Politics: A new beginning

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's like that after-school special where Bobby gets in trouble for leaving the door to the house open, only he did it because he was trying to get the dog back in, but his mother didn't know that. So he got a spanking even though he was trying to do the right thing. 'Cause rules are rules.

typical of those afterschool specials to condition kids to blindly accept abusive punishment from their parents.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yo, like I said this weekend, the picture of Mrs. Schiavo sitting up in bed looking into her moms eyes (maybe 4 or 5 years ago), made me want to cry.

Where is that picture? I thought she had been in a persistent vegitative state for the last 13 years or so? If she was interacting with people 3 or 4 years ago, that seems like a whole different ballgame.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ex. nobody except those on a list that I provide, or with an access code I give out, can get my phone to ring.

That service already exists--call intercept I think is the marketing terms. It asks for a name or for the caller to punch an access code, then rings the caller to decide whether to pick up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Washington Post: GOP fears Gephardt the most.

If you ask me, this article was going to say that the GOP fears Carol Mosely Braun the most, but the WaPo reporter was laughing too hard so they had to revise it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
better than your version, like the Strangers With Candy, where Gerri was fixing to fuck this kid, but then she found out he was her son so she didn't.

And in a twist on the classic "broken locket" plotline, she figured out he was her son when the human tooth he wore on a necklace fit exactly in her jaw socket, causing her to wonder regarding the location of the guitar for which she had traded him. Good times!

Eventually, SWC reruns will replace the need for all afterschool specials.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where is that picture? I thought she had been in a persistent vegitative state for the last 13 years or so? If she was interacting with people 3 or 4 years ago, that seems like a whole different ballgame.

The mom clearly thinks there has been interaction. And she has a tape of one suggested case of it. The problem for the mom is that doctors seem to disagree. I think that her brain damage is so severe that most doctors have concluded that true interaction is impossible. It sounds to me like the mom is grasping straws to try to hold on to her daughter (understandable).

Of course dying by starvation through loss of feeding tube sounds like a not great way to go. The husband must have been able to establish that the woman did not want to be kept alive through extraordinary measures, if a judge ruled for removal of the tube. I just wonder what people think about the legislature basically stepping in and overruling a judge like this. Seems sort of unprecedented in a case that literally only affects 4 people in the state. I find it odd. Maybe you could already tell that.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where is that picture? I thought she had been in a persistent vegitative state for the last 13 years or so? If she was interacting with people 3 or 4 years ago, that seems like a whole different ballgame.

I'm not sure if this is the same one that they keep mentioning. Additionally, I'm not sure how strong the "interaction" is, and I suspect its relatively minimal.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...161/5mvbu.html

Don't look at this picture if it will bring up memories of dead people. Anyway, I'm just saying. Everything about this case makes me want to cry its so friggin sad.

Edited to fix the link.


Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) Are you referring to penumbras?

Why yes, of course. It is settled law now isn't it?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop (2) Since some messages are permitted at all times, and other messages are not, and the difference is their content, this does not sound like a time/place/manner restrition to me.

I guess I view it a little bit differently*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought commercial speech was treated differently and here, people or companies engaged in commercial speech would be treated the same. Is it not permissible to distinguish on these grounds? If so, aren't we really saying that they are free to their commercial speech, so long as that speech adheres to the place/manner (i.e., you can't market via phone to those that have requested you don't) restrictions imposed?

*Disclosure: My actually Con Law knowledge is limited

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I guess I view it a little bit differently*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought commercial speech was treated differently and here, people or companies engaged in commercial speech would be treated the same. Is it not permissible to distinguish on these grounds? If so, aren't we really saying that they are free to their commercial speech, so long as that speech adheres to the place/manner (i.e., you can't market via phone to those that have requested you don't) restrictions imposed?

*Disclosure: My actually Con Law knowledge is limited

In that case, you're not saying that this is just a time/place/manner restriction, you're saying that it's OK to discriminate against these calls because they're commercial speech.

I'm not sure what I think of this, although I suspect the Tenth Circuit got it right. Presumably the distinction you're emphasizing doesn't hit so close to home for Watchtower, either.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I just wonder what people think about the legislature basically stepping in and overruling a judge like this. Seems sort of unprecedented in a case that literally only affects 4 people in the state. I find it odd. Maybe you could already tell that.

Hasn't the question already been decided? That is, a person has a constitutional right to withhold medical care. (or did it come out the other way? good god, I can't remember now). The initial question decided by the court is "what did she want" or at least "who has the power to say what she wanted/would have wanted" It was decided that was to be answered by hubby, who said she wanted to die.

second order question is, once that's been demonstrated, does she have a "right" to die? Answer, IIRC, yes. Although the state may be able to erect evidentiary barriers not met here (yet), such as "clear and convincing evidence of intent."

So, sure, the legislature can pass a law, but it doesn't alter the constitutional analysis. But, yes, I find it tiresome that parties will keep running to whatever legal body might throw them a bone.


and I think this is the photo:

photo

To me that's conveniently pointing a vacant face in the direction of the mother to make it look as if there is a connection. You can do that with a stuffed moose head too, if you get the angles right.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
second order question is, once that's been demonstrated, does she have a "right" to die? Answer, IIRC, yes. Although the state may be able to erect evidentiary barriers not met here (yet), such as "clear and convincing evidence of intent."

I thought that suicide was a crime in some jurisdictions (but could be wrong). This is a tangential question, because refusing medical care for an existing problem and taking affirmative steps to kill oneself are distinguishable.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To me that's conveniently pointing a vacant face in the direction of the mother to make it look as if there is a connection. You can do that with a stuffed moose head too, if you get the angles right.

Well put.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You can do that with a stuffed moose head too, if you get the angles right.

The moose is already dead, so usually no one bothers.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In that case, you're not saying that this is just a time/place/manner restriction, you're saying that it's OK to discriminate against these calls because they're commercial speech.

I thought that was the current state of the law, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought that was the current state of the law, no?

Commercial speech gets less protection, but I don't know that it gets no protection. Emphasis on the "I don't know" part of that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

(2) Since some messages are permitted at all times, and other messages are not, and the difference is their content, this does not sound like a time/place/manner restrition to me.

You mean, individuals can choose to ban some messages but not others, depending on their content. And I do think that difference is important, if not constitutionally significant. The government has not banned telemarketing calls. It has allowed consumers to take action that will stop them, through a government program.

The only distinction is that the government has not allowed people to opt out of other telemarketing calls, or for that matter annoying calls from ex-girlfriends at 2 in the morning. So the regulation is underbroad. Must the gov't regulate completely or not at all? If so, doesn't that make every restriction on speech, however reasonable and otherwise constitutional, nonetheless a violation of the first amendment, because some crafty lawyer can come up with an equivalent harm from similar "speech", but sufficiently different to be outside the scope of the regulation?

Is this cross-burning/RAV v. St. Paul again? You can't ban cross burning because you didn't also ban scarecrow burning? Or did Virginia v. Black resolve the other way?