1

Really: it's the Devil talking to Hell creatures. The Evil Religion. Absolutelly sick.

I'd never read or heard so many SHIT in my life since Nazi and Communist adresses...

Muslim speech makes me vomit...

 

 

<b>The big rat came back. </b> The new Hitler, dictator of the Iran, visited several latin-american countries, preaching the Nazism. The rat-face tyrant of the worst hospice shit hole in the Hell, where the persons (sub) live in the Stone Age, feeding the terrorism and the civil war in the Iraq, came as invited of honor for watch cucarachas presidents inaugurals. 

Normal: the biggest flies are attracted by the biggest pieces of shit. The scum of the Humanity is rallying Latin America <i> "because they are all anti-American leaders; and the United States lose with that." </i> Lose what?  Just lose the little remainder of respect that still would have for the cucarachas.  <b>What <i> we </i> earn hating the best and associating to the worst?  </b>

We have nothing it fear, except ourselves.  Latin America already had some attention during Cold War. Today, solemnly it is despised.  Because it is really despicable.  Nobody is interested in spend a second of his precious time with insignificant countries.  When a gorilla turns dictator threatening everyone who opposes <i> socialism</i> will be punished with <i> death</i>, that is problem of the people that elected him only. Capitalists business remain the same.  Who says that is the president of peru, Alan Garcia: <i> <b> "Chavez is a hypocrite.  He sells 80% of the oil to the Americans, but insults as “bribed” anyone else which do business with the United States."  </b></i>

As usual, who ruins Latin America are latin-americans themselves. 

 

 

2 Is this the bastard who had faked Canadian birth certificate and had tried to sneak in through the British Columbia - Washington border?

3 Yes, I think so Garduneh

4 here we go again, another filthy subhuman arab let go by activist judges and full blown anti american politicians.  mark my words, this man will kill thousands in a couple years or less.

instead of slaughtering these animals we are letting them go.  great work American Judges.


It is time for the citizens to take up arms in the global war on terror.

5

Never thought of it before but ERNESTO is right. That Iranian bastard does have a face like a rat. Good call.

 

Another reason why I moved my family from San Francisco, where I was born and raised. It's just too crazy out there. Every freak from around the nation and others migrate to there seeking more weirdos like themselves.

6 Well we all know Fisty is well versed in the world of taking "up arms" and not stopping until "full blown." 

7 The silver lining in the story is that he may in fact recieve more time. Despite Judge Jihadi's efforts to free the dirt bag, it now goes back for a re-evaluation. The prosecution will be pushing for more time than the original 22 years, as it is their beif that the original sentence was too light. Let's be patient, let justice run it's course, see what happens, if that doesn't work, then shoot him.

8 Hey! Right on. I didn't think of that. He can get more time if the entire sentence is vacated. However, if he receives more time the appeals will pour forth from the ACLU and every lefturd hug a muslim group in the country.

9 It's a sad state of affairs when assassination will soon be the only way We the People can seek redress of grievences, but that's the way it's headed.

10 Amen brother. You speak the truth.

11 The ninth circuit appeals court happens to have 75% of their decisions overturned when reaching the Supreme court. Highest rate in the nation.
 
It looks like these assholes of Judges actually searched for a reason to vacate the sentence.
 
This is proof that President Bush was right in that Terrorists cannot be tried in civilian courts. They should be tried in military courts. Another reason that Gitmo is needed.

12 Mike Savage talk radio show just moments ago revealed that despite ahmed ressam having explosives and timers, that one of the 9th circuit court judges said tha ressam didn't use them!
 
As Mike Savage said: "When are we going to arrest that judge on the criminal charges of aiding and abetting the enemy?"
 
signed
The_Creature_From_The_Mariana_Trench

13 The judge claimed that he didn't use them during the commission of a crime. Therefore, he was incorrectly charged. What a fucking joke. We are supposed to wait until he uses them. Those judges need to be horse whipped. The tax payers pay for 15 of these assholes to come up with a decision like that. Those judges haven't the brains of my drunk redneck buddies at the boat launch. And they sure as hell aren't as patriotic.

14 Hey! Where in the hell are you lefturds. No comments? Didn't think so. Even you pricks can't defend this one.

15 Did you guys notice who filed the appeal against the sentence? Yeah, I didn't think so.

The US Government.

They appealed because the sentence was too short. They asked for 35+ years. So, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence. Gabriel thinks they even "searched for a reason to vacated the sentence."

Now you want that decision reversed?

Why do I think you guys didn't really read the decision, that you just saw the magic words: "terrorist," "vacated," "Ninth Circuit" and your brains disengaged and your fingers flew immediately to your keyboards?

16 Greg, you obviously didn't read the opinion either, or else you would have seen, ON THE FIRST PAGE, where it identifies both sides as appellants.  And here's the money shot from the text:
"The United States appeals the sentence, and Ressam crossappeals his conviction on Count 9."
The court then expressly DECLINED to rule on the gov't appeal, and ruled in favor of Ressam on his count 9 appeal. So of course we want the 9th reversed, as the 9th sided 100% with the terrorist Ressam!

I love it when lefty dumbasses play condescending assholes. It's so much fun to rub their faces in their own shit.

17 Greg you simple minded little shit. Welcome back. Assuming that we did not know who filed the appeal shows that you're still a dumb shit.

18 wooga, I asked "who filed the appeal <b>against the sentence?</b>" And your "money shot":

"The United States <b>appeals the sentence</b>, and Ressam crossappeals his conviction on Count 9."

So, your second strike in the "can't read" debate. If you want to rub my face in shit, don't make <b>stupid</b> mistakes!  

Yeah, the court expressly "declined" to rule on the merits of the government position <b>while giving them what they wanted</b>.

It's a principle of judicial economy (even non-activism) to only rule on the things that they <b>need</b> to rule on. Here, they could give the government what they wanted without going into the legal analysis. What, you wanted the Ninth Circuit to actually reach the merits of the Government's case? You actually think they would have gotten  it right?

19 Yeah, the court expressly "declined" to rule on the merits of the
government position <b>while giving them what they
wanted</b>.
No, the court did not give the gov't what they wanted. The court threw out the sentence on the 9th count, not because it was too short, but because the court created a new requisite element of the crime which was not in the statute (that's the definition of judicial activism, btw). It then goes back to the same lower judge to recalculate the sentence without the 9th count included, meaning the lower judge has free reign -- and likely will -- decrease the sentence. The only way the gov't would have gotten 'what it wanted' was if the court held on to the statutory language governing the 9th count, and threw out the trial sentence as being so lenient as to be in violation of sentencing guidelines.  The gov't wanted to reduce the trial judge's discretion, and the 9th Circuit said 'not only are we going to allow the trial judge to continue ignoring the evil and oppressive republican sentencing guidelines, we'll also allow him to ignore the verdict on the 9th count!'

20 It would be judicial activism if they had, in fact, in this case, added language to the statute. They didn't. They abided by precedent. They would have had to overturn an earlier ruling, United States v. Stewart 779 F.2d 538 (1985) to get to the result you want. So, you'd have them overturn a 22-year old precedent, that had been interpreted by other cases within the circuit (United States v. Mendoza, 11 F.3d 126 (1993)) to get at this one guy. And you call their refusal to reverse 22 years of stare decisis "judicial activism?" And conservatives wonder why liberals think they use those words to mean "any decision we don't like."

And, don't think the 9th Circuit winked at the judges downward discretion. It didn't decide on that. To read anything more into the decision would be activist.

21 Oh poor Greg. I guess you don't have access to Westlaw or Lexis.

This issue in Ressam was the court's decision to add the "in relation to" language into the statute.  The court, as you repeated, claimed it had to follow older case law injecting such language in Stewart.  Of course, the US Supreme Court (which is completely binding as this is a federal issue) subsequently ruled in Lamie that the court "cannot read an absent word into the statute."  As Stewart expressly relied on the injection of an absent word in the statute, the Stewart rule is no longer valid after Lamie, and the 9th was not bound to follow Stewart anymore.

The reading of absent language into a statute is judicial activism.  Your argument that following judicial activism somehow doesn't count as judicial activism is bizarre.  Court's are only bound to follow controlling precedent, and where there is grounds to retreat from a prior activist decision and return to the language of the statute, a decision to re-embrace the unnecessary prior activist decision -- well that's just plan activism all over again.

You are confusing legal concepts when you mention "Judicial activism" and stare decisis. Activism refers to the court 'playing legislature' and making its own laws, rather than simply evaluating conflicts between other laws (such as constitutional and statutory). Stare decisis is simply an adherence to court made law.   Striking down a statute is not necessarily "activist," if the decision is based on the actual law of a higher authority like the Constitution.  Striking down laws is only 'judicial activism' when the basis for striking down the statute comes not from the people (const.) or legislature, but rather from the judiciary itself. Thus following the principle of stare decisis can itself be an act of judicial activism.

22 Where have I heard that reference to Lamie before? Oh yeah, in the dissent's argument. He couldn't even sway a Bush-appointee! Did you have to go to Westlaw to figure out how to repeat the dissent's argument? Did you Shepardize Stewart while you were there? I guess you didn't read it, did you? Here's how I know you didn't read it. The court in Stewart didn't add words to the statute. You could have learned that simple fact from reading this case. In fact, the Ressam court discusses that fact for 4 pages of the decision. In a very real sense, it WAS the decision. To summarize: In Stewart, Congress added words to the statute (18 USC 924 (c)) and the 9th Circuit had to determine what they meant. They found that the words (that Congress added) "in relation to" didn't add anything to the reading of the statute. It just made "clear a condition already implicit in the statute." 779 F.2d 538 at 539. Which makes sense, since that's what Congress said they were doing! That also explains why your repetition of the dissent's argument is just as unconvincing as when he said it. The court isn't reading new words into this statute, they are finding that the relational element was always there. Just like Congress said it was always there!

Clue time: If you are going to brag about having Westlaw and/or Lexis, use them. Don't make silly mistakes like saying Stewart was about words added to a statute. Don't believe me? Pull up 18 USC 924 (C).

And yes, I do find conservatives' use of the words "judicial activism" confusing. If you hadn't completely fudged up Stewart, maybe your invocation of activism would make sense here, but you did and it doesn't.

Would you like to re-read Ressam and Stewart and try again?

23 Must be a different Greg. Sorry bout that. When the name Greg comes up on this blog we get sick.