(11-02-2014 03:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The land grab is going on now with the expanded settlements in the West Bank and East J'lem.

There is no benefit for the US to recognize J'lem as 100% Israeli as a matter of diplomatic recognition (as opposed to de facto recognition). Doing so will harm the US greatly, for no gain for the US or Israel.

It's already Israeli land by virtue of war waged on them by other Countries, so I'm not sure how that is a land grab. Who is being displaced? How can you grab something that is already yours?
And if Jerusalem ISNT 100% in Israel, what other Country is it in? Are you saying it is Jordanian?
Israel has already tried vacating settlements to appease World opinion but to no avail. In a twist of irony Israel has no issue with peaceful Palestinians living in Israel, but the Palestinians woupdate allow any Israeli's to live within their territories.

Every nation on earth has looked at it and decided. "no, we're not recognizing J'lem as the capitol of Israel". I see no reason why the US should be any different. There are lots of persons displaced by prior and current Israeli policy.

And then there is the whole issue of eroding the executive's right to set foreign policy. This case really has little to do with commerce. And everyone knows it.

This also has nothing to do with 'supporting' Isreal, but rather one of supporting Bibi and the neo-cons, who want the US to make meaningless gestures that will provide no benefit to Israel's non-settler majority at a great cost to the US.

(11-02-2014 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Tom will say anything, make up anything, etc to try to prove a point. It's best to just ignore him.

Please tell me which nations recognize Israel as the capitol of Israel? The last time you called me out, you linked to an article referring to the wrong electoral cycle. Its no secret that Adelson is funding the neo-cons and various pro-Israel groups as well as spending literally over 100 million bucks on US politics.

I find Scalia to have exhibited glaring inconsistencies in his rulings, which appear to be based upon political rather than judicial considerations. such as his votes in the DOMA case and the VRA case (rulings in the same term), and multiple other areas. I get that at some deeply Conservative law schools in the South, Scalia is held up to be some 'great thinker' who advances a particular doctrine of conservative judicial thought. Many see him as just an inconsistent player on the bench, who appears to rule based upon political considerations.

(11-03-2014 11:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every nation on earth has looked at it and decided. "no, we're not recognizing J'lem as the capitol of Israel". I see no reason why the US should be any different. There are lots of persons displaced by prior and current Israeli policy.

If you can't win an argument, pretend it's about something else that you totally might be able to win. Never once did Brokeback Flamer say anything about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel (much less the capitol, which I don't believe Israel has).
http://grammarist.com/usage/capitol-capital/

Quote:And then there is the whole issue of eroding the executive's right to set foreign policy. This case really has little to do with commerce. And everyone knows it.

Um, if people traveling to foreign countries and spending their own money, which I'm pretty sure is the primary use of a passport, doesn't count as foreign commerce, I'm not sure what does. It's certainly more closely related to foreign commerce than me visiting a doctor who lives in my same town is related to interstate commerce.

And just where does this alleged right of the executive come from? He certainly can't make the most important foreign policy decision of them all.

Quote:This also has nothing to do with 'supporting' Isreal, but rather one of supporting Bibi and the neo-cons, who want the US to make meaningless gestures that will provide no benefit to Israel's non-settler majority at a great cost to the US.

If it has all of these dire effects, it can't be meaningless can it.

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I find Scalia to have exhibited glaring inconsistencies in his rulings, which appear to be based upon political rather than judicial considerations. such as his votes in the DOMA case and the VRA case (rulings in the same term), and multiple other areas. I get that at some deeply Conservative law schools in the South, Scalia is held up to be some 'great thinker' who advances a particular doctrine of conservative judicial thought. Many see him as just an inconsistent player on the bench, who appears to rule based upon political considerations.

And I'm sure this is totally based on a dispassionate analysis of his decisions and not politically motivated at all.

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Tom will say anything, make up anything, etc to try to prove a point. It's best to just ignore him.

Please tell me which nations recognize Israel as the capitol of Israel? The last time you called me out, you linked to an article referring to the wrong electoral cycle. Its no secret that Adelson is funding the neo-cons and various pro-Israel groups as well as spending literally over 100 million bucks on US politics.

Again, who cares? You are the only one attempting to pretend to that this case is about whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

(11-01-2014 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Tom will say anything, make up anything, etc to try to prove a point. It's best to just ignore him.

Please tell me which nations recognize Israel as the capitol of Israel? The last time you called me out, you linked to an article referring to the wrong electoral cycle. Its no secret that Adelson is funding the neo-cons and various pro-Israel groups as well as spending literally over 100 million bucks on US politics.

I find Scalia to have exhibited glaring inconsistencies in his rulings, which appear to be based upon political rather than judicial considerations. such as his votes in the DOMA case and the VRA case (rulings in the same term), and multiple other areas. I get that at some deeply Conservative law schools in the South, Scalia is held up to be some 'great thinker' who advances a particular doctrine of conservative judicial thought. Many see him as just an inconsistent player on the bench, who appears to rule based upon political considerations.

Irrelevant, look that word up.

The question before the Court is who gets to decide where we say the capitol is, not what the capitol is. There is no other way to put that.

Everything else you are saying is just useless talk. It doesn't mean anything. It's just more of you saying anything wether it is true or relevant or not. As usual, you are just yapping. You hate Scalia; we get it.

Yap, yap, yap!!!

For the record, I'm not an open supporter of Israel, or their policies.

But, even poor lowly me gets what this case is about.

(11-03-2014 12:12 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I find Scalia to have exhibited glaring inconsistencies in his rulings, which appear to be based upon political rather than judicial considerations. such as his votes in the DOMA case and the VRA case (rulings in the same term), and multiple other areas. I get that at some deeply Conservative law schools in the South, Scalia is held up to be some 'great thinker' who advances a particular doctrine of conservative judicial thought. Many see him as just an inconsistent player on the bench, who appears to rule based upon political considerations.

And I'm sure this is totally based on a dispassionate analysis of his decisions and not politically motivated at all.

Look up both rulings. In the DOMA ruling, he opined that the Court had no right to invalidate the mandate of Congress with regards to DOMA. But in the Voting Rights Act case he invalidated an Act that passed Congress multiple times. 24 hours, 2 different interpretations. And if you get into the dissent in Windsor, and his opinion in the VRA case, you'll find that he contradicts himself pretty clearly. I don't see how anyone can square those two rulings.

Like you and the other guy, we have views. We wouldn't be here if we didn't.

So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

(11-03-2014 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

Scalia is "wildly popular."

Don't be a baby. You are the one not talking about the subject on this thread.

Also, Tom, the article I posted in the other thread was to refute your statement that the lesbian is "wildly popular" when in fact she isn't and never has been. But, you were no more able to figure that out than you were to figure out the meaning of this case.

(11-03-2014 12:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

Scalia is "wildly popular."

Don't be a baby. You are the one not talking about the subject on this thread.

Don't be a bully. I've dealt with lots of them. You're not really good at it.

Look at the OP, shade was thrown at the Jewish justices. I just threw some back.

Scalia is wildly popular amongst graduates of deeply Conservative Law Schools.

Its not offtopic to discuss the political ramifications of a USSC ruling or the political motivations of the litigants.

30 point election win qualifies as wildly popular. Against four other candidates who outspent her.

(11-03-2014 12:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

Scalia is "wildly popular."

Don't be a baby. You are the one not talking about the subject on this thread.

Don't be a bully. I've dealt with lots of them. You're not really good at it.

Look at the OP, shade was thrown at the Jewish justices. I just threw some back.

Scalia is wildly popular amongst graduates of deeply Conservative Law Schools.

Its not offtopic to discuss the political ramifications of a USSC ruling or the political motivations of the litigants.

Of that I have no doubt.

For the record, I don't particularly like Scalia but nice try at a comeback. But, you aren't really good at it, so don't.

(11-03-2014 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:12 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I find Scalia to have exhibited glaring inconsistencies in his rulings, which appear to be based upon political rather than judicial considerations. such as his votes in the DOMA case and the VRA case (rulings in the same term), and multiple other areas. I get that at some deeply Conservative law schools in the South, Scalia is held up to be some 'great thinker' who advances a particular doctrine of conservative judicial thought. Many see him as just an inconsistent player on the bench, who appears to rule based upon political considerations.

And I'm sure this is totally based on a dispassionate analysis of his decisions and not politically motivated at all.

Look up both rulings. In the DOMA ruling, he opined that the Court had no right to invalidate the mandate of Congress with regards to DOMA. But in the Voting Rights Act case he invalidated an Act that passed Congress multiple times. 24 hours, 2 different interpretations. And if you get into the dissent in Windsor, and his opinion in the VRA case, you'll find that he contradicts himself pretty clearly. I don't see how anyone can square those two rulings.

You're going to have to try harder than that. In US v. Windsor, Scalia did not say the Court could not invalidate DOMA or that the Court should never invalidate a statute passed by Congress. That would be silly, and Scalia is often an ass but rarely silly.

In Windsor, Scalia argued that there was no case or controversy properly before the Court. Windsor won below, and the United States, the party that lost below, was actually arguing for the decision below to be upheld.

Justice Scalia, in Windsor Wrote:That is completely absent here. Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordinary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” Brief for United States (merits) 54 (emphasis added). That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone.

On the other hand, there was no doubt that Shelby County had standing to challenge the Voting Rights Act. And a unanimous Supreme Court had already expressed serious questions about the constitutionality of the VRA before the last reauthorization (technically Thomas dissented, but only because he would have found it unconstitutional right then and there).

Quote:Like you and the other guy, we have views. We wouldn't be here if we didn't.

We? What are you, a Swedish architecture collective?

(11-03-2014 12:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So, from separation of powers to Jerusalem to Scalia to gays. I love this new 'on-topic' board folks.

With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

Scalia is "wildly popular."

Don't be a baby. You are the one not talking about the subject on this thread.

Don't be a bully. I've dealt with lots of them. You're not really good at it.

Look at the OP, shade was thrown at the Jewish justices. I just threw some back.

Scalia is wildly popular amongst graduates of deeply Conservative Law Schools.

Its not offtopic to discuss the political ramifications of a USSC ruling or the political motivations of the litigants.

Of that I have no doubt.

For the record, I don't particularly like Scalia but nice try at a comeback. But, you aren't really good at it, so don't.

Then why are you in here arguing with me? Dude I'm going back to work. You should find something else to do.

(11-03-2014 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  With a predictable assist from Heart of Dixie in there with a post attacking me....

Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

Got any more links to newsarticles referring to the wrong election cycle?

Scalia is "wildly popular."

Don't be a baby. You are the one not talking about the subject on this thread.

Don't be a bully. I've dealt with lots of them. You're not really good at it.

Look at the OP, shade was thrown at the Jewish justices. I just threw some back.

Scalia is wildly popular amongst graduates of deeply Conservative Law Schools.

Its not offtopic to discuss the political ramifications of a USSC ruling or the political motivations of the litigants.

Of that I have no doubt.

For the record, I don't particularly like Scalia but nice try at a comeback. But, you aren't really good at it, so don't.

Then why are you in here arguing with me? Dude I'm going back to work. You should find something else to do.

Anyways, back to the topic, which is separation of powers.

(11-03-2014 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Lets see how Scalia rules in this case. Will he vote for an 'originalist' bent that he trots out as his doctrine or will he rule for expanding the power of the legislative branch?

(11-02-2014 10:45 AM)jh Wrote:  And stop pretending that this is an easy case with a clear cut winner. It's not. This is from a supporter of finding for the executive.

Jack Goldsmith is the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches and writes about national security law, presidential power, cybersecurity, international law, internet law, foreign relations law, and conflict of laws. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003. Wrote:Zivotofsky is an important case because it appears to require the Supreme Court to address the scope of the President’s exclusive foreign relations power vis a vis Congress. This is a very hard question, rarely addressed by the Court, about which the relevant sources (text, original meaning, historical practice) are, in my view, unclear.

I know, I know, he worked in the Bush Administration. But remember, he's supporting the Obama Administration.

(11-03-2014 12:09 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 11:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Every nation on earth has looked at it and decided. "no, we're not recognizing J'lem as the capitol of Israel". I see no reason why the US should be any different. There are lots of persons displaced by prior and current Israeli policy.

If you can't win an argument, pretend it's about something else that you totally might be able to win. Never once did Brokeback Flamer say anything about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel (much less the capitol, which I don't believe Israel has).
http://grammarist.com/usage/capitol-capital/

Quote:And then there is the whole issue of eroding the executive's right to set foreign policy. This case really has little to do with commerce. And everyone knows it.

Um, if people traveling to foreign countries and spending their own money, which I'm pretty sure is the primary use of a passport, doesn't count as foreign commerce, I'm not sure what does. It's certainly more closely related to foreign commerce than me visiting a doctor who lives in my same town is related to interstate commerce.

And just where does this alleged right of the executive come from? He certainly can't make the most important foreign policy decision of them all.

Quote:This also has nothing to do with 'supporting' Isreal, but rather one of supporting Bibi and the neo-cons, who want the US to make meaningless gestures that will provide no benefit to Israel's non-settler majority at a great cost to the US.

If it has all of these dire effects, it can't be meaningless can it.

I had 3 basic questions. I'm not sure what Neo Cons, DOMA or lesbians have to do with the answer. But from TOM, the he man who bragged his bonanfides were his visitation of Israel and the Knesset, I am still awaiting answers. Let me list them for ease of use
1. If the City of Jerusalem, either wholly or partially, is not in the Nation of Israel, which nation is it in? I even listed options
2. Why are the '67 borders so sacrosanct when Israel fought wars against aggressors after Jan 1 1967?
3. What are the policies that constitue Israeli land grabs? What country are they grabbing them from?

Brief discussion minimizing the possible foreign relations impact of a decision favoring Congress.

Quote:Perhaps foreign countries understand that this is not actually a case about the international legal status of Jerusalem, but rather about technical internal arrangements of the U.S. government. Also, they may wish to not overstate the issue’s importance ex ante, in case Zivotofsky wins. In such an event, Arab states are unlikely to cry foul, because they would have to acknowledge that a major power recognizes Jerusalem as part of Israel. Rather, they would prefer to say the ruling means nothing about the status of Jerusalem, and will continue to hold up the Executive’s formal position as being that of the U.S. That way they can continue to claim that even the U.S. does not recognize Western Jerusalem as part of Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...ivotofsky/