Obama
 

Donut wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:59:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


On Feb 6, 3:08 pm, rw wrote:

Their policy positions are nearly identical. I'm just sick of
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

I don't care about charisma or oratorical skills. I just want something
different.

If Hillary Clinton end's up the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for
her.

You're tired of Bush-Clinton. Want something different. Mad at
Clinton
for voting for the Iraq war. But if (when) she gets the nomination
you'll
vote for her regardless?

I just don't get people who vote strictly based on party. No wonder
both parties keep nominating garbage.
- Ken



OK, throw out party platforms...

For whatever reason, RW is inclined to vote for a democrat, whoever
that might be come November. He said he prefers Obama, but implies
that he'd take Clinton over any of the republican contenders.

So what's the problem?

I thought he'd explained his position pretty clearly earlier in this
thread. As Larry L. said, this is a person to vote *for*.

Besides, what would his options be? If you are of the democrat
persuasion, it's down to two people.

Don

For some reason Ken's post isn't showing up on my server so I'll answer
him by replying to your supportive post, Donut.

I don't dislike Hillary Clinton, even though there are some things she's
done (mainly the war authorization vote) that I disagree with, and I'd
rather leave the Bush/Clinton thing behind. I think the two Democratic
candidates are both excellent, and I can happily vote whichever one gets
the nomination.

I merely prefer Obama.

Is that so hard to "get"?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

On Feb 6, 6:12 pm, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

Thanks, Royal and Larry etc..

Oh man, Laz, you've gone and done it. I suppose now we're ALL gonna
have to start calling him Royal...

Thanks a lot!

;-)

Jon.
PS: Found out on Tuesday that "DTS" party affiliation means "decline
to state". Coulda sworn I was registered...

Obama
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase the
impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports" franchise
or other wins some parochial championship or other and everybody starts to
bleat about "dynasties"?

Obama
 

On Feb 7, 7:55 am, rw wrote:
Donut wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:59:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:08 pm, rw wrote:

Their policy positions are nearly identical. I'm just sick of
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

I don't care about charisma or oratorical skills. I just want something
different.

If Hillary Clinton end's up the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for
her.

You're tired of Bush-Clinton. Want something different. Mad at
Clinton
for voting for the Iraq war. But if (when) she gets the nomination
you'll
vote for her regardless?

I just don't get people who vote strictly based on party. No wonder
both parties keep nominating garbage.
- Ken

OK, throw out party platforms...

For whatever reason, RW is inclined to vote for a democrat, whoever
that might be come November. He said he prefers Obama, but implies
that he'd take Clinton over any of the republican contenders.

So what's the problem?

I thought he'd explained his position pretty clearly earlier in this
thread. As Larry L. said, this is a person to vote *for*.

Besides, what would his options be? If you are of the democrat
persuasion, it's down to two people.

Don

For some reason Ken's post isn't showing up on my server so I'll answer
him by replying to your supportive post, Donut.

I don't dislike Hillary Clinton, even though there are some things she's
done (mainly the war authorization vote) that I disagree with, and I'd
rather leave the Bush/Clinton thing behind. I think the two Democratic
candidates are both excellent, and I can happily vote whichever one gets
the nomination.

I merely prefer Obama.

Is that so hard to "get"?

It's difficult for me to "get" since I don't have an affiliation with
either party.
Given the dislikes you listed about Clinton, I'd assume you would be
looking
elsewhere if she beats out Obama.

For a while it looked like it was going to be Clinton vs Huckabee
which meant
I'd be voting 3rd party come November. The far left and far right
scare me
roughly equally.

If recent history has shown anything, giving either party control of
President,
House and Senate is a recipe for disaster.
- Ken

Obama
 

In article
,
wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:12 pm, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

Thanks, Royal and Larry etc..

Oh man, Laz, you've gone and done it. I suppose now we're ALL gonna
have to start calling him Royal...

I know, I know. It was overly familiar of me.

But, as I said, I'm at heart a republican, and ** without meaning any
offence ** it sticks in my craw to address him as 'your highness'.

L

Obama
 

In article , Wolfgang
wrote:


We live in a world in which words like "liberal" and "conservative" are seen
as necessarily antithetical.

Not a world.

A country.

Margaret Thatcher would have been proud to see herself as a
conservative (as well as a Conservative) and as someone whose main
mission in life was to persuade people to adopt liberal (i.e. free of
unnecessary restraint) economics.

Lazarus

Obama
 

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
news:070220081734254449%lazaruscooke@britishlibrar y.invalid...
In article , Wolfgang
wrote:


We live in a world in which words like "liberal" and "conservative" are
seen
as necessarily antithetical.

Not a world.

A country.

Where do the countries you know dwell?

Margaret Thatcher would have been proud to see herself as a
conservative (as well as a Conservative) and as someone whose main
mission in life was to persuade people to adopt liberal (i.e. free of
unnecessary restraint) economics.

Many people are proud to see themselves as whatever it is they imagine they
are.

Lazarus

Yeah.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...

Law is not interpreted in "the eye of the beholder".

Pray tell, then.....by whom and how is it interpreted?

Wolfgang
who, in this latter day of "caveat emptor" knows that he will at least get
his money's worth from any free lesson offered.

Obama
 

Obama
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

It's difficult for me to "get" since I don't have an affiliation with
either party.
Given the dislikes you listed about Clinton, I'd assume you would be
looking
elsewhere if she beats out Obama.

Like where?

Like, at the point of this thread. You are IMPORTANT, man!

Wolfgang
well, what the hell did y'all THINK this was about? :)

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote


Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?



Actually I thought about those examples as I typed.

I was speaking in the context of the current world's view ( as I guess
{admittedly } it to be ) and I doubt if our rather distant history is what
is affecting that current opinion.

And I'll add that I don't believe this dynasty thing is a huge deal, rather
that the other option of electing a black would be. Electing a woman
would be seen as an advance, but somehow, putting the Clintons back in the
master bedroom at the White House falls a little short of really electing a
woman, in many minds worldwide ( again, my guess )

Obama
 

" wrote

I'd be voting 3rd party come November. The far left and far right
scare me
roughly equally.



whoa, I consider myself to be slightly left of dead center and I'M father
left than Clinton

you scare too easy G


as for preferring Obama, but certain to vote for Clinton over McCain .... it
IS possible to reach that same set of actions without being 'partisan'
..... you know, compare positions with my own and pick the candidate closest
to my image of what we need

Imagine choosing dinner at a buffet, all the wishing in the world ain't
going to make your very favorite, lobster, appear if it's not there, you
have to choose from the choices available ( doh ) ... saying "I'll take the
lobster" and being content with an empty plate is for 'third party voters'
in a two party system G


Larry L ( who would LOVE to see instant runoff elections in this country, so
that 'third parties' could develop and have real clout .... )

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:43:52 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
ynews.com...

Law is not interpreted in "the eye of the beholder".

Pray tell, then.....by whom and how is it interpreted?

Through assessment of the intent.

And thus you are content to pretend that you so much as tried to answer the
question?

Wolfgang
who, were he inclined to emulate some mythological creature, would pick one
for whom he had some respect.

Obama
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote


Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?



Actually I thought about those examples as I typed.

You should make a habit of finishing the preliminaries before embarking on
the main event.

I was speaking in the context of the current world's view ( as I guess
{admittedly } it to be ) and I doubt if our rather distant history is what
is affecting that current opinion.

And you'll forgive me for guessing that your guesses don't count for much in
the current world's view of whatever the hell it is presumed they are
viewing......right? And, for what it's worth, I don't for a minute believe
that you had any particular context in mind. This is the trouble we see
here all the time......the trouble with a permanently relaxed oral
sphincter.....as it were.

And I'll add that I don't believe this dynasty thing is a huge deal,

Thus explaining your refusal to be tempted into commenting on
them.....right?

rather that the other option of electing a black would be.

An observation which some few of us here might eventually have become
qualified to make.

Electing a woman would be seen as an advance,

By some, doubtless.

but somehow, putting the Clintons back in the master bedroom at the White
House falls a little short of really electing a woman, in many minds
worldwide ( again, my guess )

I guess that if you confined your guesses to what transpires in your own
mind you'd suffer a marginally greater chance of success.

Wolfgang
who guesses that dicklet is right.

Obama
 

Larry L wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote



Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?


Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were only fifth cousins --
hardly the makings of a dynasty.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Larry L wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote



Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?


Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were only fifth cousins --
hardly the makings of a dynasty.

You never disappoint. :)

Wolfgang
who, as is plain for all the world to see, thought he was just THIS close to
positively identifying one of the scores of genuine murrican presidential
dynasties.

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote


snip



because of my inabilities to express myself, to you, adequately for you to
understand, I'll try to refrain from further effort

.... my failure, but one I can live with





Let me say, though, that given the content of so many of your posts I fear
we may agree on one thing ... i.e. as a rule, human beings are idiots.


I doubt that we are in complete agreement, however, since I do not see you
as an exception to that rule.


Larry L ( who accepts his own inclusion, oft times, in the rule ... hell,
I'm 'typing' this with one finger because of an idiot move with a very sharp
knife )

Obama
 

" wrote in message
...

If recent history has shown anything, giving either party control of
President, House and Senate is a recipe for disaster.

Gosh. If only something like this could have been made evident some time
earlier! Why, we might not even have needed you to give us all a lesson
like in all balance of power and stuff, huh?

Wolfgang
who, having spent several years in usenet, is no longer as impressed as he
might once have been with the much ballyhooed collection of political genius
in late colonial america.

Obama
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

Larry L wrote:

"Wolfgang" wrote




Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?


Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were only fifth cousins --
hardly the makings of a dynasty.


You never disappoint. :)

Wolfgang
who, as is plain for all the world to see, thought he was just THIS close to
positively identifying one of the scores of genuine murrican presidential
dynasties.

Cheney and Obama have a common ancestor if you go back eight
generations. It looks like yet another dynasty in the making.

I was amused by Obama's reaction when he heard about this. He said that
every family has a black sheep.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote

because of my inabilities to express myself, to you, adequately for you to
understand, I'll try to refrain from further effort

We'll see.

... my failure, but one I can live with

Living with failure is like so many other things.....it gets easier with
practice.

Let me say, though,

Well, o.k., maybe refraining doesn't get easier with practice.

that given the content of so many of your posts I fear
we may agree on one thing ... i.e. as a rule, human beings are idiots.

No, we don't agree on that at all. As a rule, human beings are most
emphatically (and obviously) NOT idiots.

I doubt that we are in complete agreement, however, since I do not see you
as an exception to that rule.

See, you may not actually be an idiot (and, frankly, I don't suppose so),
but you are most certainly and demonstrably a liar.

Larry L ( who accepts his own inclusion, oft times, in the rule ... hell,
I'm 'typing' this with one finger because of an idiot move with a very
sharp knife )

You ever wonder how life might be different if you thought about what you
write before committing it to public view?.....or even after, for that
matter?

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

Larry L wrote:

"Wolfgang" wrote




Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?


Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were only fifth cousins --
hardly the makings of a dynasty.


You never disappoint. :)

Wolfgang
who, as is plain for all the world to see, thought he was just THIS close
to positively identifying one of the scores of genuine murrican
presidential dynasties.

Cheney and Obama have a common ancestor if you go back eight generations.

As do you and a chipmunk if you go back just a couple more.

It looks like yet another dynasty in the making.

Can syndication be far behind?

I was amused by Obama's reaction when he heard about this. He said that
every family has a black sheep.

Huh, uh, huh, uh, huh, uh, huh.

I get it.

Wolfgang
oh goody, a populist.

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:48:22 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
ynews.com...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:43:52 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
asynews.com...

Law is not interpreted in "the eye of the beholder".

Pray tell, then.....by whom and how is it interpreted?

Through assessment of the intent.

And thus you are content to pretend that you so much as tried to answer
the
question?

I wasn't pretending, I thought I did.

Really? Well then, you will have a long and fruitful career here.......you
say considerably more than you intend while simultaneously failing to make
the intended impression.

By whom is it interpreted?
However wrongly, by whomever reads, or has read to them, a law.

Impossible to do it rightly, then? One is left to conclude that you don't
often find yourself in agreement with others.

How is it interpreted? How it's interpreted is open to debate,

Everything is open to debate. But you won't be able to generate much that
is meaningful with respect to how the law is interpreted. The
interpretations themselves, on the other hand, are eternal fodder for those
who suffer from an endless need to display ignorance compounded by muddled
thinking and grossly misguided self-interest.

Yeah, the words you use are open to inspection. You should pay attention to
them......others most certainly will.

and you know that legal philosophers don't agree.

Legal philosophers, like other flavors, agree about pretty much everything
that matters. They just make a lot more noise about the disputed minutiae.

I believe Dworkin.

What's a Dworkin?......and what did it say?......and why should we care?

Wolfgang
what the hell, if it wants to play games.......

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
What's more interesting, I think, is that whoever he is he was
president.....and nobody told me till now.

Wolfgang
always the last to know.


well, President of something, and at least one guy claims to have had a vote
on the matter......g
Tom

Obama
 

Steve wrote:

what is a "jeffersonian independent?"


Jefferson stated that ""The question whether the judges are invested
with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law
has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise
of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution
which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or
Legislative branches. But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an
ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it
is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union,
assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or
of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to
give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the
peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided
this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to
force."

I believe him. So, in the context of this discussion I am a
jeffersonian.
And independent. I am not a member of a political party.

ok...but you'll have to admit you've selected a particular context
within which to wedge yourself...and one that jefferson seemed to have
trouble with at times as well, though i admit i know too little of his
writings and the writings of others about him. as i recall, and my
recall is ever-dimming, he was a bit baffling in word and deed at times
- the slave thing, the idea we ought to develop a new constitution every
couple decades, limiting citizenship to white property-owning males, a
myopic view of the role of women in society, his aristocratic airs and
behavior in europe. the majority of jefferson's "people of the Union"
have chosen to be a member of political parties.



is one who is active in supporting jeffersonian ideals over some other
principled philosophy an activist?


Yes.

ok...



which ideals? can a judge be a
"jeffersonian activist"?


Yes, but not a good one.

ok... what makes a good one?



you do know that pat robertson and his high priest of judicial activism,
jay sekulow, profess to be adherents of jeffersonian ideals? i think
most of those you might call an activist have probably cited jefferson
in advancing their brand of activism.


The Pat Robertson comment is a straw man, I did not advocate for a
religious fanatic or his minion.
I did not advocate for a demagogue invoking Jefferson either.


not true. the point is that Jefferson can be interpreted and used in a
lot of different ways...just as the law can. i don't think your ideal is
attainable. often, there is no "one right answer" in interpretation of
jefferson or the law. everybody seems to use him and his words for
their own brand of activism. i'm much more interested in your "activism"
and ideals, and your rationale for each. and i appreciate the glimpse
you've given.


i have always had difficulty with certain labels...or figuring out how
they are meant to apply (other than in the typical pejorative manner).

in my mind, everyone is an "activist" of some sort if they have any
principled philosophy at all. the idea that the judiciary cannot be
"activist" is hard for me to grasp.


It's not the commission of a Supreme Court justice to advocate for
their "principled philosophy". The principled philosophy has been
assigned to them.

you propose an automoton...not a reasoning or feeling human being,
endowed by a creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, living in a real and ever-changing world.
jefferson advocated for an educated population in the hope for the
exercise of a more principled philosophy by all 3 branches of
government, didn't he? you seem to want robot mathemajuristicians (i
made that up, but i know you get it) "here's the formula, give the one
right answer" kind of judge. i don't think that's jeffersonian.


I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, you
would have no problem if the judicial activism suited your thoughtful
ideals and philosophy of the purposes to be served by the court. in
short, i think activism is in the eye of the beholder. some don't see
clarence t. as an "activist" judge.


Your assumption was invented without evidence, I could have done
without it.
Law is not interpreted in "the eye of the beholder".

true...all i had is what you wrote. if thought is invented, then i
reckon my assumption/thought about the possible flaw in your statement
might be considered invented. no offense was intended, and i apologize
for any given.

although i was talking about how an activist is perceived or defined,
not the law, i do think law is interpreted, and that the interpretations
by elected or appointed judges are almost always beholden to their
individual principled philosophy.

who is the judge closest to your ideal?

jeff

Obama
 

Steve wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:09:37 GMT, Steve wrote:


which ideals? can a judge be a
"jeffersonian activist"?

Yes, but not a good one.


Sorry for responding to my own post.
I mean to say a judge can be a "jeffersonian activist" but if it
affects their judicial decisions then they are not a "good" judge.

in the context of your reply, i understood what you meant...or, i think
i did anyway.

Obama
 

Steve wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:48:22 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:



I believe Dworkin.

andrea or ronald? g

Obama
 

Steve wrote:


One who believes in the theory of law as integrity and adjudicates as
such.


kind of slippery, no?



The basis for my "activism" is the argument that there actually is
only one right answer for most legal cases.
This is not my original thought, it's Ronald Dworkin's right answer
thesis.
My personal "activism" is to proselytize the unbelievers. g

i have only a fleeting knowledge of his stuff, as my education was much
more practical and clinical. i have a renewed interest in judicial
philosophy in my geezerhood...but i doubt i'll be able to accept the one
right answer philosophy...unless, it's the right answer for a single
case at a single moment in time, with the understanding the decision on
the same facts might change as the times change. (that might be labeled
jefferdworkinism - or jeff's dorky philosophy).


Well, I hope automaton is overstating it a bit, but I'm not at all
interested in a judges feelings on a matter before him/her. I'm
strongly against a judge legislating from the bench.

What I want are mathemalegislaticians who understand the impact of a
law upon the people, how that law should be constructed, and that it's
penalties are reasonable. We ain't gettin' a lot of that lately.

we were told that was what we had when the federal sentencing guidelines
were implemented and considered mandatory. it was a travesty and
grossly unfair. we got way too much of that. Judges need to be human,
understand and be informed about the human condition, and exercise an
enlightened and well-educated discretion within tolerable limits and
structure.

what would a mathematlegislatician do with the waterboarding debate and
issue? what is the one right answer?


who is the judge closest to your ideal?


Assuming you mean the current Supreme Court, that's a very tough
question. I find that they don't always rule the way they rant.
I've heard Scalia lecture, and he appears to be closest to the strict
constructionist I would like. Please don't read that to mean "strict
constructionist" the way our current president defines it. It's not a
code word for conservativism/fascism in my case.


after the dworkin reference, i figured you would say learned hand... my
assumptions are really getting out of whack. but, i think hand did a bit
of creative judcialegislation, didn't he?

scalia is an enigma and a personality and a facinating jurist. i
disagree with the originalist brand of activism. i'm a "living,
breathing" kind of guy...but i really appreciate a thoughtful, well
reasoned opinion. and i'm most grateful for scalia's activism in
developing the new (i know, you'll say old, original, strict)
confrontation clause rules. g

jeff

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:35:27 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
ynews.com...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:48:22 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

By whom is it interpreted?
However wrongly, by whomever reads, or has read to them, a law.

Impossible to do it rightly, then?

If that's a question the answer is no.
If that's your interpretation posed as a question, then you're an
idiot.

You think so?

Hm......

No, you don't.

You're a liar.

I've snipped the drivel you posted below, it isn't worth the time to
respond when you're obviously not interested in my answers.

Your "answers" thus far haven't been interesting. Meanwhile, you can
pretend to interpret my contributions to this discussion any way you care
to. You're in good company.

Wolfgang
well, LOTS of company, anyway.

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:23:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

Steve wrote:


One who believes in the theory of law as integrity and adjudicates as
such.


kind of slippery, no?



The basis for my "activism" is the argument that there actually is
only one right answer for most legal cases.
This is not my original thought, it's Ronald Dworkin's right answer
thesis.
My personal "activism" is to proselytize the unbelievers. g

i have only a fleeting knowledge of his stuff, as my education was much
more practical and clinical. i have a renewed interest in judicial
philosophy in my geezerhood...but i doubt i'll be able to accept the one
right answer philosophy...unless, it's the right answer for a single
case at a single moment in time, with the understanding the decision on
the same facts might change as the times change. (that might be labeled
jefferdworkinism - or jeff's dorky philosophy).

I like that name, even if we disagree on the issue.

Without trying to convert you let me ask this; if the decision on a
given set of facts can change as times change, isn't that an
indication that the law was poorly written or never needed?

Well, there's no danger of you converting me to anything, so I'll take a
shot at this. No. There is no such indication. Indeed, the law may have
been poorly written or unneeded, but it is by no means necessary to posit a
deficiency to explain changes in decisions as the times change. The fact
that the times change is sufficient.

I offer the Second Amendment as an example. In drafting the
Constitution, the founding fathers placement of the right to bear arms
as second only to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," reflects its significance. Madison's diary and other
evidence shows that Madison's intent to place the right to bear arms
in Article 1, Section 9, suggests that its scope is limited. It also
suggests that the Second Amendment was intended to give effect to
Congress's authority to establish militias.
But that isn't what the Amendment says, and so we have disputes over
it's true meaning since the KKK trials. I feel the law was poorly
written, if Madison's intent was true to the evidence.
So, if the tests applied fail to arrive at the one true answer, do you
want the judge who hates guns or the judge that loves guns (for an
extreme example) to rule this issue?

Ah, I was so hoping this would come up! Let's look at what it says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs interpretation.
A strict constructionist could not argue other than that the second
amendment to the Unites States Constitution guarantees every citizen the
right to walk into a daycare center carrying an M60 machine gun, a pouch
full of grenades, a 10 mm. Glock, and maybe a rocket launcher or two......if
he's man enough to carry it all. Madison's diary doesn't mean ****.....it
isn't the law of the land. If you are disputing the meaning of the law with
someone, at least one of you is an idiot. And if we don't need
interpretations from the eye of the beholder, we certainly don't need any
from idiots.

I'm not saying that a given law may not be _eliminated_ or modified as
times change.

Good news. We'd been wondering about that.

Well, I hope automaton is overstating it a bit, but I'm not at all
interested in a judges feelings on a matter before him/her. I'm
strongly against a judge legislating from the bench.

What I want are mathemalegislaticians who understand the impact of a
law upon the people, how that law should be constructed, and that it's
penalties are reasonable. We ain't gettin' a lot of that lately.

we were told that was what we had when the federal sentencing guidelines
were implemented and considered mandatory. it was a travesty and
grossly unfair. we got way too much of that. Judges need to be human,
understand and be informed about the human condition, and exercise an
enlightened and well-educated discretion within tolerable limits and
structure.

Well fortunately the FSG is moot, but as long as you and I are telling
the world how to run itself I want sentencing guidelines to find some
sort of parity.

Parity? Do you know what that word means?

Putting a person in jail for smoking dope is insane.
Putting a kid who robs a store for food money in an environment that
assures his return to crime is insane. The list is unfortunately long.
And I think that an enlightened and compassionate society could find a
better solution than putting people to death.

And somehow or other, we are all supposed to see a connection between all of
this and all of the other twaddle you've been peddling here thus far?

what would a mathematlegislatician do with the waterboarding debate and
issue? what is the one right answer?


who is the judge closest to your ideal?


Assuming you mean the current Supreme Court, that's a very tough
question. I find that they don't always rule the way they rant.
I've heard Scalia lecture, and he appears to be closest to the strict
constructionist I would like. Please don't read that to mean "strict
constructionist" the way our current president defines it. It's not a
code word for conservativism/fascism in my case.


after the dworkin reference, i figured you would say learned hand... my
assumptions are really getting out of whack. but, i think hand did a bit
of creative judcialegislation, didn't he?

Well, I'm not sure I would call it that, I'm more inclined to say his
calculus dealt with the penalty as opposed to the law.

And all of this has exactly what to do with your assertion (however thinly
veiled) that only judges who agree with you are fit to sit at the bench?

Two bits of trivia:
Hands first name is actually Billings. The story goes that he went by
Billings Hand as an attorney and changed to his middle name, Learned,
upon his decision to press Taft for appointment. There's no evidence
that he did this, but I like the story.
Both Archibald Cox and Dworkin were clerks for Hand.

Well.......gosh.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:23:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

what would a mathematlegislatician do with the waterboarding debate and
issue? what is the one right answer?

Waterboading is a criminal act. No detainee held by U.S. authorities,
regardless of nationality, regardless of whether they are held in the
U.S. or outside the country's borders, and regardless of whether the
person is a combatant or civilian, may be tortured. The law is
unambiguous on this issue.

18 U.S.C. § 2340A "provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or
anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S.,
commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an "act
committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other
than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another
person within his custody or physical control." A person found guilty
under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the
death penalty if the torture results in the victim's death."

18 U.S.C. § 2441 "makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military
personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the
1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of
common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "violence
to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture; .outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Public Law 106-778 "permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S.
civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad,
commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal
criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year."

None of those say that it's OK if it works real good.

The real trouble with the Supreme Court (and, by extension, all others) is
that we simply don't need it. However, you won't live forever.......it
seems only prudent to keep some of them in reserve for a rainy day.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
Ahem.

"A 34-year-old Italian man who had sex with a 13-year-old girl has had
his sentence cut by a two-thirds because a court decided there was
"real love" between the pair...blah, blah.....

You want to give us something like a clue as to who this is addressed to,
why, and what it concerns?

Wolfgang
who, personally, thinks it's probably a cry for help or something.

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Parity? Do you know what that word means?

par·i·ty1 /?pær?ti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[par-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. equality, as in amount, status, or character.

go /go?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[goh]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, went, gone, go·ing,
noun, plural goes, interjection, adjective
-verb (used without object)
1. to move or proceed, esp. to or from something: They're going
by bus.


**** /f?k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhk]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Vulgar.
-verb (used with object)
1. to have sexual intercourse with.
2. Slang. to treat unfairly or harshly.
-verb (used without object)
3. to have sexual intercourse.
4. Slang. to meddle (usually fol. by around or with).
-interjection
5. Slang. (used to express anger, disgust, peremptory rejection,
etc., often fol. by a pronoun, as you or it.)
-noun
6. an act of sexual intercourse.
7. a partner in sexual intercourse.
8. Slang. a person, esp. one who is annoying or contemptible.


your·self /y??r?s?lf, y?r-, yo?r-, y?r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[yoor-self, yawr-, yohr-, yer-] Pronunciation Key
- Show IPA Pronunciation
-pronoun, plural -selves /-?s?lvz/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[-selvz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation.
1. (an emphatic appositive of you or ye): a letter you yourself
wrote.
2. a reflexive form of you (used as the direct or indirect object
of a verb or the object of a preposition): Don't blame yourself. Did
you ever ask yourself "why"? You can think for yourself.
3. Informal. (used in place of you, esp. in compound subjects,
objects, and complements): Ted and yourself have been elected. We saw
your sister and yourself at the game. People like yourselves always
feel like that.
4. (used in absolute constructions): Yourself having so little
money, how could they expect you to help?
5. your normal or customary self: You'll soon be yourself again.
6. (used in place of you after as, than, or but): scholars as
famous as yourselves; a girl no older than yourself.
7. oneself: The surest way is to do it yourself.

See, that's what we like.......adult minds ruled by iron will and reason.
:)

Moron.

Wolfgang
who sometimes wonders whether the increasing ease with which one can expose
them is due entirely to practice or, on the other hand, we are simply not
getting the quality of idiot that we could once rely on.

Obama
 

Steve wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs interpretation.


Really?
Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?
Does it override state jurisdiction?


Can I mount a bazooka and heat-seeking missiles on my truck? Can I
construct a nuclear weapon in my garage?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs
interpretation.

Really?

Yes.

Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?

Everyone.

Does it override state jurisdiction?

Yes.

See how easy it is to answer questions? Easier than trying to blow smoke up
everyone's ass......especially here.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Steve wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs
interpretation.


Really?
Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?
Does it override state jurisdiction?


Can I mount a bazooka and heat-seeking missiles on my truck? Can I
construct a nuclear weapon in my garage?

Hell, you can't do anything without stepping on your dick with your stubby
little legs. I'd say go for it.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase
the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

Obama
 

Steve wrote:

Ahem.

"A 34-year-old Italian man who had sex with a 13-year-old girl has had
his sentence cut by a two-thirds because a court decided there was
"real love" between the pair.

Antonio de Pascale, a butcher from Vicenza, admitted that he had a
four-month long relationship with the girl, who sent him a stream of
torrid text messages on his mobile phone.

His lawyers argued, however, that there was a "deep tenderness"
between him and the girl and that he had "fallen head over heels in
love" after a sexual encounter in his car. They said the girl had
consented to every action.
advertisement

The court in Vicenza accepted their opinion and sentenced de Pascale
to only one year and four months in jail out of a possible 12-year
term.

Because of a general amnesty for anyone who receives a sentence of
less than three years, de Pascale is unlikely to serve any prison time
for his Lolita-esque romance.

Antonio Marziale, the president of the Association for the Protection
of the Rights of Minors, said the decision was "execrable".

He said: "It is not right to judge whether or not a 13-year-old girl
is willing. The law should safeguard young girls who are too immature
to make these decisions against adults without scruples."

However, Simonetta Matone, a judge in Rome, said the law must "always
look to be reasonable in these cases".

She added: "Every relationship is a relationship and the real
maturity, whether physical or psychological, of the minor must be
weighed, with the help of experts."

The court decision has unleashed a wave of condemnation in Italy, and
even authors of teen novels stepped forward to caution their readers
against early sexual encounters.

Federico Moccia, the author of Excuse Me But I Love You, said: "This
seems a very strange situation to me. Obviously in a relationship
between a child and an adult, the adult has to stop himself. A girl
has to be able to value the situation, and a girl this young is
certainly not capable. My appeal to 13-year-olds is to wait for your
time."



uh...straw woman...g remember, principled decision-making. one
idiot doesn't establish an axiom.

jeff

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Does it override state jurisdiction?

Yes.

By what authority?

From Article VI of the United States Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and
the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Wolfgang
who, though he never envisioned himself as a teacher of constitutional law,
finds the task rather less daunting than he supposed.

Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?

Everyone.

So state and federal regulations are illegal?

A strict constructionist would have to be an idiot to suppose otherwise.
Which is to say that strict constructionists are idiots.

Meanwhile, we can continue to play this game for as long as you care
to.....and that's just fine with me.

Or, you could grow up. Personally I find this the less attractive
alternative as it will deprive me of a plaything. Not that this will
produce any hardship for me.......I just like variety.

Wolfgang
who never tires of explaining the simple things. :)

Obama
 

"Jeff Marso" brachycentrus@hotmaildotcom wrote in message
. 97.136...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase
the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

It's true that Ernie and wayno are old enough to be dynasties unto
themselves but, to the best of my knowledge, they are not closely related.

Wolfgang
who won't even go into that whole legitimate transfer of power thing.