« Montana, Colorado Stir the 2008 Pot Yet Again: Life Itself Could Be On the Ballot | Main | It's Getting Crowded Under That Bus--Here Comes the Whole Public »
June 23, 2008
It’s the Stupid Judiciary, Stupid: Why No Conservative Can Afford to Stay Home in 2008
When Clinton was running for president, legend has it that James Carville had a sign on his desk to help him focus on the core issue: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”
This year, however, there are three good reasons to vote Republican: the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court.
Whether you are a war hawk distressed over the 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, when the Justices decided to extend the right of habeus corpus to enemy combatants merely because they are held by Americans, a moral conservative concerned about the right to life and the protection of traditional marriage, or a plain old patriot who believes that the American Constitution should be more important than the pronouncements of the European Union—you have something to lose (or gain) in the 2008 election.
The Guantanamo case revealed a deeply divided Court, with that old swinger Justice Kennedy proving the most important. The four strict constructionists on the Court—Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia—dissented, while the four on the “flexible document” side signed on with Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens.)
I know that most Americans are bored to death by talk of such dull stuff as Supreme Court cases, but this is the historical moment to ignore the distractions and focus. This is a turning point we cannot afford to miss.
Next, let’s look at the issue of gay marriage. Americans across the country have been watching helplessly as unelected and agenda-driven judges in state courts have overridden the expressed will of voters in more than forty states. California’s Supreme Court declared that domestic partnerships and civil unions are not sufficient equivalents to “marriage,” and homosexuals must be allowed to “marry”—which they did, just after (in a sickening coincidence) Father’s Day. The Oregon Appeals Court, on the other hand, has recently upheld that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Within a very short period of time (as soon as the newlyweds go home to their original states and start suing for recognition), there is assuredly going to be a Constitutional question the Supremes cannot avoid.
The genesis of all the onslaught of same-sex marriage activism comes from, essentially, one source: the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which—overturning the defining precedent, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)—asserted a right to homosexual sodomy as part of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Lawrence decision was a 6-3 decision. The set of 6 justices that rendered this abomination are now only five; one justice on each side has been replaced by two justices who could be easily presumed to be on the side that would have upheld Bowers and never agreed with Lawrence. Justices O’Connor and Rehnquist are gone from the Court now, but they have been replaced with Alito and Roberts—who, with Scalia and Thomas, form a fairly strong strict constructionist voting bloc.
One constructionist vote could overturn Lawrence and reverse the gay marriage trend with the stroke of a pen (or the click of a keyboard, at least).
There is also the little matter of whether American law has an intrinsic meaning of its own and should be the only source of American law.
The reasoning in the Lawrence case also included this bizarre reference to the laws of other nations:
To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homo-sexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11–12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.
It is difficult to think of a statement that should more outrage patriots and constitutionalists. When the Founders brought forth their profound document, they knew they were not following the notions of other nations. Rather, they were creating something new. And it was the unique combination of English common law, common sense, Biblical values, and philosophical convictions not previously codified that led to a nation far more successful than anything anyone had expected. Indeed, the document our Founders devised has served as a model for many other countries since.
America is not what it is because it follows the latest tradition in European jurisprudence. It is a great and mighty nation, free and open, where ordered liberty is more possible than in any other country on earth—precisely because it has not bound itself to the laws of any other nation. We have no allegiances that trump the Constitution, no treaties that can be allowed to prevail over it. We will not kowtow to the pronouncements of the international “community,” but will instead keep our own counsel, secure in the notion that our Constitution represents the highest and best experiment in law and culture that has ever been seen on this earth.
But the liberals on the current court disagree.
Justice Scalia, on the other hand, has said:
It is my view that foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of - to the meaning of - the United States Constitution.
While it is unclear how many of the Justices are internationalists, public statements by Justices Kennedy and Breyer, at least, indicate that they favor a more globalist interpretation of the law. And, since none of the six in the majority on the Lawrence case wrote any objection to that particular aspect of it, we certainly can assume they don’t hold the same disregard for it as does Scalia.
Finally, we come to the sine qua non of the American conservative/liberal split: abortion. While there is never a shortage of abortion litigation in the lower courts, the Supreme Court of late has only rarely taken them on. However, last April, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the four constructionists found Kennedy swinging their way to uphold the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion. If Kennedy could be counted on, there would be no need for a new justice. But, for either side, Kennedy represents a question mark—and a dangerous one at that. Thus, for the cases coming up the pipeline on the divisive issue of abortion, it would be helpful to have another reliable strict constructionist on the bench.
Which brings us to: who will those justices be, when cases come up on these crucial issues? Is it possible to hope for a new resolution on some of them?
Looking at the simple gerontological realities, it seems unlikely that the next president will come though four entire years—much less eight—without the chance to replace one of our aging Justices—which weighs in favor of the constructionists, since Justice Stevens is 88, and Justice Ginsburg is 75 and has already had cancer. Of the constructionists, only Scalia is in his seventies, while the others are 60 or younger.
The next president almost certainly has the future of the Court--and American justice--in his hands.
And so, in the interests of justice, for the good of the nation, no matter how suspicious you may be of John McCain, no matter how “faux-conservative” you may consider him to be, as a conservative, you have no choice but to vote for him.
The alternatives—whether staying home, voting for Barack Obama, or throwing your vote away on a "protest" vote—are too risky to even contemplate.
Posted by Kerry at June 23, 2008 11:16 AM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Ewww, gross! You sound like an uber-homophobe. Get a life, seriously.
Let's reiterate, to avoid having people like this Kerry here deciding who runs the country, vote Obama 08. A vote for McCain is a vote in the wrong direction.
Please, expand your limited mind, idiot.
Posted by LiberalProgress ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at June 23, 2008 03:05 PM
Apparently in California they (liberalProgress and others) are not leading in the polls
Homosexual Agenda: Protect Marriage Amendment Initiative taken off ballot
Although it is unlikely that the court will prevent people from voting ... more likely to wait then toss out the vote.
Posted by Wayne from Jeremiah Films at June 23, 2008 03:53 PM
It is my view that foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of - to the meaning of - the United States Constitution.
Scalia is such a bonehead. Since the US Constitution was derived in part from foreign legal materials, it can't be excluded, because at least Justices should be able to draw from the material it was drawn from to reach their opinion.
And, if someone so chooses to pass an amendment in the future that was inspired by a foreign legal document, that foreign legal document should be citable forever after the amendment is created. That's called precedent...a cornerstone of law.
Anyone like to get rid of Habeas Corpus...I know Bush does...his been trying his damnedest at Gitmo But I doubt the rest of us do. Where Habeas Corpus come from, 13th century British Law!
Posted by ahmanrah at June 23, 2008 11:46 PM
Habeus Corpus for Enemy Combatants
Well Kerry habeus corpus was/is denied to many more than enemy combatants. A group of young men from the UK were rounded up in Pakistan and sent to Gitmo. They were held there for years despite the protestations of the British Government – during questioning it became apparent that the allegation against them was that they had attended terrorist training camps. They camps were held while the group of men had been working and studying in the UK with plenty of proof on record. About half those held in Gitmo with British connections seem to have a genuine case to answer. Many like this group of young guys should have been released after a couple of days checking and had habeus corpus been in place they would have. Don’t try to pretend this is all about “enemy combatants” it’s not they who have lost years of their lives unjustly at the heavy-handed tactics of American “justice” under Bush.
Gay Marriage
Kerry yet again I wonder if such an obsure thing is worth your while. The ramifications of civil partnerships in the UK is to iron out a few legal kinks and given some couples an excuse for a party.
Oil is at an all time world high, there is a world food crisis and the banking system has been hit worldwide by the dodgy deals done on US mortgages – perhaps you need to scroll back up the top and re-read - it’s the economy stupid. So why would you fixate on gay marriage that affects so very few? Is it the bible? Well there are about 3 places where you could interpret anti gay sentiment if you choose to ignore the historical context, but there are hundreds where the bible speaks out against divorce, the eating of shellfish and a whole host of other things. But on these you choose not to write article, after article, after article… Kerry you’re following your own prejudice and smearing in very unsavoury ways
California’s Supreme Court declared that domestic partnerships and civil unions are not sufficient equivalents to “marriage,” and homosexuals must be allowed to “marry”—which they did, just after (in a sickening coincidence) Father’s Day.
Why is this sickening? You’re linking gays with children again. What a revolting cheap shot. Remember Westbro, you look damn similar at times and this is one of them.
Patriots should vote Republican
This is entirely based on your quote. I won’t bother with it all because very little of it is really needed
To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted…If they had said they had someway based their decision on European law, I may have to look further than this, but they didn’t they just noted that this was the direction some other countries were going. Pure sophistry on your part I’m afraid, you want to throw up a bogey man, but nobody needs to look very far into this one. Abortion Well whether your view is right or not rather depends on when a person is a person. It’s been discussed on here although it’s a discussion you seem to steer clear of. However what I find interesting
If Kennedy could be counted on, there would be no need for a new justice. But, for either side, Kennedy represents a question mark—and a dangerous one at that. Thus, for the cases coming up the pipeline on the divisive issue of abortion, it would be helpful to have another reliable strict constructionist on the bench.
Sounds to me like you’re more interested in packing the jury than trying the case. If I remember correctly the convention is to pick judges alternately from either side of the political street and Bush went against this, more over he deliberately pick younger judges who some said lacked the relevant experience just so his influence would last longer – I stand to be corrected though as my knowledge of American politics is less sharp than those of you who are actually American.
Posted by wandering_brit at June 24, 2008 09:20 AM
Oh and btw since you're concerned about the life expectance of the Judges how do you feel about McCains age?
Posted by wandering_brit at June 24, 2008 09:21 AM
Kerry,
The four strict constructionists on the Court—Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia—dissented, while the four on the “flexible document” side signed on with Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens.)
I seriously doubt you or anyone here can honestly make this call, about who has been a true constructionist and who hasn't and whether there is any real consistency over time. Frankly all you are doing is hoping liberals and conservatives behave the way you invision, and pray that you are right. But I doubt that is the case.
Posted by ahmanrah at June 24, 2008 01:13 PM
"Well there are about 3 places where you could interpret anti gay sentiment if you choose to ignore the historical context, but there are hundreds where the bible speaks out against divorce, the eating of shellfish and a whole host of other things."
Another non-Christian weighs in with the conventional atheist wisdom, based on nothing. Do your homework and come back later.
"Sounds to me like you’re more interested in packing the jury than trying the case."
The Supreme Court is not a jury, and they do not "try" a case.
"If I remember correctly the convention is to pick judges alternately from either side of the political street..."
Either you do not remember correctly or (more likely) you learned incorrectly. There is no such convention.
"and Bush went against this, more over he deliberately pick younger judges who some said lacked the relevant experience just so his influence would last longer..."
Who exactly is claiming that Alito or Roberts "lack relevant experience?" All presidents seek the justices they believe will best serve the Court. Since they are there forever, the younger the better.
"I stand to be corrected though as my knowledge of American politics is less sharp than those of you who are actually American."
Consider it done.
"Oh and btw since you're concerned about the life expectance of the Judges how do you feel about McCains age?"
I'm not sure what this means, but the answer is McCain will only be there eight years, no matter what happens. One of the sitting justices is already nine years older than McCain will be at the end of his second term. The ages of the Justices are relevant in the sense that one can expect them to be off the court by the end of the next president's term.
""The four strict constructionists on the Court—Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia—dissented, while the four on the “flexible document” side signed on with Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens.)""
"I seriously doubt you or anyone here can honestly make this call, about who has been a true constructionist and who hasn't and whether there is any real consistency over time."
Why not? That's hardly a secret or a mystery. I will give you that Thomas is, more precisely, an originalist, and Scalia a textualist, (both varieties slightly more refined under the general strict constructionist label), but none of them are as commmitted to the living document interpretation as the four I listed on the other side.
Posted by Kerry at June 24, 2008 01:33 PM
"And, if someone so chooses to pass an amendment in the future that was inspired by a foreign legal document, that foreign legal document should be citable forever after the amendment is created. That's called precedent...a cornerstone of law."
Bzzzt.
Amendments don't require any explanation or "precedent." They just become law. Precedent is actually prior law, not the source of new law. You seem to have confused a cornerstone with a philosopher's stone--which, like your precedent foreign law, is imaginary.
"Here's a quarter. Go call your mother and tell her you're never going to be a lawyer."
Points to anyone who can identify that quote.
Posted by Kerry at June 24, 2008 01:39 PM
Kerry,
If an amendment was inspired by a prior existing law, regardless of its source....that foreign document regardless of its origin is relevant for future interpretation of the amendment. That is my one and only point.
Posted by ahmanrah at June 24, 2008 02:58 PM
WB,
I guess us atheist labeled liberals just don't have the intelligence to either read or interpret the bible. We don't have access to the divine inspiration that make the words all of a sudden make sense. Kind of like the comments of acid tripers watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall".
Notice our friend Dobson is trying to pull the exact same line on Obama. Although he can hardly call the man an athiest. Fact he's a liberal is good enough I guess. Liberals don't have access to the secret sauce.
Posted by ahmanrah at June 24, 2008 04:50 PM
From reading Kerry's numerous posts, I see that she misunderstands God's love for us. Kerry, for the sake of believers everywhere, please refrain from putting your limited view into Bible study and interpretations. It is very apparent, as most have noted, that this is not how God would want us to act. I'd ask my brothers and sister of different religions or lack thereof to ignore this Kerry, she is not doing the work of God, only hurting, and she does not represent the majority of us Christians who open our loving hearts to everyone, not just fellow Christians.
I'd just like to add, reading the hate she masks with my God's word makes me want to cry. In fact, earlier I did. God, please save her soul, amen.
Posted by LiberalProgress at June 24, 2008 06:50 PM
Hi Kerry,
"Well there are about 3 places where you could interpret anti gay sentiment if you choose to ignore the historical context, but there are hundreds where the bible speaks out against divorce, the eating of shellfish and a whole host of other things." - wbAnother non-Christian weighs in with the conventional atheist wisdom, based on nothing. Do your homework and come back later. - Kerry
Yes Kerry I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up as one. So I do know a little about the Bible. As I've pointed out before it was put together about 350 years after Jesus died. As I've pointed out before the bits most think were written by people who had direct contact with Jesus contain no comment against gay people. And as I've pointed out before your posts contain an awful lot of comments about gay people. My guess is in the last two months a good 30-35% of your posts have had comments about gay people. I'll remind you again, Jesus say NOTHING about them.
You tell me Kerry how many times the bible mentions gay people. ALSO tell me how many times it mentions other things it says are wrong. Compare the two numbers - the Bible mentions gay people a handful of times amoungst a huge number of other ethical advice (laws if you will). Your views on gays are your own agenda pure and simple and you hide them under a cover of your religion. I think you break the 9th commandment on a regular basis on this one.
I'll go further, you never once commented that the guy who posted here quoting from the Koran wasn't a Muslim so may miss some or indeed much of the meaning, yet you suggest I do when I comment on Christianity. If you wanted to be credible you should have looked at the guy you were backing before me.
And obviously I knew the judges weren't a jury, but I was pointing out that you were treating them like one and asking them to be stacked.
I do stand corrected by you on the convention of not alternating the side they are selected by. I seemed to remember comments questioning suitability of Judge selected but hey if I'm wrong on that again I stand corrected. As I said I was open to being.
Interesting that you've dodged my other comments on your original post.
On Habeus Corpus I'll say again - you portray it as being soft on "enemy combatants" but the problem is by throwing away Habeus Corpus you don't know what they have done and in Gitmo the US government didn't bother sorting the wheat from the chafe so had plenty of of people who weren't enemy combatants.
On your call to patriotism, the judges noted that other countries were moving in the same direction. Yet you portrayed that as being part of the decision making process. Try the 9th commandment again.
Hiya ahmanrah,
us atheist labeled liberals - ahmanrah
Long answer short - I'm more a liberal in the JS Mill/Bentham libertarian mold, grew up left wing (very left for Americans), became green fairly quickly and while I was brought up Christian and was/am by nature an atheist you'd need to add a fair dollop of Buddhism into the mix too.
Posted by wandering_brit at June 24, 2008 08:52 PM
WB,
Sounds like you have gotten around a bit, probably gives you unique perspective that some who's been a provincial bible thumper all their lives. I assume the "wandering" part your moniker has to do with traveling or is it more philosophical?
Posted by ahmanrah at June 24, 2008 11:04 PM
that should have said.
"...that someone who's been a bible thumper all their lives can't match."
Posted by ahmanrah at June 24, 2008 11:05 PM
"Yes Kerry I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up as one."
If you were "brought up one" and are not one now, you didn't get it. So your interpretations are unreliable as a guide for those who DO get it.
"So I do know a little about the Bible."
If you are not a Christian, you do not know enough.
"As I've pointed out before it was put together about 350 years after Jesus died."
So what? The gospels were written within a generation of Jesus. When the individual parts were put together is irrelevant, as is when the Old Testament was finalized.
"As I've pointed out before the bits most think were written by people who had direct contact with Jesus contain no comment against gay people."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
In the Greek, the terms "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" both refer to homosexual behavior. The term "effeminate" means "catamite"--a boy who has sex with a man. The Greek translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is literally rendered: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite,"--the same word used in the Hebrew in Leviticus, where it is called an "abomination," carrying the connotation of a disgusting, wicked thing, an offense to God Himself (as opposed to other instances of similar offenses, which are only to ordinary men.)
I would also hasten to add that he follows the list with "And such were some of you." Moreover, he explains how one escapes being such a person: "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Very simple. That behavior, like the other behaviors listed, is wrong, must stop, and can stop with the help of God.
"And as I've pointed out before your posts contain an awful lot of comments about gay people."
My daily news contains an awful lot about gay people. I'm not making this stuff up.
"You tell me Kerry how many times the bible mentions gay people."
I'm not going to play the counting game with you. When God gave the law, He made it clear. In Leviticus--where God tells the Israelites everything they need to know--even things one would have thought they already knew, like don't drink water with dead bugs in it--He makes very explicit the circumstances under which one is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse. Leviticus 18:22 is very clear: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
Further, when that abomination--or any of the abominations that break the moral code--are permitted, "the land is defiled." (Leviticus 18:25.) Therefore, Biblically, it is a matter of public policy.
There is no change in this law. Jesus did not come to set aside the moral law, but to fulfill it. Since there is no explicit overturning of the law, one must assume that the original order stands.
"ALSO tell me how many times it mentions other things it says are wrong."
Why? Why would that be meaningful? Would you assume that if the Bible mentions money more than murder, that somehow stealing is worse than killing someone? Jesus talked about money, heaven, hell--lots of things. The number of times he spoke of something cannot be considered a measure of how important it was. He didn't tell us again not to sleep with our own brothers and sisters, or our mother. He didn't tell us again how to deal with mold in the house. We got all that. The Jews had it all figured out. He didn't NEED to talk about men lying with men because the Jews to whom He was speaking ALREADY KNEW THAT.
"I think you break the 9th commandment on a regular basis on this one."
Prove it.
"I'll go further, you never once commented that the guy who posted here quoting from the Koran wasn't a Muslim so may miss some or indeed much of the meaning, yet you suggest I do when I comment on Christianity."
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. When was that?
"If you wanted to be credible you should have looked at the guy you were backing before me."
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
"And obviously I knew the judges weren't a jury, but I was pointing out that you were treating them like one and asking them to be stacked."
Oh, I see. You used the wrong concept in order to imply that I was trying to. Yeah, that works.
"I do stand corrected by you on the convention of not alternating the side they are selected by. I seemed to remember comments questioning suitability of Judge selected but hey if I'm wrong on that again I stand corrected. As I said I was open to being."
I appreciate that.
"Interesting that you've dodged my other comments on your original post."
Do you REALLY want a comment on every word you write? I really think the others prefer it when I am brief (rare though that is.)
"On Habeus Corpus I'll say again - you portray it as being soft on "enemy combatants" but the problem is by throwing away Habeus Corpus you don't know what they have done and in Gitmo the US government didn't bother sorting the wheat from the chafe so had plenty of of people who weren't enemy combatants."
That's "chaff." Another Biblical concept I don't expect you to get right, anyway.
Actually, the mistake we made was in putting them in Gitmo in the first place. Rather than take prisoners, if someone is shooting at our soldiers, they should just shoot them back. Of course, that makes it difficult to get any information out of them, but if the alternative is to keep them around in a cushy camp for years and then have to treat them like American citizens...
Or, perhaps we should just hand them over to the armies of other nations who don't have loony judges that want to give them the rights of citizens.
"On your call to patriotism, the judges noted that other countries were moving in the same direction. Yet you portrayed that as being part of the decision making process. Try the 9th commandment again."
No, I didn't. I mentioned that they are looking at other nations' laws when they consider OUR cases. If you have heard anything that Kennedy or the former Justice O'Connor said about their view of non-domestic laws, you would understand what I mean.
Posted by Kerry at June 25, 2008 12:08 AM
"...that someone who's been a bible thumper all their lives can't match."
Okay, you said it twice now. I assume this is (mis) directed at me?
As you should already know, I have not been "a Bible thumper" all my life. In fact, I was a liberal Marxist feminist right up until just after I got my Master's degree. So that would be 27 years, give or take. I still have a few years of "thumping" to go to catch up to that record.
Moreover, I know a fair bit about the liberal indoctrination that goes on in the academy, since I was one of the indoctrinators. I can't count the number of times I went to seminars and learned better ways to persuade people to be pro-gay and pro-choice. The fact is, if you went to college anywhere after about 1978, you didn't have a chance of turning out a conservative. If you escaped four years of a liberal arts education and stayed (or--gasp!--became!) a conservative, we didn't do our jobs, and you managed a miracle.
It's rather amusing to me that college students think they are "free" to think in the university system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At any rate, you have NO idea the scope of my knowledge or experience, and your comments are condescending not only to me, but to anyone who does not have a reputation as a "world traveler."
One can have every experience possible to man and still be a complete fool--and never leave one's garden and be a genius. And it is only the fool that thinks that a bigger stash of bad information somehow makes a better store of knowledge.
Look at the Internet. I rest my case.
Posted by Kerry at June 25, 2008 12:20 AM
Oh, and Wayne?
If you're still listening, you needn't panic yet. The amendment is not off the ballot, but the gay rights lobby is trying to get it taken off.
I understand Michael Savage is promising some rather serious civil disobedience if the court actually tries to do that.
Posted by Kerry at June 25, 2008 12:41 AM
"And it is only the fool that thinks that a bigger stash of bad information somehow makes a better store of knowledge."
Can't. Stop. Laughing.
Kerry Jacoby, the death of irony!! You keep me in stitches!!
Posted by TRF at June 25, 2008 01:15 AM
Oh, and one more thing for Wayne:
"Although it is unlikely that the court will prevent people from voting ... more likely to wait then toss out the vote."
Let not your heart be troubled. If an Amendment is voted to the Constitution, there is no recourse for state justices to do anything about it. It becomes part of the law they have to take into account as controlling legal authority. However, it is not unlikely that someone aggrieved by the law would then take the case to the Supreme Court, claiming that the state of California's constitution violates the federal one.
And THAT'S why we need some better justices on the Supreme Court, waiting for that case.
Posted by Kerry at June 25, 2008 01:56 AM
Ahmanrah,
Like it never was at all. Even the ripples on the pond are gone now.
You're welcome.
Posted by Kerry at June 25, 2008 09:24 PM
I didn't ask for my post to be deleted.
I'm totally offended.
Posted by Star Spangled Eagle at June 25, 2008 09:42 PM
Thank you!
And SSE you can call me a strange duck anytime you want. ;o)
Posted by ahmanrah at June 25, 2008 11:18 PM
SSE,
I'm hoping you're joking. I didn't think it would make sense to anyone coming in new to keep any of the related posts, either.
Of course, I suppose it's totally confusing now.
This redistribution of lupines is rather complex, isn't it?
:-)
Posted by Kerry at June 26, 2008 09:24 AM
To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted…
This entire part is willfully misconstrued by people who should know better (and often do). THIS IS A REFUTATION OF THE REASONING OF THE BOWERS DECISION, which invoked Western tradition outside this country to justify upholding a law against sodomy. Bowers did it first, but strangely, I never hear conservatives boo-hooing about that. In fact, the Lawrence decision was not trying to support itself with references to European traditions so much as refute Bower's use of THAT ARGUMENT. So, in summation: stuff it, hypocrites.
As for rights to habeus corpus, I just think it is bitterly funny how a bunch of cowardly conservatives RUN AWAY from the values of this country at top speed when a rag-tag enemy manages to kill less people than die in traffic accidents in a year. Cowards! Such people lack a true understanding of American values. Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death", but Bush-lovers fear them both.
The administration's desire to deny habeus corpus to enemy combatants CANNOT be properly discussed without considering the administration's OTHER failed legal strategy, to be able to declare American citizens as "enemy combatants". I like to call this strategy "The End of Habeus Corpus".
Naive little right wingers believe that they can safely demolish these protections, and it will never ever be used against them. They cannot imagine that, one day, some left wing president may decide that gun afficionados are "enemy combatants". They cannot see how, if they got their way, that there would be absolutely nothing illegal about this. "Oh don't worry, Congress would stop him." Well, I guess we never needed habeus corpus, anyway. Hell, why not get rid of the bill of rights? Congress would never let anyone get away with restricting free speech, right?
This just proves that these mindless Bush-loving right wing morons are NOT patriots, and have no love of this country's greatest traditions. These are the true enemy combatants, leading me to hope that Bush succeeds in his legal arguments; then president Obama can throw all the sick neocons in jail, in perpetuity, without trial, as his sole exercise of this heinous "executive privilege", before overturning it. It would serve all those sick fucks right.
Posted by Some Fella at June 26, 2008 09:48 AM
As for gay marriage, don't worry, it's cumming.
Posted by Some Fella at June 26, 2008 09:50 AM
Or, perhaps we should just hand them over to the armies of other nations who don't have loony judges that want to give them the rights of citizens.
That's really funny. We already do this; you know that, right? We hand some people off to such models of jurisprudence as Egypt. They don't have any loony judges over there! Tell me which non-loony legal system you think you could hand over these people to such that they would receive the treatment you consider appropriate.
I could flatten this topic all day, but I'll wait for you to make the dumb arguments first, lest I be accused of fabricating straw men.
Posted by Some Fella at June 26, 2008 10:26 AM
Actually, SF, if we could hand off Al Quaeda operatives to some Japanese snuff film maker, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Posted by Kerry at June 26, 2008 01:30 PM
Yes Kerry I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up as one." - wbIf you were "brought up one" and are not one now, you didn't get it. So your interpretations are unreliable as a guide for those who DO get it. - Kerry
Or perhaps I do get it and you don't hence I'm not a Christian.
"So I do know a little about the Bible." - wbIf you are not a Christian, you do not know enough. - Kerry
This is one of the most closed minded things I have read on this site and thats saying something. It's absolutely priceless. If I don't agree with you my views aren't worth listening too. Absolutely brilliant Kerry keep telling yourself that.
"I'll go further, you never once commented that the guy who posted here quoting from the Koran wasn't a Muslim so may miss some or indeed much of the meaning, yet you suggest I do when I comment on Christianity." - wb
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. When was that? - Kerry
"If you wanted to be credible you should have looked at the guy you were backing before me." - wb
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. - Kerry
His name was Patrick and he wrote like a 14 year old who'd gone through the Koran with a highlighter.
"You tell me Kerry how many times the bible mentions gay people." - wbI'm not going to play the counting game with you. When God gave the law, He made it clear. In Leviticus--where God tells the Israelites everything they need to know--even things one would have thought they already knew, like don't drink water with dead bugs in it--He makes very explicit the circumstances under which one is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse. Leviticus 18:22 is very clear: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
"I'm not going to play the counting game with you."
Lol nope I bet you won't. Kerry there isn't one quote attributed to Jesus on gays and there were plenty of other things attributed to him.
As for Leviticus - Old Testament, I believe you said when I said condemnation of gay people ranked alongside laws about not eating shellfish that there was a new covenant (something liek those words anyway) which meant you weren't tied to laws in the old testament. Curious you quote it now, do I take it you've given up prawn sandwiches since then?
"Interesting that you've dodged my other comments on your original post." - wbDo you REALLY want a comment on every word you write? I really think the others prefer it when I am brief (rare though that is.) - Kerry
"On Habeus Corpus I'll say again - you portray it as being soft on "enemy combatants" but the problem is by throwing away Habeus Corpus you don't know what they have done and in Gitmo the US government didn't bother sorting the wheat from the chafe so had plenty of of people who weren't enemy combatants." - wb
That's "chaff." Another Biblical concept I don't expect you to get right, anyway. - Kerry
Well Kerry you wrote the opening post, you wanted to link these 4 things together I would have thought you might want to "note" when someone takes your arguments apart.
As for chaff actually that's how I spelt it in the first place, but I have a spell checker on my browser and I went with it's correction. The reason I have a spell checker is that I'm dyslexic, I point that out as when we discussed it sometime ago you said you'd been hard on people misspelling in the past and you'd easy up on that in the future, I see your using my misspellings as reason to dismiss my knowledge of biblical concepts now - classy.
And it is only the fool that thinks that a bigger stash of bad information somehow makes a better store of knowledge. - Kerry
Priceless as I say.
Hi ahmanrah,
the wandering refers to me wandering around the internet and finding this place. But my degree was in philosophy so it kind of works there to some degree too.
Posted by wandering_brit at June 26, 2008 02:11 PM
Actually, SF, if we could hand off Al Quaeda operatives to some Japanese snuff film maker, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Hmm, not quite an army, or legal, or real, but thanks for playing (and losing...but what else is new?).
Brit, Kerry has gone off the deep end. This site is now about her (thanks, Steve). Trying to make a point with her is pointless. If she's in full irrationality mode, you can even get her to disagree with 1+1=2. You really have to ask yourself: what is my motive here? At this point, I am in it purely for the combative pleasure of smashing stupid arguments and saying rude things to fools. At this point, that's the only pleasure to be had on PME. Oh, mjohnson, wherefor art thou? Sarge, come back! Hell, I'll even take the Margolis bros. tag team. But the only thing worse than Kerry is Lisa (if they are actually different people), and the rest of the conservatives have fled for easier arguments. Only a conservative who is so dumb that they can't tell tell when they have lost would stick around here (excluding Sarge, when he shows up). I'll take radical redneck any day of the week, whatever happened to that troll? PME, you have truly fallen.
Posted by Some Fella at June 26, 2008 02:23 PM
Scalia is such a bonehead. Since the US Constitution was derived in part from foreign legal materials, it can't be excluded, because at least Justices should be able to draw from the material it was drawn from to reach their opinion.
Just when I thought I'd heard it all, you keep saying stupid things. Justices should rely ONLY on the United States Constitution when rendering things unConstitutional or not...not ANY law from ANY other country...and the only foreign law that has ANY bearing in the United States is a treaty signed by the United States.
You are now the domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States that I swore to defend it from....but I'm not surprised.
Under YOUR rules, the Constitution ceases to exist, replaced with international law.
Posted by Sarge at June 26, 2008 04:47 PM
Sarge, you know as well as I do that one of the goals of the Democrats is to put the US under international rule. It's just that once in a while they forget to pretend it's not true.
You should probably stop reading this post now, Sarge. The rest of this won't interest you.
"As for Leviticus - Old Testament, I believe you said when I said condemnation of gay people ranked alongside laws about not eating shellfish that there was a new covenant (something liek those words anyway) which meant you weren't tied to laws in the old testament."
Then you did not understand what I said, or I explained it badly. We are not bound by DIETARY or CEREMONIAL laws of the Old Testament, because the New Testament clarifies both that Jesus has fulfilled the ceremonial law, and that the dietary laws do not apply. The moral laws, however, as they not revoked by Jesus and they ARE repeated in the epistles, clearly still apply. Thus, we know from Peter's vision that we can eat shrimp now, and we know from John's revelation that the sexually immoral still can't enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
You can refuse to believe all of this, but you must allow for it to function within its own logical system, since that is what you have just challenged.
Sorry about the "chaff" thing. It's a Biblical word (and a farming one), so I wouldn't expect non-Biblical people to understand it, but it's an important concept, and if you don't get the words right, you're likely to get the concept wrong, too. Your spell check has led you astray--"chafe" actually means to rub unpleasantly and it's a noun.
Posted by Kerry at June 26, 2008 07:27 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
oh shit, that's funny.
Posted by Star Spangled Eagle at June 26, 2008 09:08 PM
"oh [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] that's funny."
What is?
Posted by Kerry at June 26, 2008 09:43 PM
Kerry, the censor:
this comment:
oh shit, that's funny.
was in response to the way you write about the bible and your justification of eating king crab legs.
Now, in memory of George Carlin, -ahem-
If you fucking quote my fucking curse words, do so without fucking replacing them with a longer string of stupid fucking words. Because, you goddamn genius, what is does, is fucking fuels me to swear more because I know that it fucking bothers you. Now, quite being such an idiot and ignore the fucking language.
and immature? fuck yeah, that shit does not bother me, label me as fucking much as you want.
Later.
Posted by Star Spangled Eagle at June 26, 2008 10:08 PM
I'm going to help you because you love quoting everything and I'm sure that last post of mine would take some time to rewrite... so I did all the work for you! All you have to do is cut and paste!
-Love your buddy, SSE xoxoxxxxo
If you [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] quote my [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] curse words, do so without [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] replacing them with a longer string of stupid [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] words. Because, you [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] genius, what is does, is [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] fuels me to swear more because I know that it [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] bothers you. Now, quite being such an idiot and ignore the [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] language.
and immature? [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] yeah, that [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] does not bother me, label me as [unnecessary immature expletive deleted] much as you want.
Posted by Star Spangled Eagle at June 26, 2008 10:16 PM
Hi Kerry,
You went for Leviticus, I suggest, as there simply aren't that many examples to choose from. Given there is already president for those proscribed actions becoming allowable actions it does rather undermine the weight of Leviticus. Perhaps we may hear next Tuesday that gay acts are now permissible if someone has a "vision" along those lines. It's interesting to ponder that eating a prawn sandwich was as bad as any act of gay sex you may wish to conjure. I wonder if the equivalents of forums a little over 2000 years ago had someone writing excessively of the evils of the prawn sandwiches to the point that this was about 30-35% of their comments while they left the rest of the message behind? I've always wondered what Gomorrah did, perhaps they were over fond of shrimp buffets - the filthy bastards! Will there be a Westro equivalent, picketing funerals with banners say "God Hates Shrimp Eaters", they'll be a place for you by their side Kerry.
As for the chafe/chaff debacle, apology noted and accepted. I do know what chafe as in the rubbing until sore is (I'm so tempted to take this sentence back to the previous subject, but I won't). And yes I do know what chaff means in the agricultural and biblical sense is. I know the words and the concepts they relate to, I just can't be relied on to know the spelling.
so I wouldn't expect non-Biblical people to understand it, but it's an important concept, and if you don't get the words right, you're likely to get the concept wrong, too.
If you looked at the way I used it, I pointed out that the US by denying people the right to Habeus Corpus failed to separate out the good from the bad. The people who were enemy combatants from those who weren't. The wheat from the chaff. I know you don't expect non Christians to understand these mysteries, but you're wrong. I'm certainly no biblical scholar, but I know a fair bit and more than many Christians I talk to.
Now all this talk about prawns has made me decide to have a nice big prawn cocktail for dinner, it happens to be one of my favourites. I'm going to give those prawns a damn good gomorrohing - if only those people had known, but those people of Gomorrah are down in hell stewing with the homosexuals. Think of the people of Gomorrah next time you have a clam chowder Kerry, for they knew not what they did.
Hiya Some Fella,
I'm here for the giggles ;-)
Posted by wandering_brit at June 27, 2008 10:23 AM
Whether you are a war hawk distressed over the 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, when the Justices decided to extend the right of habeus corpus to enemy combatants merely because they are held by Americans - Kerry
Actually while we're on habeus corpus, and since we've established you have no idea who they're holding becuase they've been denied the right to habeus corpus so talking of "enemy combatants" is inappropriate. You should be looking at the 4 who were opposed the 5 in this instance and questioning judges who are ruling against habeus corpus 'cos they sound like right berks to me.
Posted by wandering_brit at June 27, 2008 10:46 AM
"Given there is already president for those proscribed actions becoming allowable actions it does rather undermine the weight of Leviticus."
No, it doesn't. Because the three types of law given in Leviticus are treated in different ways. Moral, ceremonial, and dietary law are of differing importance. Moreover, there is an important metaphorical component to be dealt with, as well.
God uses dietary law as a metaphor for the way in which Christ expands the Kingdom of Heaven beyond the Jews and offers it to the Gentiles. Jesus hinted at this with some of His parables (in Matthew 22, for instance), but they were in the nature of a warning--that if those to whom the Kingdom is first offered (the invited guests) reject it, then those not originally invited will be gone after. (However, those brought in after the fact must still put on the "wedding garment" of salvation, or they will be rejected.)
But the concept of the expansive Gospel becomes clear in Peter's vision, whereby he is told to eat the foods previously considered "uncleean." "Rise, Peter. Kill and eat." Peter objects, because He is a good Jew, and has never eaten any such thing. God's reply is "What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common."
Immediately thereafter, Peter is confronted with the decision of whether to embrace the Gentile Cornelius as a brother Christian. Peter says: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." The upshot of the episode is that the Gentiles now receive the Holy Spirit, may be baptized in water, and considered fully Christian, though they are not Jews.
Thus, the dietary laws have served their function--to keep the children of Israel alive in the wilderness--and may be done away with.
Jesus Himself, in fulfilling the ceremonial laws--providing in His person the requisite blood sacrifice--sets aside the ceremonial law, leaving only Passover/Communion, to be partially observed until His return, when the fourth cup of Passover will be taken by all at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
But the moral laws are not set aside. In fact, they are underlined and emphasized. Jesus, when asked about divorce, clarifies as well the meaning of marriage:
"'Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,' And he answered and said unto them, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
Note that the word used here is "what," not "whom"--Jesus speaks here of the breaking up of marriage, not persons. Marriage creates a new entity, joining two into one. This institution has powerful importance to God. And it is to be entered into by a man and his "wife." (I will leave for another time the breathtaking equality Jesus here confers to marriage, but it was a huge departure for the people of the time.)
Paul later speaks of marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between Christ and His church. This relationship cannot be completed until the Lord's return to claim His "bride." Thus, we cannot merely set aside the moral law (as we can the dietary and ceremonial), because they have yet to be fulfilled.
"I've always wondered what Gomorrah did, perhaps they were over fond of shrimp buffets"--
No, actually, God sends the angels to check on the situation in Sodom, saying "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." Sodom and Gomorrah are of a piece, different in geography, but not in kind. When the angels arrive, they find the immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah more than God can bear, even though Abraham has bargained God down to saving the city if a mere TEN righteous men can be found there. There were, evidently, not even ten.
Jude also clarifies the precise sin of Sodom and Gomorrah--"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Nothing to do with shrimp, I'm afraid.
"they sound like right berks to me."
I don't know that word. What does it mean? Thanks.
Posted by Kerry at June 27, 2008 12:52 PM
Hiya Kerry,
"they sound like right berks to me."I don't know that word. What does it mean? Thanks.
berk or burk (rhymes with smirk) means idiot/fool or objectionable person. It derives from rhyming slang "Berkshire Hunt" (pronounced Bark-shire) where the second word rhymes with... well you can guess. It's roots have been completely lost (most have no idea and if you tell them are utterly amazed) and is completely inoffensive - the sort of insult your granny would be happy using.
As for the rest thanks, but I'm not persuaded. Maybe I just like the idea of the people of Gomorrah and their shrimp buffet.
As a btw do you guys ever use the word prawn? We pretty much always use the term prawn rather than shrimp.
Posted by wandering_brit at June 30, 2008 03:26 PM
As far as I know, in the Midwest, we never use the word "prawn."
Others?
Posted by Kerry at June 30, 2008 08:11 PM
Well, here in my midwest some restaraunts will call larger shrimps prawns to sound more upscale. Its the same thinking behind calling crayfish "langostinues" If you are ever in Chicago, try the Rosebud Steakhouse surf & turf with the Prawns and you will think you're eating small(ish)lobster tails. Yum.
Posted by TRF at July 1, 2008 08:34 PM
Actually, I did find a scientific source that pointed out there is a physical difference between what are properly called "prawns" and what are properly called "shrimp," but even it was resigned to the fact that the terms are used interchangeably in cooking. So, regardless of whether you are eating something called "prawn" or something called "shrimp," they are most likely the same thing.
And, yes, they do seem to be called "prawn" in high-end restaurants. Which makes me wonder--is there anywhere where "escargot" are referred to on the menu as "snails?"
Posted by Kerry at July 1, 2008 09:56 PM
"Which makes me wonder--is there anywhere where "escargot" are referred to on the menu as "snails?"
Yes, Indiana. Its on the menu next to "Varmint"
Posted by TRF at July 1, 2008 11:25 PM
I've never been to that part of Indiana--is it the part by Kentucky or the part by Chicago? We disavow them both (as, for the most part, they do us--at least Evansville did until we let the legislature bring the horse race industry across the border. And "The Region" considers itself basically a suburb of Chicago.
Posted by Kerry at July 2, 2008 12:25 AM
Curiouser and curiouser,
shrimp over here would refer to small creatures about 1.5 cms and you'd find in shrimp paste or potted shrimp (set in butter basically) and evedrything else would be prawns. Shrimp are very tasty whereas prawns can be somewhat bland so I wouldn't say there was an implication that prawns are better than shrimp merely different.
I've eaten both escargot and snails, but I'd guess escargot is more common - whether to fool the uninitated or 'cos they can charge a higher price I don't know, but they would be a lot more common in a french resturant and those tend to have thier menus in french (and charge more too I'd guess).
Posted by wandering_brit at July 2, 2008 08:34 AM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
