LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

sebastian_dangerfield 08-16-2006 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Something so minor seems really out of place in the middle of your rant.
The 2d hand smoke debate is so flawed. The surgeon general says its "dangerous" in any amount. That's simply a lie. It's an outrageous expansion of the baseline for "danger." Ask any oncologist - he'll tell you they've never even proved 2d hand smoke can cause lung cancer. It's considered a joke among docs privately, but they don't say that aloud.

We allow the govt to lie to us on these issues because "well, its all for a better good." And so they take our liberties. I personally don't mind smoking bans, but the dumb do-gooders who get behind them, and trumpet their misinformation like it were scripture, are sooooo fucking annoying.

Diane_Keaton 08-16-2006 02:03 PM

Romantic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the liberal view of terrorists as criminals also has something to do with liberals' sympathy for terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because they have no other options to fight those in power. Liberals live to challenge power structures. Its part of the definition of a classic liberal in this country. Liberals "understand" terrorists. In a queer way, they sympathize with a terrorist's struggle, even if they loath what the terrorist does.

The liberals are misguided. They miss the fact that this isn't a David v. Goliath thing. The terrorists are not fighting for righteous change - they just want to be in power, and be every bit as oppressive as the regimes they cry have oppressed them.
I'm sure you'll get a lot of flack for posting this, but not from me. I have always maintained on here that there is a certain romantic notion to Bin Laden so that even prosperous, educated Muslims living in Western Nations secretly find the guy cool and admired his ability to "take down the towers." I think this anti-power/stick-it-to-the man thing is romantic to liberals, too and there could even be a gut level, fleeting empathy with terrorist acts (but not when the issues are fully analyzed).

sebastian_dangerfield 08-16-2006 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Given that smokers tend to sea the beach (and the woods, the street, the sidewalk, or basically, anywhere) as their own personal ashtray, I do see the logic in it.

But if sebby has a market-based solution to the problem of littering, I am all ears.
If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.
It's stinky and gross, and that's enough for me.

However, as to your dangers argument, I think the danger of secondhand smoke is very very real for, ahem, infants and small children and can permanently affect them. Less of a danger for adults. So I'm pretty much OK, and I don't plan on having any kids -- yay for me! Plus the health of kids lungs and their brain capacity and stuff may not matter when most all the crops die. I'll be dead by then -- yay for me!

Adder 08-16-2006 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.
I agree that a second hand smoke justification is ridiculous. But the article you linked to suggest that litter was at least part of the justification.
  • Discarded cigarette butts that either burden trash collectors or wash into the ocean also have fueled beach bans.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder

But if sebby has a market-based solution to the problem of littering, I am all ears.
Ban the sale of filtered cigarettes. Or charge a premium for them equal to the cost of cleaning up and/or disposing of each butt. Or put a "deposit" on them like bottles, and give anyone 10c for each filter they bring in.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-16-2006 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's stinky and gross, and that's enough for me.

However, as to your dangers argument, I think the danger of secondhand smoke is very very real for, ahem, infants and small children and can permanently affect them.
On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-16-2006 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I agree that a second hand smoke justification is ridiculous. But the article you linked to suggest that litter was at least part of the justification.
  • Discarded cigarette butts that either burden trash collectors or wash into the ocean also have fueled beach bans.

It should be the only justification. The rest is a lie, which a small caveat hinting at the real reason for the ban doesn't undo.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There is no good reason for us not to be doing the same thing, except that our government does not take the threat of terrorism as seriously as Israel's does.
Wikipedia describes it thus:
  • Passengers are asked to report three hours before takeoff. In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation.

Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

If you were going to implement something like this, you'd have to do pre-screening, and provide for "safe traveller" passes, that would allow people to avoid the lines.

Also, in reviewing teh TSA website for some recent travel, and seeing the diverted flight posted above, I learned that scissors and screwdrivers are now allowed in carry-on luggage. Scissors I can understand, because people knit, sew, etc. But screwdrivers? What do you need a screwdriver on the plane for? Are you putting together a computer or a cabinet? It seems like the criterion should not be limited to potential danger, but also potential utility while in flight.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.
WTF beach are you going to? What about when it's crowded, and you've gotten out the cooler and spread out the blanket and put the umbrella up and (a) the infant has finally gone to sleep or (b) the kid has toys all over the place, and a bunch of hoodlums set up camp right next to you and are all smoking up a storm?

Again, I could give a shit about your kids' brain damage or heart damage or lung disease. But I'd think you would care.

And I like not having to smell cigarette smoke when I'm basking in the sun, listening to the waves.

I am soooooo going to the beach this weekend.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.
Why should I have to smell someone's stogey while I relax on the beach? So what if it's not causing cancer. It stinks, and I came for fresh, salt air at the beach, not clouds of tobacco smoke.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.
Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box.
Quote:

Also, in reviewing teh TSA website for some recent travel, and seeing the diverted flight posted above, I learned that scissors and screwdrivers are now allowed in carry-on luggage. Scissors I can understand, because people knit, sew, etc. But screwdrivers? What do you need a screwdriver on the plane for? Are you putting together a computer or a cabinet? It seems like the criterion should not be limited to potential danger, but also potential utility while in flight.
Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?

ETA this would not be about me, as I was outfitted with a set of tools culled from the parental set around when I got my first house. I think they were driven to me.

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?
Can you carry on creme-filled donuts still, or are you limited to solid?

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you carry on creme-filled donuts still, or are you limited to solid?
I don't know. I am waiting until a flight is in the near future to figure out what to pack. No use worrying about it now. Sufficient to each day is the evil thereof.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-16-2006 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should I have to smell someone's stogey while I relax on the beach? So what if it's not causing cancer. It stinks, and I came for fresh, salt air at the beach, not clouds of tobacco smoke.
If that's enough of a basis to get it banned on the beach, then offer that as the basis for the ban. If people get together and approve a ban because smoking is just plain annoying to others, fine with me.

But instead, they lie, and say we need the ban because someone smoking OUTDOORS near you can cause you health problems.

SlaveNoMore 08-16-2006 03:02 PM

I pretty much agree with everything this guy says. It's a scary prospect. Smoke 'em while you got 'em (or they ban 'em)

Quote:

THE MIDEAST'S MUNICH
By ARTHUR HERMAN

August 16, 2006 -- HISTORIANS will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.

Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.

In that sense, the cease-fire may be even more momentous than Munich, and a greater blunder. In 1938 Chamberlain and other appeasers had the excuse that they were trying to prevent an armed conflict no one wanted. Today, of course, that conflict is already here. Historians will conclude that by supporting U.N. Resolution 1701 and getting Israel to agree, the Bush administration has in effect declared that its global war on terror is over. We have reverted to the pre-9/11 box of tools, if not necessarily the pre-9/11 mindset. From now on, the worst Iran, Syria, and North Korea will have to worry about are serial resolutions in the United Nations. Terrorists will be busy dodging Justice Department subpoenas, not Tomahawk missiles.

Our enemies know better. They know the war is only entering a new stage, and they know who the winners and losers were last weekend.

The clear losers were the United States and Israel. Israel has sacrificed lives and treasure, and had its honor dragged through the mud of international opinion, for no purpose. America squandered its political capital at the start of the crisis by getting moderate Arab regimes to condemn Hezbollah instead of Israel. They did so because they thought Hezbollah was about to be annihilated. However, they soon realized their mistake. They now know Tehran and Damascus will set the agenda in the Middle East, not Washington. The Arab League's support for this U.N.-brokered deal is just one more measure of our strategic failure.

The other loser is Lebanon. The price of peace in 1938 was de jure dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, as Germany annexed the Sudetenland. The price of Resolution 1701 is de facto dismemberment of Lebanon. A large, well-armed terrorist army acting at the behest of a foreign power now controls the southern half of Lebanon, and pulls the strings in the other half. The facade of Lebanese self-government has been preserved. As a territorial state, it may even last longer than Czechoslovakia did (Hitler gave the Czechs five months before he annexed the rest of their country).

But other states in the region will have learned their lesson. Faced by an internal terrorist organization, especially one with links with Tehran, they will have to make accommodations. No white knight in the guise of U.S. Marines will ride to their rescue; no Israeli tanks and F-16s will do their dirty work for them. Appeasement will be the order of the day.

That includes Iraq. The disarming of Sunni and Shia militias, the necessary first step to ending sectarian violence there, will be postponed - perhaps for good. On the contrary, this crisis has taught Iraq's Shia minority that extremism pays, particularly the Iranian kind.

For everyone in the Middle East knows Iran is the clear winner. Only the diplomats and politicians, including the Bush administration, will pretend otherwise. Iran has emerged as the clear champion of anti-Israeli feeling and radical Islam. The Iranians have their useful puppet in Syria; they have their proxy armies in place with Hezbollah and Hamas. They have been able to install missiles, even Revolutionary Guards, in Lebanon with impunity. Sunni regimes in the region will move to strike their own deals with Iran, just as Eastern European states did with Germany after Czechoslovakia. That includes Iraq; the lesson will not be lost on Russia and China, either. And all the while, the Iranians proceed with their nuclear plans - with the same impunity.

Finally, the other winners are the conventional diplomats at the State Department, especially Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. In a narrow professional sense, appeasement is their business. They never saw the point to a "war on terror they are delighted to take back the initiative from the hawks at the Pentagon and the White House.

The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran. Yet by calling off the war on terror, it has only postponed that conflict.

"We have passed an awful milestone in our history," Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. "Do not suppose this is the end . . . This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year." Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the "supreme recovery" and take up the banner for freedom again. The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle - even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because our enemies will give us no choice.

Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland. Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the mullahs of Iran is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs - and whether it is fought within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

Arthur Herman is the author most recently of "To Rule The Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." He is completing a book on Churchill and Gandhi.

SlaveNoMore 08-16-2006 03:05 PM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
My right-inclined friends call me a nihilist every . .
Nihilist! Fuck me.

I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos.

sgtclub 08-16-2006 03:11 PM

Too Bad Wilson is not Running Louisiana
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Which half are you in?
So Cal Fo Life

Sidd Finch 08-16-2006 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I pretty much agree with everything this guy says. It's a scary prospect. Smoke 'em while you got 'em (or they ban 'em)

Including this part?

Quote:

The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran.

SlaveNoMore 08-16-2006 03:21 PM

Quote:

Sidd Finch
Including this part?
Pretty much, yep.

The Bush Admin brokered this absurd cease-fire, allowing Hezzbollah, Syria and Iran to claim victory, to let France look like a superpower, and assuring a larger conflict down the road.

Sure looks to me like a goverment lacking confidence.

Rudy '08

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?

ETA this would not be about me, as I was outfitted with a set of tools culled from the parental set around when I got my first house. I think they were driven to me.
On 1: The issue is the amount of delay relative to the length of flight, which approximates the distance of the flight. In the US at least, most people make a decision whether it's more efficient to fly or drive (or train or bus). That's principally driven by time/cost. Obviously driving is a viable alternative to short-distance flights, but not cross-country flights (for most people). So, if you increase the time or cost of flying a short distance, more people will drive. In other words, you increase accident rates and waste people's time.

On 2: Sure, shampoo isn't needed for inflight use, but people also carry-on luggage to avoid checking it. How many people carry-on everything? Many, so it's an inconvenience. More generally, a screwdriver isn't something most people need on a plane or when they get there, so it's reasonable to be a little more suspicious of a screwdriver. I'd at least want to ask the person why they want it. Shampoo--not so concerned, unless it's a bomb.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 03:21 PM

Too Bad Wilson is not Running Louisiana
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
So Cal Fo Life
Huh. I thought you were in SV.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On 1: The issue is the amount of delay relative to the length of flight, which approximates the distance of the flight. In the US at least, most people make a decision whether it's more efficient to fly or drive (or train or bus). That's principally driven by time/cost. Obviously driving is a viable alternative to short-distance flights, but not cross-country flights (for most people). So, if you increase the time or cost of flying a short distance, more people will drive. In other words, you increase accident rates and waste people's time.

On 2: Sure, shampoo isn't needed for inflight use, but people also carry-on luggage to avoid checking it. How many people carry-on everything? Many, so it's an inconvenience. More generally, a screwdriver isn't something most people need on a plane or when they get there, so it's reasonable to be a little more suspicious of a screwdriver. I'd at least want to ask the person why they want it. Shampoo--not so concerned, unless it's a bomb.
On 1: Duh, which is why I was wondering whether terrorists don't really want to do shit to shorter flights because there's not enough fuel to make a big big BOOOOOM!!! If they do not want shorter flights, then it might be possible to abbreviate security procedures for shorter flights. Which would change (or, kinda leave the same, if we assume that security will be more extensive for longer flights) one factor in the glaringly obvious calculation everyone goes through when deciding whether to fly or drive. Or take a bus.

And, no WAY!!!!! Driving is not as safe as flying? Holy shit. Who knew? Oh, right, pretty much everyone who flies. Because airlines shove it down passengers' throats.

(it irritates me when people respond to something totally different than what I said)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb

(it irritates me when people respond to something totally different than what I said)
I responded to what you said, not what you didn't say, which you've now said.

Are you going to set up separate security lines? All short flights go from terminal A, and all long flights go from terminal B, and you have to go through security again to go from one terminal to the other? (remember, Atta got on a commuter flight in Portland before getting on the Bos-LA flight)

Tyrone Slothrop 08-16-2006 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sounds more to me like the Stevens side of SCOTUS
SCOTUS' job is to make rules. But a district court's job is to apply them.

ltl/fb 08-16-2006 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I responded to what you said, not what you didn't say, which you've now said.

Are you going to set up separate security lines? All short flights go from terminal A, and all long flights go from terminal B, and you have to go through security again to go from one terminal to the other? (remember, Atta got on a commuter flight in Portland before getting on the Bos-LA flight)
The "Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights?" is obviously currently untrue, clearly related to the comment about El-Al flights all being international and not headed for countries close by, on the whole, and therefore would be read as a possible suggestion for avoiding your issue of drive vs. fly equation for short flights. Then I immediately noted that it might not be administrable. Because, duh.

I probably should have done a new paragraph before the gift comment.

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
SCOTUS' job is to make rules.
Finally. A dem admits they think this.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-16-2006 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wikipedia describes it thus:
  • Passengers are asked to report three hours before takeoff. In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation.

Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

If you were going to implement something like this, you'd have to do pre-screening, and provide for "safe traveller" passes, that would allow people to avoid the lines.
Let smart people decide who poses the most threat, and focus their energy accordingly. I am less enamored with the blanket rule of screening everyone than I am with the type of screening they do.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Finally. A dem admits they think this.
rules aren't the same as laws.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-16-2006 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Rudy '08
Maybe if he runs as a Democrat. Can you imagine him winning a GOP primary?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-16-2006 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Finally. A dem admits they think this.
There are many cases in which the Supreme Court is making rules -- e.g., rules of statutory interpretation.

Appellate courts decide questions of law -- i.e., they make rules. Trial courts apply law to facts.

eta: what Burger said

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
rules aren't the same as laws.
what rules does the Supreme Court make? don't DCts make their local rules? I don't know what Ty was responding to, would that have clarified this for me?

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are many cases in which the Supreme Court is making rules -- e.g., rules of statutory interpretation.

Appellate courts decide questions of law -- i.e., they make rules. Trial courts apply law to facts.

eta: what Burger said
don't Appelleate Courts make rules of interpretation? Have you read many Federal Circuit cases?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what rules does the Supreme Court make? don't DCts make their local rules? I don't know what Ty was responding to, would that have clarified this for me?
what are you, a patent lawyer?

What Ty said.

And, no, the Supreme Court makes the rules of civil procedure, subject to Congress' rejecting them. District courts may adopt local rules that are not inconsistent with the federal rules of civil procedure.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-16-2006 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
don't Appelleate Courts make rules of interpretation? Have you read many Federal Circuit cases?
If you're using the Federal Circuit to justify anything, you're already on weak ground.

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
what are you, a patent lawyer?

What Ty said.

And, no, the Supreme Court makes the rules of civil procedure, subject to Congress' rejecting them. District courts may adopt local rules that are not inconsistent with the federal rules of civil procedure.
when you say adopt don't you mean "make?"

Adder 08-16-2006 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what rules does the Supreme Court make? don't DCts make their local rules? I don't know what Ty was responding to, would that have clarified this for me?
Um.. and you profess to be a litigator?


http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/proceduresum.htm

Diane_Keaton 08-16-2006 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wikipedia describes it thus:
  • Passengers are asked to report three hours before takeoff. In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation.

Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

If you were going to implement something like this, you'd have to do pre-screening, and provide for "safe traveller" passes, that would allow people to avoid the lines.

Also, in reviewing teh TSA website for some recent travel, and seeing the diverted flight posted above, I learned that scissors and screwdrivers are now allowed in carry-on luggage. Scissors I can understand, because people knit, sew, etc. But screwdrivers? What do you need a screwdriver on the plane for? Are you putting together a computer or a cabinet? It seems like the criterion should not be limited to potential danger, but also potential utility while in flight.
2. Since 9/11, no one I know bothers with flights to Boston or D.C., which we used to hop on all the time. Now it's Amtrak, which is fine b/c you go directly to the city streets and not one of those weird, barren places I call "airportland". Anything you can't get to by Amtrak that is within a 4 hour drive, you hit the rent-a-car. And let me tell you, driving IS safer than flying....when you have ME at the wheel, baby.

Hank Chinaski 08-16-2006 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Um.. and you profess to be a litigator?


http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/proceduresum.htm
no. I'm a trial attorney, but thanks for playing. and how is that role different from the DCts? they make their own rules.

Replaced_Texan 08-16-2006 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The 2d hand smoke debate is so flawed. The surgeon general says its "dangerous" in any amount. That's simply a lie. It's an outrageous expansion of the baseline for "danger." Ask any oncologist - he'll tell you they've never even proved 2d hand smoke can cause lung cancer. It's considered a joke among docs privately, but they don't say that aloud.

We allow the govt to lie to us on these issues because "well, its all for a better good." And so they take our liberties. I personally don't mind smoking bans, but the dumb do-gooders who get behind them, and trumpet their misinformation like it were scripture, are sooooo fucking annoying.
I called a pulmonolgist. He laughed at you. I'll be more than happy to expand the survey to the rest of the Texas Medical Center, if you'd like, including the oncologists over at MD Anderson and the Environmental Health and Safety people over at UT's School of Public Health, if you'd like. I'm afraid, though, if you want me to get a huge sample, I'll have to seek IRB approval, so that might take some time.

BTW, Medline is free to the whole wide world, you know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

ETA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum (relationship between SIDS and second hand smoke)

And that's just a handful of the second hand smoke studies.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com