On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:25:00 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
>> unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm".  Do you know of one?
>>
> Oh, no, not specifically, but then, that is the point, isn't it. If you
> need a cause, you can find one. Its not impossible that there can be
> "real harms" to some people, both if/and if not, a law stands. Its also
> possible to pull things out of your ass, which you claim represent
> dangers. Its the statements made latter that make it really clear what
> they where actually thinking, and why they did it, and, while so far,
> all of the cases have been fairly borderline, and it is hard to say if a
> line was really crossed, again, looking at their opinions, their public
> statements, and at least in one case, the ranting gibberish one put out
> as his "apposing opinion to the decision", at the very least, suggest a
> really horrible result, should the balance shift even more in favor of
> certain sorts of people on the court (something Romney would have,
> almost certainly, have either done, or been pressured by his so called
> 'base' into doing.)

It's been my experience that this is why the law needs something that's 
quantifiable in some way.  I can't sue you because you hurt my feelings, 
but I can sue you if you defame me in a way that causes me monetary 
damage (such as loss of work, for example).

>> Yes, exactly.  But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
>> are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
>> claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
>> demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
>> them.
>>
> Uh.. Ok, sorry, guess I missed your point. All the stupidity that has
> been going on the last, almost 12+ years, makes it hard to keep track of
> which idiocies stood, and which ones might have been shot down. I guess
> I lost track of what exactly went on with that one (especially given
> that a mess of other states have, since, been promoting the same stupid
> crap, on the basis that it was successful in California).

Prop 8 was a weird one, because usually laws put forth something 
affirmative when it comes to rights (when they're related to rights).  
Prop 8 was the opposite, so it gets confusing to talk about, because a 
"yes" on 8 meant "no" to marriage rights.  People screwed around with the 
wording to make it purposefully confusing (IMHO), and that in and of 
itself should IMHO be illegal.

The "idiot in a hurry" shouldn't look at a law and interpret it to mean 
the opposite of what it does mean.


>>> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to put such a law into place, such
>>> that this is the end result (and has been, in every single state that
>>> passes them), in such a way that you can't either vote it, via
>>> referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the state over it, and how
>>> the fuck is it "constitutional"?
>>
>> Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time.  The legislature
>> /should/,
>> I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
>> exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
> Sadly, we are lucky, sometimes, if the legislature, it seems, isn't made
> up of cast members from the movie Idiocracy, on some subjects. But,
> yeah, while a religious test is just out (it would remove about 80% of
> the idiots right there, if you could just test for which ones thing
> environmental issues don't exist, because god wouldn't allow them, and
> creationism was sound...), but... why the hell is it illegal to have a,
> "Do you even know anything about US history, the constitution, or.. how
> to write your own damn name, for that matter?"? I mean, would it be too
> much to ask that they could pass a GED, at minimum, without falling
> asleep, or paying someone else to take the test for them?

Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that 
the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you 
shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an 
atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).

>>  The courts are
>> supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
>> unconstitutional being passed.  It generally works.
>>
> Sadly, and this is what annoys me with SCOTUS is.. its not entirely
> clear how, or even if, you could fire one of them, if they did overstep
> their own limits, and did something unconstitutional themselves, like
> allowing something to stand that actually is unconstitutional. 

From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.  
By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get 
to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the majority said 
"uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an 
immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an individual citizen 
could even sue to have one removed from the bench.

> It is,
> after all, an "appointed" position, and who gets appointed depends
> entirely upon when one of them dies and/or retires, and who happens to
> be in the White House. Imagine Romney, and his "tea party" wackos, or
> someone actually crazy, not just unable to, apparently, think without
> consulting the current party leadership (I thought we got past that BS
> with Bush Jr...), had the opportunity to do that, especially given the
> somewhat.. questionable views of some of the people already there (not
> to mention their refusal to do what any other judge, in any other
> position, would do, and recuse themselves, when their own wife is on the
> comity/group pushing something under constitutional examination, as in
> fact happened with, I think Scalia?).

That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/14/2012 10:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:23:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> and lots, of time undermining education
>>
>> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good
>> can it do to anybody to limit education?
>
> Ignorance helps religious belief flourish.
>
> Jim
>
And, of course, you can combine yours, and Stephens. Ignorant people 
will believe your religion, and follow your guidance, without rebelling, 
allowing you to acquire, use, and propagate political power, without 
opposition, or even, if you are clever, the dupes realizing that 
everything you are doing is actually making their lives worse, not better.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that
> the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you
> shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an
> atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>
Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some 
places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway.. 
But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the 
connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be 
Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are 
dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are 
corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing, 
if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The 
guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has 
something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my 
head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?

Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2 
equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their 
favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p

>  From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.
> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get
> to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the majority said
> "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an
> immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an individual citizen
> could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>
Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I 
don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or 
if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never 
directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of 
"permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:

1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and 
have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could 
undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the 
"party" thinks it should be.

2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices 
could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power. 
It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the 
constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as 
"constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.

It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if 
they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the 
result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted" 
through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the 
constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is 
**not** acceptable.

> That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.
>
> Jim
>
Ah, right, Scalia is the "other" mostly right winger. I knew it was one 
of the two.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/14/2012 6:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
>> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
>
> Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
>
Well, its El-Ohim. Uh, I mean Yahweh. Oh, wait, no.. Allah? Er. Jesus, 
yeah, that one..

Definitely not any of the others though, its just obvious isn't it?

Though, in practice, if pushed on it, it is either a) Any old god, or b) 
a non-specific, non-religious, statement, which just reflects tradition, 
or something else non-sectarian, well.. unless your a damn atheist, in 
which case, uh... let me have my lawyer get back to you...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 6:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
> >
> >> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
> >
> > Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
> >
> > Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
> >
> Well, its El-Ohim. Uh, I mean Yahweh. Oh, wait, no.. Allah? Er. Jesus, 
> yeah, that one..

> Definitely not any of the others though, its just obvious isn't it?

> Though, in practice, if pushed on it, it is either a) Any old god, or b) 
> a non-specific, non-religious, statement, which just reflects tradition, 
> or something else non-sectarian, well.. unless your a damn atheist, in 
> which case, uh... let me have my lawyer get back to you...

If I get to define it, then I would have some suggestions:

- Freedom. (Ok, would be more like a religion than a "god", but anyway...)
- The Universe. (And not in the pantheistic sense. In the materialistic
  sense.)
- The Sun. (After all, it's the giver of life...)
- Evolution. (What created us.)
- Society. (The giver of all morals. Although evolution also qualifies when
  you get down to it.)
- The Unknown. (Where our universe came from. Favorite source of arguments
  for gods and religions.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:41:06 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems
>> that the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian,
>> you shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if
>> you're an atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>>
> Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some
> places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway..

I think I might've misremembered, it was that in one of the southern 
states (Alabama, perhaps) it was post-2000 before they could.

> But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the
> connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be
> Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are
> dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are
> corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing,
> if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The
> guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has
> something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my
> head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?

What gives me a headache is watching politicians demonstrate their 
beliefs and ignorance - belief in the Christian god, ignorance about 
things that actually affect the planet (climate change, etc.) - and their 
pride in both.

> Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2
> equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their
> favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p

I'd like to see some sort of minimum bar set, but there is the question 
of what constitutes the minimum bar.  It can't (nor should be) the need 
for a degree, as there are a lot of very smart people who don't hold 
degress, and a lot of truly stupid people who do.

>>  From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on
>>  SCOTUS.
>> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they
>> get to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the
>> majority said "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices
>> seem to have an immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an
>> individual citizen could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>>
> Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I
> don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or
> if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never
> directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of
> "permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:

I think the assumption was that those who were appointed as judges would 
be party-neutral and would just interpret the law without putting a spin 
on it.  I don't think the founding fathers foresaw the complexity of 
modern law very well (not that that's a "fault" per se, telling the 
future is very a tricky business).

> 1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and
> have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could
> undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the
> "party" thinks it should be.

Yup.  Though I think those on the right might well say the same about 
those on the left as well - that, for example, my interpretation of the 
second amendment undermines the spirit of individual freedom in the 
constitution.

> 
> 2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices
> could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power.
> It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the
> constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as
> "constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.

I think that's perhaps a longshot at best.  It's why you have 
confirmation hearings and the like - someone up for a position on the 
high court would have to essentially fake an entire career, and that kind 
of outright lying just isn't sustainable.

> It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if
> they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the
> result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted"
> through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the
> constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is
> **not** acceptable.

Agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/15/2012 9:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think that's perhaps a longshot at best.  It's why you have
> confirmation hearings and the like - someone up for a position on the
> high court would have to essentially fake an entire career, and that kind
> of outright lying just isn't sustainable.
>
Yeah, eventually you end up having to try to convince people that are 
not gullible enough, or closely mixed up in the propaganda enough, to 
completely fail to go, "What the fuck did he/she just say?!", when they 
run. Its why Palin types manage to successfully get as far as 
governorships, then people go, "Where did this nut come from.", when 
running for.. oh, VP, or something, where more people are paying attention.

But, on some level, they do understand this. They just claim, or 
actually think, or something, that its some vast liberal conspiracy, 
which needs to be fixed by killing unions, and rearranging maps, so that 
their votes count, and other people's don't. Wouldn't be bloody 
surprised, at this point, if Wisconsin went much more very very bad for 
them, they wouldn't try claiming redistrict it as part of Canada, to 
avoid having it effect their next election campaign. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 12/15/2012 12:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> If I get to define it, then I would have some suggestions:
>
> - Freedom. (Ok, would be more like a religion than a "god", but anyway...)
> - The Universe. (And not in the pantheistic sense. In the materialistic
>    sense.)
> - The Sun. (After all, it's the giver of life...)
> - Evolution. (What created us.)
> - Society. (The giver of all morals. Although evolution also qualifies when
>    you get down to it.)
> - The Unknown. (Where our universe came from. Favorite source of arguments
>    for gods and religions.)
>
Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an 
afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so, 
sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of 
apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that 
qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all 
properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so 
you're not qualified. ;)

Only the people with "deep" theological views get to do that. You know, 
the ones that are indistinguishable from everyone else's, in practice, 
but are really, really, you know, so deep they are actually different, 
even though not one thing such an expert ever comes up with is 
indistinguishable from what the moron on the street claims makes it all 
true.

There is actually a word for this sort of BS, someone came up with, 
where you say something that sound neat, proposes to provide a great 
explanation, but which, on anything at all like real examination, has 
about as much depth as a two panel stick figure cartoon, which says, "It 
is so.", in one panel, and, to which the other character is supposed to 
state, "Oh, I get it!", in the other, without, like.. any of the 
information you would presume lies between:

Deepitees.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an 
> afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so, 
> sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of 
> apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that 
> qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all 
> properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so 
> you're not qualified. ;)

How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
what it means?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/16/2012 12:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an
>> afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so,
>> sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of
>> apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that
>> qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all
>> properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so
>> you're not qualified. ;)
>
> How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
> what it means?
>
lol Well, the point of the above is that this is precisely how "Biblical 
law" seems to work. So, given the reason some of them object to liberal 
interpretations of the constitution, I can only assume its how they 
think "it" should work too. ;)

Post a reply to this message