Wrong on so many levels.

Post #196,080 by mmoffitt 2/23/05 11:38:51 AM 2/23/05 11:39:32 AM Reply	Wrong on so many levels. First, let's take a look at YOU not understanding Scalia. Why speculate about what Scalia means/thinks/whatever (aside from whatever it is that sometimes makes you think you know more than you do)? Here is what the man said himself: What I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what it was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted and I don't think it changes since then. It's about 29 minutes into the clip listed here: [link\|http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=scalia&StartDateMonth=1&StartDateYear=2005&EndDateMonth=2&EndDateYear=2005&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch\|http://www.cspan.org...&SortBy=bestmatch] Top link, run it up to 28:11 at about 29:00 is where I took the quote. Watch, listen, learn and chow down on crow. Second, WTF does this mean? Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society,... Judges are either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who fucking well are "representative". But thanks for playing. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 23, 2005, 11:39:32 AM EST Expand All History
Post #196,085 by bepatient 2/23/05 11:49:29 AM Reply	But they are NOT legislators, as defined. So...thanks for playing yourself. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #196,086 by mmoffitt 2/23/05 11:52:15 AM Reply	Huh? See if you can follow at least this much: Ben: Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society, his point makes some sense. Me: Judges (the courts) are either directly elected or are appointed by elected representatives (i.e. chose from a representative, not non-representative subset of society. Shucks, you baited me and I took it. Dang. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,102 by ben_tilly 2/23/05 1:52:37 PM Reply	Yes, you are indeed First, let's take a look at YOU not understanding Scalia. Why speculate about what Scalia means/thinks/whatever (aside from whatever it is that sometimes makes you think you know more than you do)? Here is what the man said himself: What I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what it was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted and I don't think it changes since then. You know there should be a word for the situation when person M jumps up and down and says what person B would have predicted, and claims it as an example where person B is wrong. The word "irony" sort of fits. "Idiocy" fits better. You don't believe me? Well what would I have predicted? I said that Scalia doesn't think that it is the job of the courts* to decide when fundamental values have shifted.* Therefore when he, as a judge, attempts to decide based on the Constitution and legislation, he thinks that it is his job to decide based on what was originally meant. Thus he's interested in figuring out what they meant, not what he'd like them to have meant. If what was decided back then is not what society wants today, society knows how to change the Constitution. We've actually succeeded in doing so a couple of dozen times. Once changed it becomes Scalia's job to decide in accord with the amended version, trying to understand the amendments in accord with what people thought they were agreeing to when said amendments are passed. Therefore what Scalia said both fits with what I said, and is what I would have predicted him saying. It's about 29 minutes into the clip listed here: [link\|http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=scalia&StartDateMonth=1&StartDateYear=2005&EndDateMonth=2&EndDateYear=2005&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch\|http://www.cspan.org...&SortBy=bestmatch] Top link, run it up to 28:11 at about 29:00 is where I took the quote. Watch, listen, learn and chow down on crow. Thank you for the detailed instructions for how to learn what I already knew. Incidentally you just confirmed that "idiocy" is definitely the better word to use. Second, WTF does this mean? Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society,... I'd guess it means that the courts (by which I meant the courts that Scalia accuses of legislating from the bench - which is not all courts - I should have been clearer about that) are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society. At least that is what I meant it to mean, and it is pretty muchwhat I said. Judges are either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who fucking well are "representative". The judges who are elected directly are elected to lower-level courts that are supposed to take direction from higher-level courts. The judges who are in a position to come up with novel interpretations of the Constitution that other courts are bound to follow (courts up to and including the Supreme Court) are appointed officials and therefore are unelected. Once appointed they are accountable to nobody (how do you remove someone from the Supreme Court?), a measure which is normally considered necessary to reduce the amount of political manipulation that is necessary. Such judges are chosen from the ranks of prominent lawyers, particularly lawyers who have become judges. A brief bit of thought should suffice to indicate that the population of lawyers is hardly representative of society as a whole. That would seem to cover all of the things that I said about the courts. Yup, the important ones are not elected. Judges are unaccountable. And they are chosen from a non-representative subset of society. Check, check and check. But thanks for playing. If you consider this a game then I'd appreciate your making it more fun by saying things that aren't so trivially wrong. So far I've been reduced to pointing out the obvious, and frankly that is getting boring. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,103 by Another Scott 2/23/05 1:57:28 PM Reply	Judges can be impeached and removed. It's rare though.
Post #196,105 by mmoffitt 2/23/05 2:05:36 PM 2/23/05 2:07:36 PM Reply	Edited for clarity. Elected Representatives appoint the judges you have now twice erroneously claimed were appointed from a "non representative subset" of society. The people on the bench are there because we, The People, elected other folks who reflected our values so that we could have judges that also reflect our values. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 23, 2005, 02:07:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #196,106 by admin 2/23/05 2:17:33 PM Reply	You're talking past each other. The pool of people from which the judges are selected, ie. lawyers, judges, etc., are not representative of the society as a whole. Not the people appointing them. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #196,110 by ben_tilly 2/23/05 2:33:28 PM Reply	Oh, I understood what Mike said perfectly well I admit that I'm starting to wonder how many rounds will be needed before he realizes that he's addressing something unrelated to what I said. Furthermore even what he said is wrong. While it is true that the pool of potential politicians is representative (for most posts, all citizens), the pool of elected politicians is rather non-representative. For instance what fraction of the population is made up of middle-aged millionaire men who graduated from Yale in the 60's and were members of Skull and Bones? Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,111 by admin 2/23/05 2:36:01 PM Reply	I was being tactful... I know, wrong forum. ONE THOUSAND YEARS OF PAIN!! Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #196,113 by bepatient 2/23/05 2:38:35 PM Reply	flees of 1000 camels and all that If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #196,368 by jb4 2/25/05 6:54:58 PM Reply	"Flees" or "Fleas"? The second one makes somewhat more sense.... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #196,369 by Another Scott 2/25/05 7:14:01 PM Reply	Oooh. Spelling flame. That's a good one. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #196,374 by admin 2/25/05 7:24:46 PM Reply	Yabut... The first one makes a better LRPDism... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #196,402 by bepatient 2/26/05 7:16:49 AM Reply	Ouch I really am going to have to really watch my typing around here. Being enshrined in a LRPD with a typo is...just...so...you know.... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #196,406 by drewk 2/26/05 9:56:43 AM Reply	IDON'TCLRPD Come on, Bill. Has anyone ever tried more blatantly for a lrpdism? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #196,408 by folkert 2/26/05 10:15:55 AM Reply	Yes, I've done^H^H^H^Hseen many attempts. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]
Post #196,235 by mmoffitt 2/24/05 4:59:06 PM Reply	Hey, if you can't be loose w/an argument here, where can you? But I still claim its not unrelated. Our elected officials in theory are representative of us (what's that House called again?). And by extension, they serve as our proxies for selecting judges. IOW, our representatives select the type of judges that we would if we were asked. What I find curious is what I infer from what you've said. You seem to suggest, without explicitly saying so, that it would be better if our judges came from a more representative pool of the public than from lawyers and law professors. I don't like that idea at all. I'll leave alone your conjecture that a pool of law professors and attorneys are not representative of the public except to say that of the people posting in these fora over the years, I'd wager a pool of lawyers is more likely to be representative of us than a pool comprised of your average Muricans. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,246 by ben_tilly 2/24/05 6:10:04 PM Reply	You mean you're claiming a right to idiocy? Because you're certainly demonstrating it. How you ask? Well... I know few groups who're more likely to pick up on significant details and nitpick than this one. This is a particularly bad choice of places to be loose with your reasoning. I'm amazed that you haven't noticed. My claim was that judges are selected from a non-representative population. Your repeated comments about the people doing the selecting do not affect my claim one bit, and your insistance on acting as if it does demonstrates that, having stuck head up ass, you're straining to find daylight at the end of the tunnel. I'm not suggesting in any way that judges should come from a more representative pool of people. The pool that they come from is appropriate to the job that they're intended to do. I'm saying that they are not appropriate choices of people to be creating legislation. That's a significant, if subtle, difference. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised if it escapes you, after all right now you're having trouble with the significant non-subtle points, let alone anything that smacks of nuance. But to give you your due, you've made one very accurate point. A random group of lawyers probably is more representative of this group than a random group of Americans. At least they lawyers could be counted on to be literate... Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,250 by drewk 2/24/05 6:32:59 PM Reply	Have you read any lower court opinions lately? Considering some of the crap that makes the news, I can only wonder at what the rest of it looks like. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #196,251 by ben_tilly 2/24/05 6:35:40 PM Reply	I've liked the SCO opinions so far :-) That's a lower court. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,266 by drewk 2/24/05 8:35:52 PM Reply	How about this one [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196262\|Post #196262] Tell me one literate person who's not a judge or lawyer who would use the word "donee" instead of "recipient". === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #196,272 by ben_tilly 2/24/05 9:09:36 PM Reply	Point but... All present understand what he meant when he said it. How many in the general public would be scratching their heads over whether "donee" was really a word? Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,278 by boxley 2/24/05 10:20:28 PM Reply	what do you call the lawyer that graduates in the bottom of their class? Your Honor quite often the above is true. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #196,321 by mmoffitt 2/25/05 11:01:38 AM Reply	Same deal with physicians. And that's DEADLY. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,322 by mmoffitt 2/25/05 11:04:03 AM Reply	Well, what can I say? But FUCK YOU, YOU ARROGANT ASS. My claim was that judges are selected from a non-representative population. I'm not suggesting in any way that judges should come from a more representative pool of people. So, what is the problem? What the FUCK is your point? Oh wait, nevermind. I know. You love hearing yourself. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,329 by ben_tilly 2/25/05 11:42:10 AM Reply	My point was pretty simple It was to respond to your excesses in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196020\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=196020]. If you hadn't been an idiot and an asshole, I'd not have responded. If you stop being an idiot and an asshole, I'll stop responding. If I get bored, I'll stop responding. To be honest, I'm pretty close to the last one of those right now... Sincerely, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,333 by mmoffitt 2/25/05 12:05:21 PM Reply	Civility has returned - at last. I actually have another conversation going with a friend on a related topic and we've come down to agreeing that "if the wrong in the Constitution is not directed at you personally, then waiting for a) the legislature to correct the wrong and b) having the Court rule as Scalia claims he does (trying to figure out what the document itself or any amendment within it meant at the time it was adopted) is palatable." I'm actually almost on the other side in my other conversation. I've been arguing with him that "If you believe in the principles upon which this country was founded and the notions of government within the Constitution, then you have to wait for the legislature to amend the Constitution before you can do anything to correct the injustices it contains." Moreover, I'm claiming that the Dred Scott decision (from this framework) was a good decision. FWIW, I too, tire of the argument ;0) bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,334 by ben_tilly 2/25/05 12:08:38 PM Reply	I unexpectedly reached my first condition for stopping Since we no longer seem to have anything to argue about, I'll stop arguing. :-) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #196,339 by mmoffitt 2/25/05 1:38:32 PM Reply	:-) bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #196,331 by Arkadiy 2/25/05 11:57:14 AM Reply	The job of legislation was reserved for common-folk representatives. Not for elite judges. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #196,375 by mmoffitt 2/25/05 7:28:19 PM Reply	On point 1, I meant in "Flame" not in general. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.

Welcome to IWETHEY!