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