| Associate Justice Antonin Scalia - Part 1 - 582 sec
internet stream of address to students
Auteur : 29bairdr
Tags:scalia 29bairdr
 | | Antonin Artaud - 597 sec
Antonin Artaud
Part 4
Auteur : GottfriedGeist
Tags: Antonin Artaud
| | Antonin Artaud - 417 sec
Antonin Artaud
Part 1
Auteur : GottfriedGeist
Tags: Antonin Artaud
| | Antonin Artaud - 205 sec
blablabla
Auteur : jhonygrillo
Tags:Antonin
| | Antonin Artaud homenaje al poeta total - 265 sec
Homenaje a Antonin Artaud, el poeta actor artista pensador. En esta ocación fotos de él y algunos de sus dibujos. Para La Belleza de No Pensar. Realización por Ignacio Muñoz Cristi. Movimiento Lúdico Films. Vea nuestro blog en http://bellezadenopensar.blospot.com
Auteur : autonautica
Tags: poesía petry Artaud surrealismo
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 1 of 4 - 477 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 2 of 4 - 372 sec
Then on torture, current laws already ban torture, the Geneva Conventions for example, to the War Crimes Act of 1996. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says that torture does not constitute - cruel and unusual punishment , because torture is not meant to punish, but only to get information. Mr. Scalia's argument fails for several reasons.Torture Does not Generate Useful Information. Initially, torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Indeed, it is well-known by professional interrogators that torture does not work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information. So if torture is not an information-gathering technique, its only purpose must be punishment and,or intimidation. Torturing People Who can not Give Useful Information is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Some try and say that the 8th amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to banning torture because the suspect has not been found guilty yet, but no where in the 8th amendment does it say only in the sentencing phase. Looking at the 8th amendment, the bail part refers to a monetary sum that is collateral for not fleeing even though guilt has not been determined. So the 8th amendment is not specifically talking about a penalty only after guilt is determined. Who would have thought? Clearly It is obvious that the 8th amendment is saying no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted saying torture is not only illegal but wrong. This not only goes against laws already written but against our moral compass as human beings.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Demetrio Stratos - Antonin Artaud - 126 sec
Demetrio Stratos interpreta Artaud
Auteur : epotosi
Tags:Demetrio Stratos Artaud
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 3 of 4 - 388 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Dvorak, tempo di valse - 402 sec
extraordinary piece of music
Auteur : gxgfree4rhyme
Tags: Antonin Dvorak tempo di valse music classical genius masterpiece muzica clasic
| | Antonin DVORAK: "The New World" Symphony - 501 sec
3. Scherzo: Molto Vivace -- Poco sostenuto
The Symphony No. 9, in E Minor "From the New World" (Op. 95), popularly known as the New World Symphony, was composed by Antonín Dvořák in 1893 during his visit to the United States from 1892 to 1895. It is by far his most popular symphony, and one of the most popular symphonies in the modern repertory. It is in four movements:
1. Adagio -- Allegro molto
2. Largo
3. Scherzo: Molto Vivace -- Poco sostenuto
4. Allegro con fuoco
Dvorak stated that the third movement scherzo was "suggested by the scene at the feast in Hiawatha where the Indians dance". "The Song of Hiawatha" is an 1855 epic poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow based on the legends of the Ojibway Indians.
(We appreciate Wikipaedia's contributions in the descriptions here)
Auteur : andrewgrummanJC
Tags: DVORAK The New World Symphony No. in Minor Op. 95
| | Maksim Mrvica - New World Concerto (Antonín Dvořák) - 258 sec
Maksim's playing "New World Concerto"(Antonín Dvořák), from his album A New World...
Auteur : morassi43
Tags:maksim mrvica new world concerto croatia tonci huljic antonín dvořák
| | Kazuhito Yamashita - Antonín Dvořák - New World Symphony 1/5 - 480 sec
The Symphony No. 9, in E Minor "From the New World" (Op. 95)
I. Adagio - Allegro molto
Auteur : blhsing
Tags:kazuhito yamashita new world symphony 9 e minor adagio allegro molto antonin dvorak classical guitar classic music 山下和仁
| | Kazuhito Yamashita - Antonín Dvořák - New World Symphony 2/5 - 256 sec
The Symphony No. 9, in E Minor "From the New World" (Op. 95)
II. Largo
Part 1
Auteur : blhsing
Tags:kazuhito yamashita new world symphony 9 e minor largo antonin dvorak classical guitar classic music 山下和仁
| | Kazuhito Yamashita - Antonín Dvořák - New World Symphony 5/5 - 549 sec
The Symphony No. 9, in E Minor "From the New World" (Op. 95)
IV. Allegro con fuoco
Auteur : blhsing
Tags:kazuhito yamashita new world symphony 9 e minor allegro con fuoco antonin dvorak classical guitar classic music 山下和仁
| | peynier antonin charly toma - 85 sec
bmx
Auteur : antobmxxx
Tags: peynier bmx trail charly antonin thomas pennes mirabeau
| | Antonin Panenka penalty - 21 sec
1976-06-20 Ec Czechoslovakia-Germany 2-2 5-3 Antonin Panenka...Solo se le rekuerda por el penalty pero hay ke tener webos a tirarlo asi
Auteur : peaxo
Tags:panenka penalty peaxo
| | Antonin Dvorak Rondo in G minor Opus 94 - 449 sec
Jessica Lizardo, 17, cello and Steve Lightburn, piano. Antonin Dvorak's Rondo. Junior Recital on May 20, 2007 at SOTA in S.F.
Auteur : llizar
Tags:jessica lizardo steve lightburn antonin dvorak rondo
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 4 of 4 - 415 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Humoresque - Antonin Dvorak - 206 sec
A good music again. I love this song, and played it quite well this time. Hope you enjoy it!
Auteur : dqtvictory
Tags: humoresque dvorak piano
|
|
