http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/books/review/Glanz-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cockburn&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:04 AMSubject: Man in a Black TurbanTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Mr. Glanz's review (Review of Books 5/11/08) tries to explainMoktada al-Sadr's influence while ignoring how he got it. Moktadaal-Sadr took the lead among his generation of Iraqi Shia in April 2003by having his more moderate political rival Sayyid Abdul Majidal-Khoei beaten to death in public. To acknowledge that mr. al-Sadrhas been called a thug is unhelpful without describing how he earnedthat name.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on Judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/07mccain.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bumiller&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AMSubject: McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: When Ms. Bumiller writes: of the "judicial philosophy of President Bush and other recent Republican presidents who sought judges who generally construed laws as narrowly as possible" she parrots the RNC's rhetoric without comparing it to reality. This current court, lead by chief Justice Roberts has been consistently activist. In the Medellin case, they recently went so far as to rule that the supremacy clause of our Constitution does not mean what it says. A narrow construction of the Constitution would agree with two hundred years of jurisprudence that our foreign treaties have the force of law. Under the banner of "conservatism" this administration has turned our legal system over to radicals.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AMSubject: McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: When Ms. Bumiller writes: of the "judicial philosophy of President Bush and other recent Republican presidents who sought judges who generally construed laws as narrowly as possible" she parrots the RNC's rhetoric without comparing it to reality. This current court, lead by chief Justice Roberts has been consistently activist. In the Medellin case, they recently went so far as to rule that the supremacy clause of our Constitution does not mean what it says. A narrow construction of the Constitution would agree with two hundred years of jurisprudence that our foreign treaties have the force of law. Under the banner of "conservatism" this administration has turned our legal system over to radicals.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 Judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/washington/06bar.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=liptak&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:57 AMSubject: In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Adam Liptak asserts that "Some provisions of the Constitution are open to interpretation, but some are clear." Would that it were so! Scarcely a month ago, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Constitution does not mean what it says. Reasonable people may agree that the clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." gives our foreign treaties the force of law. The U.S. Supreme court however judged in the Medellin case that our foreign treaties have the force of law only if and when Congress enacts legislation to enforce them. When an activist court is in session, everything is up for interpretation.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:57 AMSubject: In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Adam Liptak asserts that "Some provisions of the Constitution are open to interpretation, but some are clear." Would that it were so! Scarcely a month ago, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Constitution does not mean what it says. Reasonable people may agree that the clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." gives our foreign treaties the force of law. The U.S. Supreme court however judged in the Medellin case that our foreign treaties have the force of law only if and when Congress enacts legislation to enforce them. When an activist court is in session, everything is up for interpretation.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
