Tonight's citations are listed after the jump:
Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years
Nathan Dunlap Case: U.S. Supreme Court Turns Down Death Penalty Appeal Of Chuck E. Cheese Killer
Gunman Kills 4 Workers at Colorado Restaurant
Lone survivor of mass shooting 18 years ago tells what life is like now
Democrats take Colorado House and retain Senate
Domestic Violence Gun Bill Advances In Colorado
Colorado gun bills: Bill that bans online concealed carry certification advances in Senate
Colorado gun bills: Universal background checks bill wins initial approval
Colorado gun bills: Conceal carry ban on campus killed by sponsor
Franklin Sain charged with harassment for sending Fields e-mails
Sniper victims' kin sue gunmaker, store
Sniper victim families sue gun maker, retailer
Gunmaker Paid Up After Washington Sniper Killings, And May Yet Pay Again
LOUISIANA LAWMAKERS VOID GUN LAWSUIT
Georgia blocks Atlanta's lawsuit against gun-makers
Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners?
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
Jeremy Bentham Virtual Auto-Icon
January 28, 1973 - Landmark Ruling on Abortion; The Effect Will Be Far-reaching
Arkansas Governor Vetoes Fetal Heartbeat Bill
Arkansas Lawmakers Disagree On Constitutionality Of Abortion Bill
Arkansans react to 12-week abortion ban
Governor Beebe Vetoes Senate Bill 134
Arkansas Adopts a Ban on Abortions After 12 Weeks
Republicans Decry Obama's Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court
Senate GOP presses Obama to send terror suspect to Gitmo
Republicans Are Furious at Obama for Prosecuting an Alleged Terrorist
Leave a Comment:
The constitution is only for us lucky american humans. I mean come on. If we started treating everyone on this planet equally, what would the world think ??
The world is not thinking, there are plenty of examples of this. Come together, right now over me.
Rachel:
Two can play at their game. I believe the NRA can be characterized as "corrupt .1% discrimination", which is a type of case We the People (as described in my Webpage ConstitutionalChallenge.org) are starting to bring in Federal Court against public figures such as Wayne LaPierre.
I am convinced we could bring a personal Federal case for treason against Wayne Lapierre, based on abridging those 20 schoolchildren's Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lapierre can throw the 2nd Amendment at us, We the People will throw back equal protection; due process; rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in return; as well as selling out the Constitutional Rights for all the murdered from gun violence. We can look at this as Constitutional Amendment poker, and I am willing to bet that We the People's Constitutional Amendments trump LaPierre's Constitutional Amendment. He could be tried in any Federal court, and such gross Constitutional violations could land Wayne in jail for a very long time.
Considering that the "corrupt .1% discriminators" (which Bush, Cheney, Rove, LaPierre, et al. are members or conspirators, depending how you look at it), why don't we try LaPierre for terrorism in Federal Court. Incidentially, as a lawyer I also believe that we could also try all of Bush, Cheney, Rove, LaPierre, et al. for trials of terrorism and/or war crimes. Since the "corrupt .1% discriminators" seem to be so much into trying terrorists in military tribunals, I might consider suggesting trying all of Bush, Cheney, Rove, LaPierre, et al. for war crimes, treason, Constitutional violations, and treason (attempting to overthrow the Constitution, attempting to overthrow the Federal Government of We the People, and attempting to overthrow the General Welfare of We the People). Perhaps we have them all serve their sentences out in Guantanimo.
.
Rachel Maddow doesn't write these blog posts. Given the requirements on her time, I highly doubt she reads them, either. So it's a fair bet that she doesn't read the comments. But that's awesome how you're on first name basis. More power to you.
I'd love to see LaPierre on trial for terrorism. Go for it.
Glenn,
I'm trying to follow your logic. Treason is a very specific crime. 18 USC § 2381 states that:
Are you really suggesting that Adam Lanza was a foreign agent?
Alva,
Maybe I should know who Adam Lanza is but I don't. I thought Glenn's post was about Wayne LaPierre.
Also, has the NRA or the gun manufacturers done anything recently to promote the restriction of straw purchases or anything at all to restrict the flow of guns to gangs. LaPierre is acting as a highly paid shield for the gun manufacturers.
Sweet Jesus, man. Yes, you very well should know that name.
Alva - Close, but no cigar! LaPierre is and always has been a shill, not shield, for the gun manufacturers.
Rochester,
I remember who Adam Lanza is now. I'm not in the habit of trying to remember mass murderers names. That fact that his name is spoken so often in the media, in my opinion will motivate other crazies like himself.
What is more important to me is that the gun manufacturers are enablers for people like this.
Glenn, why don't we just round up everyone who has different opinions than yours, charge them with treason, and call in the drones?
It is deeply ironic, I think, that 'conservatives' complain whenever criminals (and that's all a terrorist is, a criminal) are tried in court. It's ironic because it insisting that justice is the job of the courts used to be the conservative position. For instance, in the early '30s Warner Bros. took a lot of heat from the right over their gangster films (Little Caesar, The Public Enemy, and Scarface, to name the biggies) because the gangsters were killed off as a rule rather than facing justice. 'Justice' being understand as their day in court. So strong was this feeling that there were illicit copies of Scarface circulating in which the scene in which the gangster dies in a shootout with police had been removed and replaced with a short scene of a shadowy figure mounting a gallows (implying that the gangster had been captured, tried, found guilty, and sentenced).
But today's 'conservatives' would have us believe that the courts are where justice goes to die, and for no other reason (it seems) that the accused is allowed to defend themselves sometimes they are found not guilty. The horror! I guess that today's 'conservatives' feel that the accusation should be all that is required before sentence is carried out. For these people, 'justice' occurs outside the courtroom and only when we jump immediately from accusation to execution.
It seems as though they are coming close to defining justice as a lynch mob.
And, unfortunately, this attitude affects supposed progressives. Such as when pretty much everyone, including President Obama, described the operation that killed bin Laden as 'justice'. But if 'justice' is understood as having one's day in court, then the killing of bin Laden (however justifiable and, probably, inevitable) cannot be described as 'justice'. Revenge, yes. Justice, no. The fact that the world is a marginally better place with bin Laden not in it changes nothing.
Just one more example of how 'conservatives' debase and corrupt us all.
I'm not a lawyer so I have to ask how this is going to work. Miranda rights, evidence rules, etc, etc, etc, This sounds like a lawyers dream. This fellow was kidnapped... which alone should nullify an arrest.
The only way this can proceed is a sham trial that is really no different than military commissions. Looks like just another Obama bait and switch to make him look "progressive".
I put you on my ignore list ages ago. It would be better if everyone did. You're wasting your time commenting on anything I write.
I put you on my ignore list ages ago. It would be better if everyone did. You're wasting your time commenting on anything I write.
I put you on my ignore list ages ago. It would be better if everyone did. You're wasting your time commenting on anything I write.
One thing I like about Shooters posts, he repeatedly demonstrates the republican lack of empathy in every one of his post. It's always about my money, my guns, my ect.
Translated: Whatever Obama is for, I'm against. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction for the Right these days. How delightfully easy for people to declare outrage without having to be intellectually invested.
You could almost say their understanding of the world has no nuance, but is simply... IDK, let's say Black & White.
Typical. All Ad Hominem and no substance. SSDD.
What? No, don't be so quick to dismiss your efforts. I mean, sure, I agree with your self-criticism, being so obvious that you post the SSDD over and over. But it doesn't have to be that way. If you keep hanging out here, as you so strangely do, then you might actually learn something and come around.
I sincerely wish you luck. Until then, the inverse barometer thing is working well, too.
How did I manage to triple post? Ergh.
No worries. Remember, it was George Bush himself who said, "You have to keep repeating things to catapult the propaganda." As much of a Freudian Slip as that was, the say-it-three-times rule actually comes from Dora the Explorer. Although President Bush wasn't much of a reader, so I doubt that's where he picked it up.
Either way, the triple post made your opinions about Mr. Shooter extremely clear, and I respect your insights on the matter.
Ah, yes. I see my real mistake now. I should have pretended it was all part of some master plan. Or mistress plan. Why does it have to be a master plan? It can be a mistress plan if I @!$%#ing well want it to be. So. I should have pretended it was all part of some mistress plan.
Tom, I like how you reflect upon shooter with the word "repeatedly". Have you read monk, directly above you?
I am so sad, I was deleted yeterday.To me this is a sign for me to stop commenting. I will miss all of my Cyber friends, but, it is time for me to go, the winter moon lights my way. The son has gone to bed and so must I, Goodbye. Adios Amigos, Aloha and Au vita zane. Fair well.Now, back to my bottle from whence I came.
IDK you or your comments, but I'd say it's more of a sign that you need work on technique and delivery, more so than simple participation.
Just saying... bathwater shouldn't have pieces of baby in it.
Job Seeker: "Hi. I submitted an application online off of Career Builder, and I wasn't sure if you got the application, so I thought I would stop by and drop one off just in case. I understand that you're looking for a dishwasher."
Girl behind counter: "Yeah...like, I think they're taking all of the applications online, and my manager told me that I'm not supposed to take any applications. If you want to apply for a job, you should go online and fill out an application."
Job seeker: "I did fill out an application online, but I don't know if it went through."
Girl: "I don't know anything about that. I don't run the website."
Job seeker: "Yes, I can see that you don't. I was wondering, is there a manager I could speak to? I would like to introduce myself and drop off a resume for them."
Girl: "I AM the manager. Look, Valenzuelo was our dishwasher, and he got thrown in jail, and we don't know when he is going to get out. They told me to put an ad for a dishwasher on Career Builder. That's all I know."
Job Seeker: "That's all you know? You're the manager and that's all you know? IS there an opening for manager?"
Girl: "Believe me, THAT opening is being filled!"
Job seeker: "I understand that you may have a few more positions available. Are you looking for any delivery drivers or kitchen help?"
Girl: "I have to talk to the owner..." (Goes back to looking at computer screen)
Job seeker: "I don't mean to be rude, but do you know WHEN you are going to be talking to the owner?"
Girl: "I know when you are NOT going to be talking to the owner, and that is right now, because I have a lot of work to do, and you are interfering with my efficiency."
Job seeker: "Sounds like you have a lot on your plate."
Girl: "Yeah, between studying for my "Intro to Television as Literature" test and taking phone calls, I don't have a lot of time to answer questions."
Job seeker: "Sounds like an interesting class. What college do you go to?"
Girl: "College? I'm trying to get pregnant by the owner! I go to High School, and if I play my cards right, I won't even have to graduate!"
Job seeker: "That explains why the position has already been filled."
Girl: "Exactly!"
One of the things about tonight's show that really impressed me was its emphasis on stories "no one else is talking about". I had missed that sense on occasion and was struck by that thought immediately after the show (not to say that I don't enjoy the coverage you've given to issues confronting us, just that tonight seemed fresh!)
I don't get the problem, I guess, about trying this guy in a federal court. On ABC This Week, I heard Ron Johnson (R) saying that the US had only brought ONE terrorist to justice -- really? Then why is the real comparison 500 convicted in federal courts and in prison vs 4 in the Gitmo military tribunals? Apparently 'bringing terrorists to justice' requires a rule of law.
Americans aren't comfortable with the drone policy, and Congress continues to block bringing terrorists to trial in federal courts, even though fed courts far outweigh the military tribunals in successful convictions. It cannot remain as it is. America cannot say it lives by a rule of law, without providing that same law to our enemies as well as our own.
I know I'm late on this discussion (catching up on Maddow after travelling): but Bentham's skeleton has attended several College Committee meetings, where "the minutes record 'Jeremiah Bentham, present but not voting'" ("Chemical History").