Federal Judge OKs Global Warming Lawsuit By Legislating From The Bench

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Hmmmm, I thought his brand of partisanship sounded familiar. Makes sense now...

I doubt I would have figured it out myself, but another member gave me some clues. Here's my post from another thread:

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize

and I don't think that's XXXJGXXX - he was much more subtle and posted less than BB.

I was initially skeptical, but am now virtually certain that xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx and BushBasha (nice touch on the latter nickname, Galt!) are the same person. They both gave detailed descriptions of their military service history, which is identical, and both claim to have a videotape of President Clinton, in a speech at Baumholder, promising that they would be home for Christmas following operations in Bosnia.

These few threads are illustrative, although searching reveals far more confirmatory evidence if you're interested:

BushBasha

Galt 1

Galt 2

Galt 3

Now, the question is, what will the mods do with this information?

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Harvey
BushBasha -- What Roberts said about a "comparable worth" case has nothing to do with these facts and circumstances. You seem to enjoy posting the most non-sequiter BS and thinking it actually means something. :roll:

The point is simple: When he "interprets the law" and the role of the courts in policy-making (none), liberals want to raise the old "back-alley abortion" and "racists" and "sexists" et al arguments; they paint him as someone who legislates from the bench, simply because he rules contrary to their opinions. Read the Roberts threads in here, Harv...read how many times he is painted an activist for doing exactly what people are arguing, yourself included, this court in CA did...simply "interpreting the law," right?

Again, I just asked you to keep this in the back of your mind September 6th...then tell me who the hypocrites are.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

.... there are certain posters here who simply go out of their way to bash liberals and the facts be damned.

You are being funny, aren't you? Could we get a thread count on 'Bush bashing' vs 'liberal bashing?' You have to be kidding and my facetious meter is just misaligned, right? Tell me you are not that blind? How many fingers :thumbsdown: am I holding up?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

The point is simple: When he "interprets the law" and the role of the courts in policy-making (none), liberals want to raise the old "back-alley abortion" and "racists" and "sexists" et al arguments; they paint him as someone who legislates from the bench, simply because he rules contrary to their opinions. Read the Roberts threads in here, Harv...read how many times he is painted an activist for doing exactly what people are arguing, yourself included, this court in CA did...simply "interpreting the law," right?

Again, I just asked you to keep this in the back of your mind September 6th...then tell me who the hypocrites are.

FWIW, based on everything I've read about him, John Roberts is far from being a judicial activist, and while I don't see everything his way, he is clearly well-qualified to sit on the Court. I presently have no objection to his appointment whatsoever (though obviously that might change if his confirmation process reveals some heretofore unknown show-stoppers, though I regard that as unlikely).

Now when are you going to explain how this ruling is an example of the problem with Democrats stacking the federal judiciary?

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DonVito

If you didn't want to be called out as a returning banned member, you shouldn't have provided such concrete evidence that you are, well, a returning banned member. Your arrogance has tripped you up - get used to it. Even if the mods let you stay, we all know that BushBasha = xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx, and that your "BushBasha" nickname is as phony as the rest of your persona.

Tony, look....I have no idea WTF you are talking about, but you are scaring me....you and your stalking hard-on for my BushBasha moniker is questionable. Is this not the 54th thread that you mentioned how "phoney" my "bushBasha" moniker is? Grow-up, man.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Once again, decisions like this reinforce the need for a few more Judge Roberts on the bench. Like most of the cases coming out of Loonie Liberal Land, this will be overturned. Democrats can't win elections with their out-of-the-mainstream-ideologies, so, as this case shows, they have used the clever tactic of stacking the courts with like-minded judicial activists to champion their agenda through the courts....truly a sad day for jurisprudence.

Excuse me? You're the tool who posted this little steaming turd of a lie. I think you've been shown to be dead wrong. Pwned as they say. May as well just 'fess up now.

 

[DealMonkey]

pwned. You probably shouldn't have implied that Democrats stacked the court with this particular judge. Makes you look pretty ignorant, wouldn't you say?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Nice revision to once again lash out at me with your bullsh*t. It doesn't matter WHO appointed them, Judge Judy...*cough*Souter*cough*. You like to bitch at people for making it political, then you bring in that Bush appointed them...and that's germane how, Judge Brown?

Lastly, I am glad you still get an erection over my BushBasha moniker....speaks volumes.

I don't know if this is judicial activism, but Republicans for some reason have made foolish appointments of judges in the past. Unless you're talking abour Robert Bork it has nothing to do with the Dems.

Of course in today's world anyone who's not an abortionist is labeled a rightwinged religious rightwinger looking to take away womens and civil rights by the fringe left.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How dare them fight global warming. This must be appealed.

It is not the courts duty to fight global warming

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
pwned. You probably shouldn't have implied that Democrats stacked the court with this particular judge. Makes you look pretty ignorant, wouldn't you say?

..only if you make the inference that I implied the two are inextricably linked. Again, this case, regardless of the composition of the court, shows the need for more Judge Roberts out there. Did I say the Democrats stacked this court? If so, please quote it and I will admit to being wrong.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Tony, look....I have no idea WTF you are talking about, but you are scaring me....you and your stalking hard-on for my BushBasha moniker is questionable. Is this not the 54th thread that you mentioned how "phoney" my "bushBasha" moniker is? Grow-up, man.

Ahem - once a liar, always a liar, I guess. I find it ironic that you say you're scared now when you were banned for wishing another member dead, then saying you had looked up his name and home telephone number.

I'll be waving bye-bye as "BushBasha" sails off into the sunset - I truly will. When you get a new IP and come back yet again, try to be a little more subtle, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Did I say the Democrats stacked this court? If so, please quote it and I will admit to being wrong.

Uh, OK:

Democrats can't win elections with their out-of-the-mainstream-ideologies, so, as this case shows, they have used the clever tactic of stacking the courts with like-minded judicial activists to champion their agenda through the courts....

How did you manage to post this without reading it? As you (and, curiously enough, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx) are so fond of saying, instant classic

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
pwned. You probably shouldn't have implied that Democrats stacked the court with this particular judge. Makes you look pretty ignorant, wouldn't you say?

..only if you make the inference that I implied the two are inextricably linked. Again, this case, regardless of the composition of the court, shows the need for more Judge Roberts out there. Did I say the Democrats stacked this court? If so, please quote it and I will admit to being wrong.

Nice attempt at backpeddling. Unfortunately for you, I've quoted you verbatim:

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Once again, decisions like this reinforce the need for a few more Judge Roberts on the bench. Like most of the cases coming out of Loonie Liberal Land, this will be overturned. Democrats can't win elections with their out-of-the-mainstream-ideologies, so, as this case shows, they have used the clever tactic of stacking the courts with like-minded judicial activists to champion their agenda through the courts....truly a sad day for jurisprudence.

Please don't act stupid, you're only embarrassing yourself.

 

[umbrella39]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1429102&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Still waiting for you to explain yourself Galt. Why is it that you were trying to find out my personal contact information? What IS it you were going to do with it?

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Tony, look....I have no idea WTF you are talking about, but you are scaring me....you and your stalking hard-on for my BushBasha moniker is questionable. Is this not the 54th thread that you mentioned how "phoney" my "bushBasha" moniker is? Grow-up, man.

Ahem - once a liar, always a liar, I guess. I find it ironic that you say you're scared now when you were banned for wishing another member dead, then saying you had looked up his name and home telephone number.

I'll be waving bye-bye as "BushBasha" sails off into the sunset - I truly will. When you get a new IP and come back yet again, try to be a little more subtle, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx.

Again, Tony...you are all in my PM; you are in every single thread about "BushBasha" and whining about my moniker. You the new moderator around here? Or just have a fetish for Bush? We see what your agenda is....

Please stop sending me PMs, too....it's getting quite old.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1429102&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Still waiting for you to explain yourself Galt. Why is it that you were trying to find out my personal contact information? What IS it you were going to do with it?

hah hah "mr. innocent"...did you PM him?

I'll give you my address via PM, you can come foking kill me anytime you wish to try.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Again, Tony...you are all in my PM; you are in every single thread about "BushBasha" and whining about my moniker. You the new moderator around here? Or just have a fetish for Bush? We see what your agenda is....

Please stop sending me PMs, too....it's getting quite old.

I sent you one PM (because I was sincerely curious why you'd returned under a new name), and I don't recall ever sending you a single one when you were xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx. Actually you have also sent me at least one unsolicited PM, when you wanted my assistance in "debunking" Klixxer's military record. It strikes me as a little ironic that you of all people would be looking to debunk someone else's identity, but I guess that's how it works - the bigger the front, the bigger the back.

I don't really see how my political views are relevant to the fact that you've returned under a new name after being banned. I don't see this as a partisan issue, whether you agree or not.

Let's drag this out into the light: Do you deny or admit that you used to be a member of this board, under the nickname xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx?

I'm interested in what's more important to you - your integrity or your continued membership here. If I'm wrong about this theory, all you have to do is say so, but if I'm right and you lie, you're a grown man lying about his identity to preserve an account on a bulletin board, and that's a sad state of affairs.

You still haven't addressed this little issue, either:

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Did I say the Democrats stacked this court? If so, please quote it and I will admit to being wrong.

Uh, OK:

Democrats can't win elections with their out-of-the-mainstream-ideologies, so, as this case shows, they have used the clever tactic of stacking the courts with like-minded judicial activists to champion their agenda through the courts....

How did you manage to post this without reading it? As you (and, curiously enough, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx) are so fond of saying, instant classic

[/quote]

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1429102&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Still waiting for you to explain yourself Galt. Why is it that you were trying to find out my personal contact information? What IS it you were going to do with it?

hah hah "mr. innocent"...did you PM him?

I'll give you my address via PM, you can come foking kill me anytime you wish to try.

Go away troll. No, I did not PM him, he was banned. Any particular reason you keep butting in to this?

Plonk

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DonVito



I don't really see how my political views are relevant to the fact that you've returned under a new name after being banned. I don't see this as a partisan issue, whether you agree or not.

.

The point is that you go thread-to-thread with a hard-on about the "bushbasha" moniker...think I posted twice before you were talking about it. Then you pull some BS out of a hat, send me PM about mods this that and the other thing, then continue to post childish BS like this:

"I'll be waving bye-bye as "BushBasha" sails off into the sunset - I truly will. When you get a new IP and come back yet again, try to be a little more subtle, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx."

We see right through you, Tony. Grow-up and send the mods some PMs, then (clearly, they have seen all of these exchanges), and stop acting like a little five year old kid in every f****ing thread. Again, that's quite unbecoming of an officer...post after post you whine about "bushBasha" because I don't bash Bush. It's getting quite old. Try something a little more creative and just PM the mods directly and stop acting like a child, please.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
The point is that you go thread-to-thread with a hard-on about the "bushbasha" moniker...think I posted twice before you were talking about it. Then you pull some BS out of a hat, send me PM about mods this that and the other thing, then continue to post childish BS like this:

"I'll be waving bye-bye as "BushBasha" sails off into the sunset - I truly will. When you get a new IP and come back yet again, try to be a little more subtle, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx."

We see right through you, Tony. Grow-up and send the mods some PMs, then (clearly, they have seen all of these exchanges), and stop acting like a little five year old kid in every f****ing thread. Again, that's quite unbecoming of an officer...post after post you whine about "bushBasha" because I don't bash Bush. It's getting quite old. Try something a little more creative and just PM the mods directly and stop acting like a child, please.

You're deflecting, so I'll ask again:

Do you deny or admit that you used to be a member of this board, under the nickname xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx?

I'm interested in what's more important to you - your integrity or your continued membership here. If I'm wrong about this theory, all you have to do is say so, but if I'm right and you lie, you're a grown man lying about his identity to preserve an account on a bulletin board, and that's a sad state of affairs.

You still haven't addressed this little issue, either:

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Did I say the Democrats stacked this court? If so, please quote it and I will admit to being wrong.

Uh, OK:

Democrats can't win elections with their out-of-the-mainstream-ideologies, so, as this case shows, they have used the clever tactic of stacking the courts with like-minded judicial activists to champion their agenda through the courts....

How did you manage to post this without reading it? As you (and, curiously enough, xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx) are so fond of saying, instant classic

And for what it's worth, I haven't been an officer since January of this year, which is why I have free reign to be a "Bush Basha".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I'm not debating the concept of global warming, my views on the matter are probably much different than you might think...

My point is that here in the US we have environmental laws that apply locally. Obviously we can't force other countries to follow those laws, but the question is whether or not US supported projects have to follow US laws. It seems like a less than clearcut issue to me, and just the sort of issue the court should be debating. We can discuss whether or not they made the right decision, but I'm simply pointing out that making the decision is not a case of "legislating from the bench".

You can't force people to abide by laws of your country when they are outside of said country.

An 18 year old American visiting Germany can legally drink.
In Amsterdam you as an American must abide by their drug laws not ours.

To presume that civilians or coporations should have to follow our rules while acting outside of our country is assinine in my opinion. If the country they are operating in wants cleaner air then they should pass laws doing something about it.

Pardon me while I use the liberal cliche and say "It isn't our job to police the world's" air.

This is not the issue at hand as far as I can tell. I'ts not about forcing people to abide by our laws, it's about forcing federal development agencies to abide by US environmental laws when funding projects overseas. Since they are in fact US agencies, what you're talking about isn't an issue. I'm not sure of the legal issues with what IS being discussed, but I'm pretty sure it's something the court has total right to rule on.

By the way, this thread got REALLY off track. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much just ranting and raving about who the hell knows what.

 

[piasabird]

You have to get some jurors to agree with you before a lawsuit can have merit and be won. Then how do you collect from the government?

 

[DealMonkey]

Of course BushBasha won't address the issue of his claim that the Dems stacked the courts with this particular judge. He won't because he's dead wrong, he can't wiggle out of it, and he's too big of a partisan hack to admit he's wrong.

Pathetic, just pathetic. :roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Of course BushBasha won't address the issue of his claim that the Dems stacked the courts with this particular judge. He won't because he's dead wrong, he can't wiggle out of it, and he's too big of a partisan hack to admit he's wrong.

Pathetic, just pathetic. :roll:

One wonders whether we'll see him again at all. I'd like answers to my questions.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Still no reply from "BushBasha". I wonder what name he'll use next time . . .