Jeff Molby: Spoken like a true ACLU lawyer,attack my grammar and spelling!

Yes, I did. I also pointed out that I rarely do it and I explained why I made an exception in this case.

Typical liberal response, misdirection is the heart of a great illusion

There was no misdirection. I addressed the content of your argument and the manner in which you presented it. You didn’t respond to my 5th and 6th paragraphs, which were direct responses to the heart of your argument, so if there is any “misdirection”, it is not on my part.

All I’m saying is why do people hold judges up as gods? Are you saying they don’t make mistakes?

Of course they’re fallible. No one said otherwise. If you think they erred in this case, please point out the error in their reasoning. Stating that you don’t like the outcome is not sufficient.

Judges are suppose to be bipartisan, if that’s the case why does it matter to a specific political party who gets appointed? If the appointment didn’t favor their parties’ beliefs?

Because different judges have different perspectives about how the constitution and other laws should be interpreted. Those differing perspectives can lead to differing conclusions on particular issues and the parties are smart enough to know which perspectives they favor. The symptom you point to is a matter of politicians meddling with the judiciary, not the judges aligning themselves with any particular party.

And somebody else responded: Our courts have jurisdiction over acts committed on our soil by anyone with a few exceptions for diplomatic and military status.

I’d like to see them lock this guy up and throw away the key, but the answer to the question is that our Constitution doesn’t GRANT us rights, it merely RECOGNIZES our natural or God-given rights. Those rights are inherent in EVERYONE, not just US citizens. When the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights, it doesn’t specify that these restrictions are only for citizens.

Did you notice who asked for the sentence to be vacated? The government! They wanted 35+ years! Why do you hate the USA?

just the latest example of how a powerful segment of society does not take the existential of Islamic terrorism seriously.

Why, because they believe the district court made a significant error on one of the counts? C’mon, they even vacated the entire sentence, which is a gift-wrapped opportunity for the district judge to impose the exact same (or even higher) sentence based on the remaining 8 convictions.

I would find it hard to believe that the 9th Circuit vacated the ENTIRE conviction based on one of nine counts for the purpose of giving the district court the chance to slap this guy with a lengthier stint in the tossed salad wing of the clink, so I will chalk it up to this radical court’s tendency to side with the bad guys.

The terminology is important. They reversed one conviction and vacated the entire sentence. Reversing the one conviction is a win for the criminal, but vacating the sentence is a win for the prosecution. The original sentence was far below the minimum, so the district court still has all sorts of latitude when they re-sentence him.

Now, I don’t know why or how this conviction was vacated as the 9th Circuit website is crawling at the moment, but I am willing to bet that it was some non-substantive technical issue.

It turns out your bet was wrong. An element of the crime wasn’t even discussed at trial, let alone demonstrated. Even if their assertion is wrong, the issue in question isn’t “non-substantive”.

The opinion goes on to explain that this guy is an Algerian citizen. This brings me to the obvious question: why does a foreign terrorist have the same access to our court system and constitution as an American citizen? He shouldn’t, should he?

1) Our courts have jurisdiction over acts committed on our soil by anyone with a few exceptions for diplomatic and military status.
2) He’s not a “terrorist” in legal terms until he’s been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction

During the 2003-2004 term, the Supreme Court reversed 76 percent of the cases that it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions

By citing that statistic without comparing it to other circuits, you’re implying that SCOTUS largely disagrees with with the 9th Circuit. I don’t have any stats handy, but i’m going to assume that SCOTUS’s caseload is distributed evenly among the 12 circuits. I’ll further assume SCOTUS hears the same number of cases as any individual circuit. With those assumptions in mind, we can conclude that SCOTUS only reviews 1/12 (8.3%) of the 9th Circuit’s decision and thus (assuming your stat is accurate) only overturns 6.3% of their cases. That tells me that SCOTUS implicitly agrees with the vast majority of the 9th Circuit’s decisions.

your telling us not to question there decisions?

Feel free to question their decision, but make sure you do it on the merits of the opinion, not whether or not you happen to agree with the end result.

Your a complete and utter fool or a ACLU member which adds up to the same, your kind of liberal thinking that people should except all court decisions without question will be the death of America, and were not going to let that happen, sell your crap to the kos kids.

Mack, I don’t usually call people out like this, but Kevin made a factually accurate statement. You then twisted his words and proceeded to the ad hominem attacks, so I’m going to take the time to explain a few things about our language:
- “Your” is a possessive pronoun
- “You’re” is a contraction for “You are”
- The article “an” is used if the following word starts with a vowel.
- “Except” means “With the exclusion of; other than; but”
- “Accept” means “To endure resignedly or patiently”
I point this out because your mistakes can’t even be attributed to poor typing or spelling. You spelled everything properly, you just don’t know which words to use. Leave the ad hominem attacks on the playground, especially if your act isn’t up to snuff.

Dude. It’s the NINTH. Of COURSE it can be more ludicrous. They are dedicated to the project of identifying the ludicrosity value that approaches infinity as closely as humanly possible.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out the sentence of a man who was convicted of plotting to

People fail to understand the purpose, the very idea of, the court. The court should by no means be concerned with the physical security of Americans from Islamic terrorism. The SOLE concern of the courts is to ensure that the law is enforced correctly at all times, it is to be devoid of all biases, and those biases include practicalities and legislative goals such as protection from Islamic terrorism. If Congress made a decision such as this one, then it is valid to criticize. But criticism of courts in a manner like this is unreasonable and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the most basic function of the American justice system.