yeah but when the work will involve doing harm already done... I dunno. Still, the risk of electing people for life seems greater. I do think Supreme Court appointees should be for life as their role is too important to allow politics to sway it, but that also leaves you no remedy when they allow politics to do so anyway.
On 7/9/07, Heald, Timothy (NIH/CIT) [C] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can see supporting either. > > I agree I think with supreme court justices being lifetime appointees, > but seriously, I don't want career politicians in our legislature or > executive. I want people that have been and will be employees/workers > in those positions. People that know what it's like out there for the > regular people. That buy milk at the store, not have the Secret Service > pick it up for them. > > I have heard the complaint that if we did have single term limits you > wouldn't be able to get anything done, and as far as I am concerned that > isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think that that our form of > gov't was set up to make it easy to create new laws, it was organized to > make creating laws a long arduous painful experience, so we would avoid > having too many laws. > > -- > Timothy J. Heald | NIH-Contractor | iGate > Enterprise Business Intelligence Branch (EBIB) > Division of Enterprise and Custom Applications, CIT/NIH/DHHS > Office: 301.594.5611 | Fax: 301.443.7010 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:18 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Bush, the new Teflon Don! :) > > > > Interesting... Work has us reading John Deming. He advocates > > that we either elect people for life or go with one term. > > > > On 7/9/07, Heald, Timothy (NIH/CIT) [C] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An excellent argument for term limits if you ask me. > > > > > > As far as I am concerned you should get one term at each level. No > > > more or less. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Timothy J. Heald | NIH-Contractor | iGate Enterprise Business > > > Intelligence Branch (EBIB) Division of Enterprise and Custom > > > Applications, CIT/NIH/DHHS > > > Office: 301.594.5611 | Fax: 301.443.7010 | Email: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:15 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, the new Teflon Don! :) > > > > > > > > unless there is something in the definition of standing... > > > > the thing that concerns me about the legislative brance > > is that they > > > > face election so often they are vulnerable to despots who wave a > > > > flag and accuse other people of lack of patriotism or not > > supporting > > > > the troops. > > > > > > > > Don't know the answer > > > > > > > > On 7/9/07, Heald, Timothy (NIH/CIT) [C] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Absolutely, but not one that the judiciary can easily rectify, > > > > > it's really going to take attention from the > > legislature to make > > > > > any difference here. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Timothy J. Heald | NIH-Contractor | iGate Enterprise Business > > > > > Intelligence Branch (EBIB) Division of Enterprise and Custom > > > > > Applications, CIT/NIH/DHHS > > > > > Office: 301.594.5611 | Fax: 301.443.7010 | Email: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 4:45 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, the new Teflon Don! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > seriously, Tim, if you or I were being wiretapped -- > > > > would we know? > > > > > > If I apply to work at Sandia Labs tomorrow (which I wouldn't, > > > > > > but > > > > > > suppose) and I just don't get the job, would I ever know > > > > that it was > > > > > > because someone I have spoken to on the phone said hi > > to an IRA > > > > > > member in a pub? > > > > > > > > > > > > (Note to Big Brother: This is speculation mind you, but I > > > > understand > > > > > > it's hard to spend any time in Belfast at all before you > > > > speak to a > > > > > > member of the IRA, whether you know it or not) > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand what standing is and legally you are > > > > absolutely right. > > > > > > From the point of view of public policy, there's a real > > > > issue here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Heald, Timothy (NIH/CIT) [C] > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't like using intelligence services against US > > > > > > citizens. I think > > > > > > > that the legislature needs to get it's act together once GW > > > > > > is out and > > > > > > > make sure they patch any holes in the laws about > > > > > > wiretapping, however, > > > > > > > if the parties involved cannot prove that they have been > > > > > > impacted by > > > > > > > the wire tapping program then they have no legal grounds to > > > > > > bring a case. > > > > > > > That's the law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we need to find some Americans that have proof that > > > > the wire > > > > > > > tapping program was used against them to reinstate the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:55 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Bush, the new Teflon Don! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freaking BS, man. Bull-shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN06424000200707 > > > > > > > > > 06 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Court dismisses lawsuit on spying program > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "CINCINNATI (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on > > > > > > > > Friday a lawsuit > > > > > > > > > challenging the domestic spying program created by > > > > > > > > President George W. > > > > > > > > > Bush after the September 11 attacks must be > > dismissed, in > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > decision > > > > > > > > > based on narrow technical grounds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The appeals court panel ruled by a 2-1 vote that the > > > > > > > > > groups and individuals who brought the lawsuit, > > led by the > > > > American > > > > > > > > > Civil Liberties Union, did not have the legal right > > > > to bring > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > challenge > > > > > > > > > in the first place." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2 Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:237964 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
