This is Crap

Dungheap said:
1) According to the testimony of several Jenppessen employees your top-executive pals aren't quite being square with you. But that is besides the point.

2) I don't think you quite understand the implication of what you are proposing here. The U.S. government has asserted that regardless of what actually took place there can be no claim against Jeppessen, even if Jeppessen knew what the CIA was doing and knew that in flying these individuals to Morocco and Egypt that they would be tortured, because the subject-matter of the complaint deals with national security issues protected by the state secrets doctrine. Moreover, the government asserts that it's assertion of state secrets cannot be challenged or questioned by the judiciary.

It's would basically be a license for the CIA to conduct contract killings and other assorted atrocities that no one could do anything about.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am well aware of what the other Jeppesen employees have stated. Obviously it is a he said/he said situation. I will trust those that I have known and worked with for years.

As far as the state secrets portion... take that up with the government. That is NOT Jeppesen's concern.
 
Superfreak said:
It should be. Jeppesen should never have been involved in this suit. That is the point Dung cannot seem to grasp.
Click to expand...


I understand that you think Jepessen should never have been involved in this suit. And they will have the opportunity to present that argument to the Court very early in the proceedings. I have zero qualms with that.

What you seem unable to understand is that, regardless of the merit of the lawsuit against Jepessen, the government is saying that there can never be a lawsuit against someone is Jepessen's position. Ever. Period.

Say for the sale of argument that the CIA contracted with Jepessen to kidnap certain people, fly them to black sites, torture them to elicit information and then keep them imprisoned indefinitely. Now, according to the government the individuals that are kidnapped by Jepessen under this hypothetical (or their families) could never bring a claim against Jepessen notwithstanding their obvious wrong-doing because the government claims that the kidnapping/torture/indedfinite detention contract is about national security. You think this would be OK?
 
Dungheap said:
I understand that you think Jepessen should never have been involved in this suit. And they will have the opportunity to present that argument to the Court very early in the proceedings. I have zero qualms with that.

What you seem unable to understand is that, regardless of the merit of the lawsuit against Jepessen, the government is saying that there can never be a lawsuit against someone is Jepessen's position. Ever. Period.

Say for the sale of argument that the CIA contracted with Jepessen to kidnap certain people, fly them to black sites, torture them to elicit information and then keep them imprisoned indefinitely. Now, according to the government the individuals that are kidnapped by Jepessen under this hypothetical (or their families) could never bring a claim against Jepessen notwithstanding their obvious wrong-doing because the government claims that the kidnapping/torture/indedfinite detention contract is about national security. You think this would be OK?
Click to expand...

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. In the case of Jeppesen, it was the CIA's actions (aka the government) that performed the illegal activities. NOT Jeppesen. That is a HUGE difference compared to your example above where Jeppesen would be the one doing the kidnapping and torture. They are not the same thing.

If they want to sue the US government due to its decision, then fine.... sue the US government or lobby Congress to legislate the issue. You do NOT sue Jeppesen in this case. Jeppeson should not HAVE to present a case as to why they should not be sued for something the fucking government did. THAT is the point that you continue to fail to comprehend.

Again, if you want to take up the question of states secrets in the courts... feel free. That is legitimate. But there is NO reason... not ONE... that you can present to suggest Jeppeson should be involved in this.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. In the case of Jeppesen, it was the CIA's actions (aka the government) that performed the illegal activities. NOT Jeppesen. That is a HUGE difference compared to your example above where Jeppesen would be the one doing the kidnapping and torture. They are not the same thing.

If they want to sue the US government due to its decision, then fine.... sue the US government or lobby Congress to legislate the issue. You do NOT sue Jeppesen in this case. Jeppeson should not HAVE to present a case as to why they should not be sued for something the fucking government did. THAT is the point that you continue to fail to comprehend.

Again, if you want to take up the question of states secrets in the courts... feel free. That is legitimate. But there is NO reason... not ONE... that you can present to suggest Jeppeson should be involved in this.
Click to expand...


Listen, I comprehend fully what you are saying about Jeppesen. I get it. Trust me. I do. And there is no need to PEPPER your POST with CAPS. It just MAKES you LOOK ridiculous.

The point that you fail to comprehend is that, for purposes of deciding if the state secrets doctrine bars litigation against a corporation that contracts with the government in all circumstances involving national secuurity(as the government argued and the trial court found), it doesn't matter what Jeppesen did. I gave you the hypothetical example because it exemplifies the issue that the court is dealing with.

As the court put it:

At base, the government argues here that state secrets form the subject matter of a lawsuit, and therefore require dismissal, any time a complaint contains allegations, the truth or falsity of which has been classified as secret by a government official. The district court agreed, dismissing the case exclusively because it “involves ‘allegations’ about [secret] conduct by the CIA.” This sweeping characterization of the “very subject matter” bar has no logical limit—it would apply equally to suits by U.S. citizens, not just foreign nationals; and to secret conduct committed on U.S. soil, not just abroad. According to the government’s theory, the Judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.
Click to expand...

Do you think the bold is OK or not? That's the issue, not whether Jeppesen should have been sued.
 
Superfreak said:
wow, imagine that... the 9th circuit ... what a shock...

Again... answer this... WHY should Jeppessen be expected to know the intentions of a government agency? Should the CIA reveal its intentions to every buisiness it uses in the course of its work?

I think we should get a class action suit against these five idiots, the judges on the 9th and the lawyers who represent the five idiots.... for wasting tax payers dollars to defend this frivolous suit.
Click to expand...
The most overturned court that I have ever heard of...
 
Dungheap said:
Really? Have you ever checked to see if that is actually true or do you just uncritically repeat whatever you hear that jives with your personal opinion?
Click to expand...
Well, when expressing my opinion I tend to express my opinion. Thank you for your contribution to this site based on the exchange of opinions.
 
Damocles said:
Well, when expressing my opinion I tend to express my opinion.
Click to expand...


Whether a particular court of appeals is the most overturned is really a question of fact. It's not a matter of opinion.

I guess you can repeat what "you heard" but it seems silly to repeat what you heard if you haven't the foggiest idea if what you "heard" is true.
 
Dungheap said:
Whether a particular court of appeals is the most overturned is really a question of fact. It's not a matter of opinion.

I guess you can repeat what "you heard" but it seems silly to repeat what you heard if you haven't the foggiest idea if what you "heard" is true.
Click to expand...

Anyway, the reason that they are overturned so often is because they hear more cases than any other of the circuit courts.

That being said there was only one year that they had less overturned by percentage than all other of the appeals courts, in 2003. In every other year they have had more than most, if not the most.

Yeah, I'll keep that opinion. On a percentage basis they do not have "much more" than the others, but they do have more.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals

It is often called "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other. (Indeed, in 2003 it had the least reversal rate of any appeals court with more than five cases reviewed.[1] (http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/SemiFinalOT2003CircuitScorecard.pdf)).
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion, "not much more" still means more.

It seems that I do check on things and then base opinions on actual information. But see. I do it the opposite way that you do, I gather information and then form an opinion. You seem to take an opinion and then seek information that jives with your own skewed version of the world.
 
Damocles said:
Anyway, the reason that they are overturned so often is because they hear more cases than any other of the circuit courts.

That being said there was only one year that they had less overturned by percentage than all other of the appeals courts, in 2003. In every other year they have had more than most, if not the most.

Yeah, I'll keep that opinion. On a percentage basis they do not have "much more" than the others, but they do have more.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals



In my humble opinion, "not much more" still means more.
Click to expand...


Here is a link:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_Statistics

It provides appellate score cards for each Supreme Court term with "Circuit Scorecards" back to 2004. There isn't single term wherein the 9th Circuit had a higher percentage of its decisions overturned than any other appellate court. And based on your link, the 9th Circuit in 2003 had the lowest reversal rate.

So for the past 6 years the "most overturned court" never had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate.
 
Dungheap said:
Here is a link:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_Statistics

It provides appellate score cards for each Supreme Court term with "Circuit Scorecards" back to 2004. There isn't single term wherein the 9th Circuit had a higher percentage of its decisions overturned than any other appellate court. And based on your link, the 9th Circuit in 2003 had the lowest reversal rate.

So for the past 6 years the "most overturned court" never had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate.
Click to expand...
I said that in 2003 they had the lowest, and that they averaged higher than every court.

Please, at least read what I say honestly. As I said, you take an opinion then attempt to make the facts fit rather than taking facts and then forming an opinion. You can't even avoid being disingenuous when you read what I actually say.

Again, "not much more" still is more.

Jesus he can't even read a simple sentence like this one:
That being said there was only one year that they had less overturned by percentage than all other of the appeals courts, in 2003. In every other year they have had more than most, if not the most.
Click to expand...

Instead he goes off as if he had a "gotcha" when he says my link had that they were overturned less than the others during one year.....

LOL. It's like you try to prove you are disingenuous with every post.
 
Damocles said:
I said that in 2003 they had the lowest, and that they averaged higher than every court.

Please, at least read what I say honestly. As I said, you take an opinion then attempt to make the facts fit rather than taking facts and then forming an opinion. You can't even avoid being disingenuous when you read what I actually say.

Again, "not much more" still is more.

Jesus he can't even read a simple sentence like this one:


Instead he goes off as if he had a "gotcha" when he says my link had that they were overturned less than the others during one year.....

LOL. It's like you try to prove you are disingenuous with every post.
Click to expand...


What I am telling you is that you cannot point to a single year that the 9th Circuit had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate among the Courts of Appeal.

I understand that you post a link to some guy that says "not much more" but him saying it doesn't make it so. I gave you a link that details the reversal rates for the Courts of Appeal dating back to 2004. As you will see if you bother to look at the Circuit Scorecards, there isn't a single year that the 9th Circuit had the highest reversal rate.

I think you have serious reading comprehension problems. Or you're just an idiot.
 
Dungheap said:
What I am telling you is that you cannot point to a single year that the 9th Circuit had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate among the Courts of Appeal.

I understand that you post a link to some guy that says "not much more" but him saying it doesn't make it so. I gave you a link that details the reversal rates for the Courts of Appeal dating back to 2004. As you will see if you bother to look at the Circuit Scorecards, there isn't a single year that the 9th Circuit had the highest reversal rate.

I think you have serious reading comprehension problems. Or you're just an idiot.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link that figured the average which was "not much more", you gave me a link with data that you can use to figure that same average if you wish, if it gave you more data than solely four years.

Thank you for being stupid and trying to supposedly find something inconsistent with my opinion that as far as I know they are the most overturned court, yet finding nothing that showed it was inconsistent....

I think your math skills suck and that you're hacktacular to the point of deliberately "misunderstanding" things that do not mesh with your worldview. It isn't like they are all Democrats and need your protection or something, why is it that you think this court needs some special protection from you?

One thing that is notable is that it details only a very small amount of years.

Another thing to note is how you actually posted things I stated and then acted as if you had made a point, which details your total lack of honesty, you don't even read my posts. You wouldn't be capable of determining my intelligence level simply because of that. Psychic determinations of my intelligence level based on posts you don't even read notwithstanding, I couldn't care less of your opinion of me at this point.
 
Dungheap said:
Judge Bybee, author of the notorious torture memos, sits on the 9th Circuit. It isn't what it used to be.

You aren't asking the right question. This isn't a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state claim for which relief can be granted. if it were, you might have a point. The issue is whether the government should be able to afford blanket immunity to corporations it contracts with to engage in illegal activity under the guise of national security.
Click to expand...

hasn't that already been dealt with in the wiretapping and eavesdropping suit against AT&T?
 
Damocles said:
I gave you a link that figured the average which was "not much more", you gave me a link with data that you can use to figure that same average if you wish, if it gave you more data than solely four years.

Thank you for being stupid and trying to supposedly find something inconsistent with my opinion that as far as I know they are the most overturned court, yet finding nothing that showed it was inconsistent....

I think your math skills suck and that you're hacktacular to the point of deliberately "misunderstanding" things that do not mesh with your worldview. It isn't like they are all Democrats and need your protection or something.

One thing that is notable is that it details only a very small amount of years.

Another thing to note is how you actually posted things I stated as if you had made a point, which details your total lack of honesty, you don't even read my posts. You wouldn't be capable of determining my intelligence level simply because of that.
Click to expand...


Dude, I read your post and I read the information at the link provided. You seem to think that the person you linked to actually looked at the data and determined based on a rigorous analysis of the data that the 9th Circuit is overturned "not much more" than other circuits. Just because you found a website that says something doesn't make it true. Your link didn't figure the average. You just think it did for some strange reason.

In fact, for the past six years the 9th Circuit has never had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate. Not once.

I also think it's funny that you project your personal short-comings onto me. I gave you the data that shows that you are wrong.
 
Dungheap said:
Congress granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications. While that too is bullshit, it is a far cry from the Executive unilaterally doing so.
Click to expand...

but there is a certain amount of incredulity to expect that a democratic majority congress and a democratic whitehouse is not going to act as one body. whether it's the executive branch making a unilateral decision or a dem congress passing legislation, no matter the road bumps one is going to cover for the other. Granted, it would be the same if it was republicans also, but don't be disappointed about it, you KNEW it was going to happen.
 
Dungheap said:
Dude, I read your post and I read the information at the link provided. You seem to think that the person you linked to actually looked at the data and determined based on a rigorous analysis of the data that the 9th Circuit is overturned "not much more" than other circuits. Just because you found a website that says something doesn't make it true. Your link didn't figure the average. You just think it did for some strange reason.

In fact, for the past six years the 9th Circuit has never had the distinction of having the highest reversal rate. Not once.

I also think it's funny that you project your personal short-comings onto me. I gave you the data that shows that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you gave me a limited amount of data that was cherry-picked to your purpose.

The reality is, I gave you reasons I believe what I do, which you promptly argued with links from Media Matters (the links are there, they don't link to Media Matters themselves) that were specifically picked by Media Matters in their dates to skew the data.

The court has been around far longer than since 2004. It takes guts to point out talking points on this site and pretend that nobody can discover where they come from, it's worse when you promote them as the epitome of truth when they have clearly limited their data so that they could suggest something to the limited of mind.

Anyway, as I said before I think they get this reputation because of the times like were outlined in this article. In one session 19 out of 21 of their decisions were overturned, 90% http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1185268000242 (BTW - You'll have to actually read the article to find what I am talking about, because the article isn't about it, it just mentions it.)

With that, when I averaged the results of 2 decades by percentages I found that they had a slightly higher rate than any of the other courts. I posted a site that said that same thing which hadn't done the math, but it doesn't mean I can't do math myself.

Your argument was that I had nothing on which to base that opinion. I have provided you information on how I came up with the opinion. Thanks for playing... Hack.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but there is a certain amount of incredulity to expect that a democratic majority congress and a democratic whitehouse is not going to act as one body. whether it's the executive branch making a unilateral decision or a dem congress passing legislation, no matter the road bumps one is going to cover for the other. Granted, it would be the same if it was republicans also, but don't be disappointed about it, you KNEW it was going to happen.
Click to expand...


But Congress passing laws, the President signing them and the courts passing judgment on them is the way the system works. The president alone granting immunity retroactively while telling the courts they can't review it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top