal? I don’t even know where to start. We have the Downing Street Memo, the continuing Abu Gharib abuses, as well as human rights groups criticizing the prisoners are treated at Guantanomo Bay. Oh, and what ever happened to John Bolton.

   I think there becomes a point where the amount of scandals by Republicans (or related to the administration) becomes so large that it diminishes the chance that any one scandal will be resolved and someone will be held accountable.

   It also fits into the FOX news talking-point schema that there is so much criticism of the Republicans by Democrats that these aren’t real scandals but merely partisan attacks.

   Well, what if we didn’t have single member districts and we had a proportionate representative system. What if there were eight main political parties and one party was caught red handed in having major scandals within their party and their ruling majority coalition? Wouldn’t we expect this one party to be held accountable for leaking the identity of an undercover member of the CIA regardless of short term partisan politics? The same goes for every other one on the list.