Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn
Thanks for giving this issue the attention it deserves.
This is a victory for not only the residents of California but for all Americans who cherish the concept of equal rights.
Forgive me for getting OT but, I am hoping you tackle this ridiculous comment by Bush in Israel today. ie: Barack=Nazi-appeaser.
It could be an opportune moment to raise the issue of Bush's own alleged connection to the Nazis via Grampa Prescott, followed by a comment or two on the bin Laden business partnership/family friendship and some of their other terrorist/fascist buddies.
Could it be that W himself is the real terrorist-loving Nazi-appeaser here?
-
Roches, they say, will survive.
the number of women in purdah who speak in favor of their situation, or the women with bound feet who find a daughter opposed to the practice to be indecent
Names? Phone numbers? Oh Phooey! I give up. Besides, where can you get size 1/2 shoes with stiletto heeels? And those designer burkahs cost a mint! I couldn't afford it.
What was it that girl used to sing so long ago, was it by "The Roches"? Remember them? "Monogamy Shmanogamy, can I bring a friend with me?" Oh Lord, that was long ago. Never mind.
-
@ Derbig Mooser
I squeezed my zits and sprayed my pits, but it seems I'm strictly nye kulturny for today's swingin guys and gals!
Maybe they're afraid of Rooskies....
Cheers,
-
William Timberman drives across the country. He arrives back to UT safe and sound....
W.T., we need to visit a petting zoo for therapy?
W.T., could be patted and tickled under his chin?
W.T., has had the big tummy rubbed in our stead?
W.T., as soon as I can get some chores reassigned?
I'm off to watch some mosquitoes and soak dang toes.
-
Oh, Mona!
No offense intended. Still, one of the things we're debating here is culture, which famously impacts one's rationality more than one is willing to admit. Likewise, one's ideology, which each of us tends to believe is derived from his/her own experiences, and is the product of a purely rational reflection.
T'aint always so, of course; in fact it almost never is. Say what you will about Marxism or Post-modern philosophy, they have, in each in its own way, forced us to be more cautious about assertions that our decision-making is entirely the product of pure reason.
Philosophy is much derided these days, but it remains eminently practical and useful in counteracting certain forms of hubris.
-
@Northwestwoods
It could be an opportune moment to raise the issue of Bush's own alleged connection to the Nazis via Grampa Prescott
Jesus Christ on a snowboard, I had forgotten about old Prescott when I read about that today. And he got shut down by the FBI for it, too! Thanks for reminding us.
That's just sad.
-
GG
Correct court rulings concerning constitutional law are based on two things: (1) the provisions of the Constitution and (2) precedent interpreting and applying those provisions. What else do you think it's based on?
I agree that "correct legal opinions" should be based solely on the unbiased review and application of the two factors you mentioned, but practically, the ideology of the judges hearing the case is an additional factor. The job of interpreting and applying the relevant precedential cases is left to judges who have distinct ideological views as to how the case should be decided. These views inherently affect their interpretation and application of precedent to the facts before the Court. I am of the opinion that, at times, the justices determine what they want the outcome to be and interpret precedent accordingly. While this clearly doesn't happen in most circumstances, I think it occurs most frequently in high profile cases with political undertones.
_____
But correct legal reasoning -- which is what these commentators are pretending to apply -- is based only on the constitutional provisions in question and precedent. If the considerations that you're describing enter into the equation, then that's bad judicial reasoning.
I agree 100%, and I guess that was my point - "bad judicial reasoning" happens due to the ideological biases of the judges hearing the case.
_____
No, I don't agree. Do you think Brown v. Bd. of Education was the result merely of the ideology of the judges at the time, or do you think it was a result compelled by the language and meaning of the Constitution?
I absolutely think it was compelled by the correct interpretation of the language and meaning of the constitution, but remember that approximately 50 years before that decision, the same Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson. In doing so they stated: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." That statement is essentially the complete opposite of the position taken by the Court in Brown. Different time, different court, different political landscape = completely different (and correct) application of the equal protection clause.
Another good example is the recent Indiana voter Id case. Precedent dictated that the Court uphold the law if the burden it placed upon voters was "justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Conservative Court finds that preventing non-existent and undocumented voter fraud is a "legitimate interest" and "sufficiently weighty" so as to justify the burden imposed on voters. Would you agree that a different Court with a different ideological makeup, say one more similar to Souter and Ginsburg, would have come to a different conclusion? If you agree with that, don't you, by default, agree with my initial premise that the ideological balance of the Court is a factor right alongside precedent?
apologize for the long post... I know I am arguing in your wheel house at this point.
-
@WT
I have already posted the "Mooser Theme Song" (sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy) but I will not, will not, under any circumstances post the tender ballad "When it's Moose-mating Time in Albuquerque" nor do I feel constrained from not posting details of what is ignominously appellated "rutting",
like the "Underwear Dance" and "Lucky Underwear" nor do I find myself compelled to offer any explanation for the fact that they must be two sizes too big!
Consult any reputable biology text for the details you dirty old man!
And yes, William, as you know only too damned well, I shoulda taken a left at Albuquerque.