The Cellar - Funny political pictures

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Funny political pictures (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14347)

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:

Quote:

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances,
when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion
that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice
either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 780034)

If you're going to masturbate at least have the sense to do it in private.

What a fucking dodge.

I refuse to take your bate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 780035)

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:

This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

Yep. I saw that too, so the language came from somewhere in our law. That doesn't dull any of the pain though, it excuses none of the embellishment. "US Constitution" "Section 144", because, what? Now the detail adds realism? Where did these inventions come from? I'd like to know that. Congressman Jeff Sessions was cited as the source for the call for an examination of Justice Kagan's involvement, did he suggest the Constitution had a role here? Who did? I also notice that there's no attribution to the "calls from the other side of the political spectrum" for Justice Thomas' involvement, just ... anonymous calls.

Furthermore, I've seen no opinions indicating that this section of our laws do indeed represent what Fox says they represent, that Justice Kagan should recuse herself in this situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 780035)

They may well have been referring to this:

United States Code, Title 28, Section 455

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.shtml

Quote:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

A question for the room. Who here thinks that the following sections apply to Justice Thomas' recusal obligations?

Quote:

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 779999)

My point here is that they have stolen the meaning of the word "News", in the best Orwellian style, and made it into the opposite of what it really means. They are the cuckoo of television, laying this alien egg in the nest and having others expend the energy to deal with it.

Brilliant.

The Murdoch machine laid a similar egg in Britain's print media. They couldn't do it quite the same way with television news as the tv news is waaaay more heavily regulated than print media.

Unfortunately the end result isnt just that everyone else expends energy dealing with the cuckoo.

What actually happens is a race to the bottom. At least, that's certainly what happened in the British tabloids. Murdoch's papers changed the way tabloids worked. Eventually they all ended up scraping the barrell.

Too much political. Not enough pictures. No where near enough funny.

This whole thread is on report.

Some of us were having fun....

FINE. Have your "funny political pitchurs", fine.

That one is funny, he's certainly having fun. :)

You intentionally ignoring my questions V?

Can we move this thread to politics?
KTHXBAI :bolt:

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

You intentionally ignoring my questions V?

Nope, I gave an example immediately following your post as you can see.
Post #433:

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 780025)

BigV - Define "Fox *News*"
To which part are you referring? The Hannity, O'Reilly, Wallace type shows to which MSNBC has Maddow, O'Donnell and Shultz or are you referring to the hour long "general" or "world" news shows?

Post #434:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 780032)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/127946468...sy-in-hc-case/

--snip

Their news is bad enough. Their editorializing is far more creative. I have issues with their news and with their opinions. But this is an example of a straight news story with some important facts wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 780013)

snip--

what you describe is ALL THE CHANNELS

--snip

Here's what I have to say about THAT!

I was so depressed seeing Newt with such a high number that it took me a while to notice that slight error in the pictures. :smack: :lol:

Oh and those percentages only add up to 88.4 - but there are plausible and genuine explanations for that (informal votes, write in candidates not listed here, etc.). Or it's another cockup.