7/20    Hi guys.  Adding to emarkp's comments ... according to Wikipedia,
        Rehnquist is a strict constructionist, and Scalia and Thomas are
        originalists (textualists).  Let's say California enacted a law saying
        "Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or
        recognized in the state of California."  Would that be constitutional
        according to these three judges?  Is there an amendment which makes
        this decision easy?
        \_ Uhm, the text of all the amendments is available on the net.  They
           aren't a national secret or anything.  Is this some bizarre troll
           attempt?
           \_ No, I read all the amendments prior to posting -op
        \_ Rehnquist is more of a "pragmatic conservative" as opposed to a
           strict conservative; he's one of those that's less concerned
           with what the constitution precisely says and more concerned with
           making the supreme court and government work efficiently and smoothly.
           making the supreme court and government work efficiently and
           smoothly.
        \_ I hadn't seen the term "originalists" before.  But I'd say that when
           pretty much all marriage laws were enacted, that law wouldn't be
           necessary.  Checking my OED, the word "marriage" means "the union
           between husband and wife". -emarkp
           \_ I hadn't seen it either.  But when a http://freerepublic.com poll
              from last week came out with 70-80% of voters supporting an
              Originalist SCOTUS nominee, that was interesting.
              Scalia is supposed to be the representative originalist
              (textualist). -op
              \_ Then maybe I'm wrong in saying I align with "strict
                 constructionists" because I see Scalia as a model jurist.
                 I'll take a look at the wikipedia article.  -emarkp
                 [Postscript:  I guess I'm an "originalist" according to the
                 wikipedia article.]
        \_ Assuming you are not a troll the 14th amd makes it pretty clear
           that this is unconstitutional - "No State shall make or enforce
           any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
           citizens of the United States."
        \_ Hi guys, op here ... Considering what you've written already,
           would the state law "Only marriage between a man and a woman is
           valid or recognized in the state of California" be constitutional
           or not (for a strict constructionist and originalist)?  We're
           _assuming_ the law does not violate the state Constitution, and
           we're now employing the Supreme Court check.
           \_ I think for an originalist it would be seen as redundant because
              that's what marriage means. -emarkp
              \_ But the word "marriage" (of people in matrimony) isn't in
                 the Constitution (including amendments), is it?
                 Anyway, the question was whether a strict constructionist
                 or originalist would see such a state law as unconstitional
                 or not.
                 \_ Okay, as a newly identified originalist I'd see it as
                    constitutional. -emarkp
           \_ This is a far more interesting question b/c it goes to the
              heart of equal protection. A possible interpretation under
              the original purpose of the 14th amd (prevent discrimination
              based on race) would be that the statute does not violate
              the constitution b/c it does not deprive any person of equal
              protection under the law - ie any man can marry any woman
              protection under the law - ie any many can marry any woman
              and visa versa.
              An alternate view is that equal protection was always intended
              to protect people even if they made unpopular choices (say
              they chose to be a Jew/Quaker instead of a Protestant), thus
              discrimination based on the gender of the person you wish to
              marry would be unconstitutional.
              I'm pretty sure that an "originalist" would go w/ the 1st view
              but the 2d could work as well.
           \_ "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
              the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
              Marriage is, at its heart, a contract between two adults.
              Such a law, ultimately, says that only a man and a woman make
              this contract.  See Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S.
              549, 567 , 570 (1911)
           \_ "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means
              not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere
              physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but
              the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to
              be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free
              to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he
              will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue
              any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter
              into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential
              to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes
              above mentioned." 165 U.S. 578, 589  (1897)
           \_ Okay, person posting judgements from 1911 and 1897, what do
              you think strict constructionists and originalists would
              write as an opinion? -op
           \_ While this court has not attempted to define with exactness
              the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much
              consideration and some of the included things have been
              definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely
              freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
              individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
              occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
              establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
              according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally
              to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as
              essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
              262 U.S. 390 (1923)

6/20    I just got my Citibank with unlimited One Time Virtual Number that I
        can use and dispose. Does this mean I can now create many eBay
        accounts?

6/20    Do you soda liberals agree Larry Kramer is a homosexual liar?
        \_ who is he, why should we care? unless you're mimicking the WH's
           favorite distraction strategy.
           \_ If you don't know I am not interested in your opinion.
              I am jut wondering if you blindly support liberal, like the
              "I lurve George Bush" guy blindly supports Bush.
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        \_ I am pretty sure the guy is married. What does his sexual
           orientation have to do with anything anyway? -soda liberal
           \_ Some liberals could not stand to see Larry Kramer discussed
              so they are changing to Tucker, who I dont like.

7/20    I lived at this cabin last week where everything's powered by a
        portable generator. The owner said the biggest hog is the
        refrigerator, which got me to wonder... most of the power consumption
        from an AC or refrigerator is from the compressor right? It seems to
        me that it is a lot of waste to have to generate electricity first
        (+50% energy lost?) then use that electricity to crank the compressor
        (another +50% energy lost?). Is it possible to create a frig where
        the compressor is cranked directly by small engines like the ones
        used in portable generators?
        \_ Ice is civilization!!!!
        \_ Of course.  That's how very early refrigerators worked.  It's
           just that most people don't like to have internal combustion
           engines in their homes.
           \_ Maybe not in their homes, but in places like the wilderness
              where power is more precious and fresh air is easily and
              readily to be polluted, it would seem to make sense to place
              an engine powered refrigerator.
              \_ Ok, sure.  All I meant was, yes they exist.  Down below
                 is a link to how they work.  Google for "propane
                 refrigerator" if you want to buy one.
        \_ There are natural gas powered refrigerator.  Kinda
           anti-intuitive.  NG is used as a power source to turn
           the compressor.
           \_ http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm

7/20    Does anyone know if it is possible to go to a shady dealer to
        add freon to a really old car? I don't want to pay a lot of money
        to convert my old AC to the new one that uses 0 freon. Thanks.
        \_ Yes, but it'll leak out within a couple of years.  R134a (non-freon)
           systems are much higher pressure than the old R12 systems.
        \_ And while you're at it, can you find me someone to buy crack from?
           Oh yeah, and I'd like a hitman to kill my annoying wife.  Please
           leave your name, email address, home address, and phone number
           with all responses!  thx!
           \_ Sir, I need to confirm your address...
        \_ The best way I know is to buy an old car or parts of a wrecked
           car. That's what I did. Someone sold me a junk car for $50 and
           I was able to get the freon out of it. I then sold the junk car
           for $50. Auto body shops do this a lot (salvage freon from
           totalled cars).

7/20    James Doohan, RIP.  Insert obligatory Scotty jokes here.
        \_ He's been beamed up?
        \_ Guess there were some miracles he couldn't work.  (laddie)
        \_ If life was a TNG episode, they'd just manipulate a previously
           unknown effect of dilithium crystals, the transporter, and a
           newly discovered time travel effect in order to bring him back to
           life.
        \_ Damn, the guy was machine gunned down trying to take Juno beach
           during D-Day. I guess Scotty was pretty tough after all.
                \_ The shot that went for his chest was blocked by his
                   cigarette case ... So smoking CAN be healthy.
                   \_ Wearing body armor is even MORE healthy.
                      http://gojackarmy.castpost.com/156.html
                        \_ What %tage of WWII soldiers had body armor?
                           \_ You are one piss-poor troll.
                   \_ Nah, but carrying a cigarette case can be.
                        \_ How many nonsmokers carry cigarette cases?

7/20    Alzheimer's disease is mental deterioration.  What's the elderly
        disease called that's about deterioration of muscle control, but not
        mental ability?  Thanks.
        \_ Parkinson's?
           \_ That's it!  Thanks.

6/20    Do you soda liberals agree Tucker Carlson is a homosexual liar?
        \_ I am pretty sure the guy is married. What does his sexual
           orientation have to do with anything anyway? -soda liberal

7/20    Ann Coulter really doesn't like Roberts
        http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm
        Roberts' "footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:  '... In the
        interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out
        that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily
        reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United
        States.' This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s
        acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, 'hey, I never said the guy was
        innocent. I was just doing my job.' ... Finally, lets ponder the fact
        that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever
        saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural."
        \_ Ann of Green Goebbels doesn't like him?  Shocker!
        \_ She's probably just trying to get him elected.  ("Ann Coulter doesn't
           like him?  Quick, vote him in!")
           \_ Exactly, my first thought was "maybe he's not a rightwing nut" --
              if Coulter doesn't like him.  He seems to be a reasonable choice
              from everything I've read/heard.
           \_ I also heard that floating Edith Clement for two straight days
              was a Roveian plot to take the Dems by surprise with the real
              nomination.
        \_ My guess is that Coulter is gearing up for the "I told you so" in
           case he pisses off the base later on (Souter).  If he's more to the
           right than Thomas, then everyone will forget Coulter's original
           article and will be latching onto her new article, "See!!  He's a
           fucking genious and he agrees 100% with us so that makes us all
           geniuses!  America needs more real men like John C. Roberts!1!"
           If you have the "loyalty" of Coulter's fan-base, it's always
           win-win. -op
        \_ More to the point, this is precisely why Bush nominated him: he'll
           stir up enough controversy that we'll forget about Rove's
           involvement in treason.
           \_ Yeah, that's precisely it. -- ilyas
           \_ I say it's a great side effect that protects his old buddy and
              general, not the main reason.  He could have nominated Janice
              Rodgers Brown if he really wanted to see and break the
              filibuster.  Then again you could say Dubya created enough
              goodwill nominating Roberts that people would stop being so
              pissed off and forget about Rove.  Side effect.
              The main point is that Roberts could be the next Rehnquist,
              and this could last for decades.  (I'm not saying there's
              something necessarily wrong with that, don't read too deeply.)
              \_ Ah, unless he's saving up Rodgers Brown to replace Rehnquist.
           \_ We know that he rushed the nomination to get the press talking
              about something else, but I can't imagine a less controversial
              nominee. We will start talking about the Plame thing again
              once Fitzgerald starts issuing indictments.
        \_ Speaking of Ms. Tax Free Dick, she's been accused of plaigarism:
           http://rawstory.com/news/2005/coulter_caught_cribbing_column_720
           \- look, ann COULTER's "objective function" is to distinguish
              herself from the pack of her ideological brethren by saying
              extreme and freakish things. these weird women who have
              watermelon sized breast implants arent under any illusions
              they are attractive ... ann COULTER like those other freaks
              is in fact putting on a freak show. i suppose in both cases
              they find "true fans" on sloda.

7/20    What is the maximum and minimum GPS values possible? I'm asking so
        that I know whether to use short, double, or whatever type I need
        for a database. Thanks.
        \_ Lat can be -90 to +90, Long can be -180 to +180.  Useful precision
           is probably no more than 6 decimal places, so I generally just use
           DECIMAL(8,6) and DECIMAL(9,6) respectively.
           \_ Is it in deg, min, sec or decimal degrees?  -not op
              \_ I was assuming decimal degrees.
           \_ THANK YOU

7/20    Do you hate/love the http://ThePolyphonicspree.com band? Why?
        \_ I really enjoy their stuff.  Heavily layered, well orchestrated
           stuff.  --scotsman
           \_ while I find the music interesting on a conceptual level,
              it's too cheery for me to listen to.  It makes me feel
              dirty.  -sax
        \_ What the, they're all wearing white robes and the audiences
           wave and get happy like the church I used to go to. Is this a
           fucking gospel group?
           \_ I saw them open for David Bowie.  As Bowie said between songs,
              "Really nice group of people, but don't let them give you any
              Koolaid."  --lye
        \_ It's about the worst band I've ever seen.  I couldn't believe they
           were serious.  -tom
           \_ P.S.: You know it was a bad show if there was a long harp solo,
              and no one was playing the harmonica.  -tom
              \_ Wow, you have interesting requirements for a good show.
                 \_ Harp solos are a sufficient (but not necessary)
                    requirement for a bad show.  I didn't say anything about
                    my requirements for a good show.  -tom

7/20    Do you care if the Chinese buy Unocal/76?
        \_ No. As long as gas price is not affected and my tax is low
           I don't care if the Chinese takes over.
           \_ Hah!  Your poor grammar gives you away as a FOB Chinese.
              \_ You should just go all Deadwood on us, and call them
                 "Celestials and dirt worshippers."
        \_ It really doesn't matter.  In the next 5-10 years, all that will
           matter who has the best military outpost in the mideast to secure
           oil supplies.
           \_ Let's rename Iran to New Texas when that happens!
        \_ Just out of curiousity, why were the Chinese all upset that we
           might have a problem with this transaction? Is it even possible
           for one of our large corporations to buy a large Chinese
           corporation?
           \_ where did you get the impression that the Chinese were all
                upset?  it seems to me it's the US who got all upset.
                \_ There were stories about the Chinese being upset that
                   we have a problem with THEM buying a US company.
                   \_ url?
           \_ Where did you get the impression that the Chinese are into
              fairness?

7/20    I found two small and a moderate sized beehives in my backyard.  Got
        any specialists in the South Bay that you can recommend?  What about
        the San Leandro area?  Thanks.
        \_ hunny!

7/20    That's no moon: http://csua.org/u/cs7 [ebay]
        http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5789263206&fromMakeTrack=true
        \_ Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've created
        \_ 300W?  Good for masturbation.
           http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/4684
           http://www.admarchive.com/n_s/private_parts/lynn

7/20    Own your own death star sub-woofer:
        http://tinyurl.com/c3pos (ebay.co.uk)
        \_ Your URI is broken.  Try http://csua.org/u/cs7
           \_ seems to work for me. anyway full url is:
                  \_ It failed for me in Opera 8, Firefox 1.0.6, and even IE 6.
   http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5789263206&fromMakeTrack=true

6/19    Firefox 1.0.6 is out:
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/1.0.6.html
        \_ Yay, Firefox is turning out to be just as broken and bug-ridden
           as IE! Woo!
           \_ Err.. that seems like a bit of an overstatement.
              \_ Is it?  Six major patches in as many months, correct?
                 \_ IE still runs ActiveX.
                 \_ Have you done any significant programming?
                    You ought to know how damn hard it is to get all
                    the bugs (esp. security) out. The FF team is doing
                    a very good job considering that for many of them
                    it is not a paying job.
                    \_ I think the PP was referring to the fact that so many
                       security holes existed in the first place (rather than
                       how fast/slow they were fixed), which means Fx was not
                       more secure than IE after all.  (I understand that 1.0.6
                       is not about security fixes.)
                 \_ 1.0.x vs 1.0.y is a "major patch"?  I don't think so.
        \_ When upgrading Firefox for your Windoze clients, do you
           just install over the old Firefox; or do you uninstall Firefox
           first, then manually delete the leftover C:\Program Files\Mozilla
           Firefox directory like the official download site recommends?
           \_ What I do for every upgrade is: exit Fx and all other apps, start
              Fx, Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Clear All, exit Fx, uninstall
              Fx from Control Panel, reboot, delete "C:\Program Files\Mozilla
              Firefox", install new Fx.  Actually, now that I've learned about
              the profile folder, I'll also delete that from now on.
           \_ Related question: How do I uninstall all the extensions and
              themes when I uninstall Firefox?

6/19    Re: "strict constructionist" below.  I can't see how anyone would want
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        a SCOTUS judge to not be strict constructionist.  If they follow the
        document then we don't get wonky rulings like the expansion of eminent
        domain and the excuse of interstate commerce to trample on states'
        rights.  Furthermore, it means we the people change the consitution
        through elected officials (many of them have to act together) rather
        than 9 or so appointed judges.  So, if you disagree with the strict
        constructionist philosophy, please argue your case.  I really don't see
        the other side of it and I'd like to change that. -emarkp
        \- "strict constructionist" or "fundamental fairness" and other such
           terms are can get universal agreement but they mean different
           things to different people. to take a geek turn, two people can
           think 'object oriented programming' is good and mean different
           things by it. a judicial philosophy is more than two words long ...
           and isnt even a list of "two words phrases" ... "i believe in
           'original intent' and 'strict constructionism' and 'stare decisis'
           and  the 'plain meaning' of the constitution."
           see e.g. Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial Process.
        \_ Let me preface my comments by saying that Justices ought to
           primarily interpret the law not create it. However, in some
           cases they need to be flexible enough to mold the law into a
           particular direction that is favorable for society as a whole.
           \_ I see this as a problem.  Who decides what's faborable for
              society as a whole?  Society should.  And we should do it through
              constitutional amendments if necessary, or by state and federal
              legislature if not. -emarkp
              \_ The judiciary has a role in molding the development
                 of society as much as the legislature does. Often
                 judges are asked to interpret laws for situations
                 that were not envisioned by the the people who framed
                 the law. Instead of automatically deferring to the
                 legislature (when/if they get around to dealing w/
                 the issues instead of bonking their interns or taking
                 bribes), it would be preferable for judges to suggest a
                 manner in which the law should develop. If the judicary
                 makes a mistake, the legislature can always fix it via
                 statutory enactment or constitutional amendment.
                 \_ Here's where we disagree then.  I see SCOTUS as having a
                    very narrow purpose, and that's making sure laws passed by
                    congress don't violate the constitution.  Of the three
                    branches of gov't, the congress should be the strongest and
                    the judges (not elected, not removable) the weakest.
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Okay. If you view the congress has having the
                       strongest role and the judiciary as having a
                       merely passive role, I can agree that you want
                               \_ I don't see 9 people striking down
                                  legislation approved by 536 people as
                                  "passive". -emarkp
                       judges who act in a limited way.
                       I, however, think of the judiciary as a feedback
                       system for the legislature. The legislature has
                       the primary role in setting national policy, &c.
                       Sometimes, the legislature doesn't do a good job
                       and fails to think things through. This is where
                       the ct can come in and make sure that things are
                       running smoothly. Actions taken by the court can
                       provide valuable feedback to the legislature to
                       get its act together and fix things rather than
                       just dink around discussing pay raises, and 1/2
                       dead people in FL.
           With that as a reference, here are some points re strict
           constructionism:
           (1) Often its not clear what the rule actual is - congress will
               frequently enact legislation drawing power from various
               clauses in the constitution but fail to define key terms
               and the circuits will split over the meaning. The Court
               needs to have justices who can think about the long term
               effects of their actions and act appropriately. Acting like
               a curmudgeon and applying 18th-19th century principles to
               things like the Internet isn't realistic - the framers had
               no idea about this type of communication/commerce and you
               need judges who can look to the past for analogies but also
               look to the future.
               \_ There is something about your rhetoric I find vaguely
                  unsettling. -- ilyas
                  \_ Consider Sony for example. Yes there were people
                     using the VCR to violate copyright but it wasn't
                     clear that Sony had done anything wrong in making
                     a product that enabled this. The fact that the
                     ct saw its way clear to say that producing a product
                     w/o more wasn't enough to infringe copyright was a
                     big deal (Sony was going to be decided the other way
                     until one justice switched his vote, iirc b/c of
                     the implications of just a decision).
           (2) Sometimes you have a doctrine that is the "law" and is
               defended as such but in reality is just a cover for something
               more insidious like racism. In these situations you need to
               be flexible to stamp out behavior that has no place in a
               civilized society.
               \_ Again, who defines "civilized society"?  Again I argue that
                  society should, not a panel of judges. -emarkp
                  \_ So you would be willing to accept racism until
                     the states voluntarily decided to outlaw it?
                     And that was going to happen like NEVER. In
                     some instances, the states/people need a nudge
                     in the "right" direction.
                     \_ So you've turned prophet and caretaker now?  You can
                        say what would or would not happen?  You can decide
                        what the "right" direction is?  Here's a question:
                        aren't you concerned about a group of 9 people deciding
                        what's "right" for you?  What if all of them were
                        hardcore conservatives? -emarkp
               I would point to separate but equal as an example - clearly
               the intent behind the doctrine was racist and it needed to be
               ended, but the strict constructionism stood in the way of
               this. This was a state law issue, but the states weren't
               doing anything about it. Second, congressional intent when
               the 14th amd was drafted seemed to show that segregation
               was constitutional b/c the same congress created segregated
               schools in DC. The Court had to be flexible to get around
               the doctrine.
           (3) Reasonable minds can differ as to how the framers would
               apply or interpret parts of the constitution to modern
               situations. You gave the example of commercial development
               (Kelo). AFAIK, there were no commerical developers around
               when the constitution and the bill of rights were enacted.
               You MIGHT think you know how they would interpret the
               situtation, but do you really know? Esp. considering the
               fact that there were probably some at the constitutional
               convention who would have found no problem w/ the Kelo
               decision. Wouldn't it be better to have Justices who can
               see that perhaps we need rules that help order affairs
               in the reality of 21st century life rather than get stuck
               w/ rules that were suited to 18th-19th century life?
               \- wasnt part of the MARSHALL J. holding
                  in Barron v. Baltimore the takings clause
                  didnt apply to the states but just the
                  national govt? what you you crazy ori-
                  ginalists think about that?
                  \_ iirc, Barron was decided in the 1830s prior to
                     the 14th amd. At the time it was decided it was
                     correct b/c the 5th amd only apply to actions
                     by the federal gov and not the states. However,
                     the 14th amd (sec 1) made the 5th amd. applicable
                     to actions by the states, thus the holding in
                     Barron is no longer correct.
                     \- so the whole idea of the absorbption doctrine,
                        and the slaughterhouse cases and 14th amd
                        interpretation is a big area where these kinds
                        of originalist interpretations become difficult
                        or break down. like the meaning of "congress shall
                        make no law" in the 1st amd no longer has the
                        "scope" of only applying to the congress eventhough
                        it "plainly" says so.
        \_ The Founding Fathers deliberately set up a balance of powers
           arrangement so that the different branches of government could
           serve as checks on each other. If the SC turns itself into
           a rubber stamp for the legislature, or even worse, the executive,
           they will weaken one leg of the stool. Plus, even what exactly
           a "strict" constitutionalist changes over time, as our notions
           of equality and fair play and even the definitions of words change.
           Furthermore, technology and other changes have made parts of the
           Constitution obsolete. Isn't $10 still the limit for immigration
           taxes somewhere and $20 the limit for trails by jury?

6/19    NY Times with apparently accurate (non-biased) background article
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        on Roberts:
       http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20judge.html
        "On the other side of the political equation, he is likely to be
        confirmed, at least with far less trouble than many of the other
        candidates who had been listed as possible Bush choices. Even as
        Democrats were resisting many of Mr. Bush's other appeals court
        candidates with filibusters, Mr. Roberts was approved by a vote of 16
        to 3 in the Judiciary Committee and confirmed without a roll call vote
        on May 9, 2003." (you can bet the 3 no's were for the abortion thing)
        Filibuster at your own peril. -liberal/moderate

6/19    What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        (wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion
        that isn't shared by the majority of other justices?
        \- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but
           1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents.
              one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter",
              see e.g. Dissent in Lochner.
              Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single
              dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases
              contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history"
              title? [that was HARLAN].
              \_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter
                 in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d.
           2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there
              isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might
              imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
              std such examples:
                POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed
                an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts
                I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in
                Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and
                BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and
                BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion
                concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
                part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL,
                J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402,
                filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion
                concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
                part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and
                REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408.
                \- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that
                   current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively
                   hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends
                   up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA
                   cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the
                   law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to
                   strike down the UG AA system].
                \_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which
                   established that a voluntary act was required
                   under the constitution for criminal punishment
                   but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not.

6/19    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
        Supreme Court choice John C. Roberts Jr. reported by multiple sources
        is sharp, but will probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
        I say there should be no filibuster attempt. -liberal/moderate
        \_ Roe v. Wade *should* be overturned.  And then (or even prior)
           congress should pass laws about privacy, etc.
           \_ If you're a strict constructionist, then you believe Roe v.
              Wade should be overturned.  On the other hand, if you're Sandra
              Day, you would uphold it.  Which is more valid?  You got me.
        \_ The magic number is 50. Assuming everything equal, he'll be around
           for the next 30-odd years.
           \_ When a Democrat is President, he or she can also nominate a
              sharp 50-year-old with little in judicial opinions written down
              but believed to be as liberal as you can get, but also one who
              has stated that they support being impartial over being
              predictable.
              \_ Only if someone on SCOTUS dies or retires during his
                 presidency. Cf. Clinton.
        \_ "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing
           in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully
           applying that precedent."
           \_ I also read an article today that said he was speaking for a
              client, and not from his personal view, when advocating for Roe
              v. Wade to be overturned.
        \_ Does it mean anything that he's a Harvard man?
           \- no. HLS is one of the largest law schools in the country.
              who he clerked for might mean more ... what ever that means.
              half the sup ct went to harvard.
              \_ He clerked for Sith Lord Rheinquist.
              \_ Of course it means something. You are naive. It even
                 means more that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. It
                 is not a coincidence that half the supreme court and 10%
                 of Congress went to HLS. Seven US Presidents are Harvard
                 grads. This is how the upper class perpetuates itself.
           \_ Souter graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, and also
              graduated Harvard Law.  Appointed by Bush I in 1990.
              Scalia is also a Harvard Law grad, as well as Breyer and
              Kennedy.
              \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel.
                 -- ilyas

7/20    Not that it wasn't obvious or anything, but Bush really was "wagging
        the court"
        http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=IJWRAX1A74E9
        (rich irony in that this article is based on anonymous sources)
        \_ Hate to channel freerepublic, but only Ed Rollins is quoted as
           a Republican, and he doesn't really say "Part of the reason Bush
           nominated fast was to distract from Rove", he just says,
           (paraphrasing) "Because of the nomination, attention will be
           distracted from Rove".  No further mention is made of "Republicans
           familiar with administration strategy".  This article is utter and
           complete crap currently. -moderate/liberal
           \_ "...said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition
              they not be named.  The officials said those plans changed
              because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of
              news accounts about the matter."
              \_ Shit!  I blame the tiny type.  Or did they update the story
                 on me??  I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms.L
              \_ Does anyone see the irony of leaks coming out about scandal
                 involving leaks?
                 \_ Did anyone read the line in the OP about "rich irony?"

7/20    Canada 4th country to legalize gay marriage
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act

7/20    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/20/bush.grenade/index.html
        Police officer killed during arrest of individual suspected of throwing
        live grenade at Dubya during his speech in the former Soviet republic
        of Georgia
        \_ Go Scotland Yard!
           \_ Did you mean to post in the London thread?

7/21    http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10958
        Ugliest dog.
        \_ That thing is ALIVE?  It looks like some kind of mummified rat.
        \_ Poor thing. yeah it's fucking ugly, but it's got all sorts of
           horrible diseases. old diseased, toothless, skin and bones
           people in their deathbed don't look too hot either.
        \_ Here's another picture of it:
           http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/another_image_o.html
        \_ That dog looks like Salacious Crumb.  True Star Wars geeks will
           know who Salacious Crumb is.

7/20    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1702411,00.html
        FYI, looks like they found the actual mastermind of the London attack.
        Hint:  It wasn't the rich Egyptian biochemistry Leeds University grad
        student who had just submitted his dissertation and happened to rent
        his apartment out to one of the suspected bombers.
        \_ It was Charles Clarke, seeking to ram through his ID cards?  -John
        \_ Go Scotland Yard!