Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Nut Penske]

Originally posted by nononono
"He started it and continued it incessantly for a protracted period of time, making the board virtually unreadable!"

Exactly.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Nut Penske
Exactly.

Hey!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That would be an oxymoron. Statutes always trump the common law. The common law cannot secure rights against the legislature; that has to be done by higher authority -- state constitution, federal constitution, or (in some circumstances) federal law.

At least, that's what I dimly remember from law school.

Did I miss the collective bout of insomnia last night?

Define "miss".

But, 2. The common law is used to resolve disputes between private parties. Constitutions (e.g., the Magna Carta) define the scope and/or limitations on the power of the government.

Common law rights are things like the doctrine of ancient lights and the right to be free from a nuisance. Those aren't limitations on government power but rather on private actions.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Define "miss".

But, 2. The common law is used to resolve disputes between private parties. Constitutions (e.g., the Magna Carta) define the scope and/or limitations on the power of the government.

Common law rights are things like the doctrine of ancient lights and the right to be free from a nuisance. Those aren't limitations on government power but rather on private actions.

When you read the Brandeis article you posted earlier together with his dissent, you get an interesting idea of Brandeis' view of the relationship of common law and constitutional principals. He views the common law (first protecting battery, then protecting from libel, etc.) as forming the basis of rights ultimately enshrined, referenced or implied in constitutions; he is not viewing the constitution like a contractual construction between government and people but instead an expression of the people delegating authority to government based in part on common law prinicipals.

I know this has been an issue, with arguments that "there is no Federal common law" being in the ascendancy today. But I'm not sure that's right.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not taking Slave's side in this debate -- it's one of those issues where I think he gets a little loopy -- but I'm pretty sure you cannot have a duty to someone without an obligation from someone. It's like ebony and ivory.

Obligee gets the du-ty!
They're together in perfect har-mo-ny!
Get her pregant and you will have to pay lots of mo-ney!

I wasn't think of this as a duty in the Contracts 1A sense, but more as a duty that society has imposed as a consequence of choosing to engage in certain behavior. Like, the born child isn't in a position to provide an obligation, but we like to support them for a while at least, so it falls on the parent to do so as a matter of social contract.

Hey, was this an idea rooted in English common law?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
When you read the Brandeis article you posted earlier together with his dissent, you get an interesting idea of Brandeis' view of the relationship of common law and constitutional principals. He views the common law (first protecting battery, then protecting from libel, etc.) as forming the basis of rights ultimately enshrined, referenced or implied in constitutions; he is not viewing the constitution like a contractual construction between government and people but instead an expression of the people delegating authority to government based in part on common law prinicipals.

I know this has been an issue, with arguments that "there is no Federal common law" being in the ascendancy today. But I'm not sure that's right.

It strikes me as entirely consistent for a people to form a government to protect certain common law "rights" and thereby convert them from negative rights to positive rights.

As for federal common law, that's a substantially different issue. There is certainly a federal common law of the constitution, just not a general one for property, torts, contracts, etc.

[sgtclub]

• Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in an interview yesterday that the United States could withdraw as many as 50,000 troops by the end of the year, declaring there are enough Iraqi forces trained and ready to begin assuming control in cities throughout the country.
  
  After the White House and Pentagon were contacted for comment, however, a senior adviser to Talabani called The Washington Post to say Talabani did not intend to suggest a specific timeline for withdrawal. "He is afraid . . . this might put the notion of a timetable on this thing," the adviser said. "The exact figure of what would be required will undeniably depend on the level of insurgency [and] the level of Iraqi capability."
  
  In the interview, Talabani said he planned to discuss reductions in U.S. forces during a private meeting with President Bush today, and said he believed the United States could begin pulling out some troops immediately.
  
  "We think that America has the full right to move some forces from Iraq to their country because I think we can replace them [with] our forces," Talabani said. "In my opinion, at least from 40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year."
  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201986_pf.html

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the MEME model of politics.

They used it on Bush with the "he lied" crap.

You posit a theme, and then, no matter how well the facts shut you down, you just keep repeating it.

It's all based on the idea that voters are idiots, and will simply remember the last thing they read from the press.

Why else would Landrieu (sp?) just keep saying the same thing?

I wonder - when the mass of voters realize that the only Dem strength involves assuming they are stoopid - how long they will be the secondary party. I'm guessing the Libs overtake them within ten years.

blamegame blamegame blamegame

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get there constitutionally. Roe represents a justice deciding that it's all a fucking mess, and he's going to clean it up.

Bush v. Gore?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
blamegame blamegame blamegame

Holy shit. I never thought I'd hear these words out of this administration before a jury came back with a verdict: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's the difference between 1 million and 6 million. Is one more horrible than the other?

Yes. One is roughly six times worse than the other -- in terms of tragic scope and effect. (I suppose it is possible to argue that six times infinity is still infinity -- but that's higher math.)

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Holy shit. I never thought I'd hear these words out of this administration before a jury came back with a verdict: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures

Are Dems ready to take the blame they deserve?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007250

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Captain
When you read the Brandeis article you posted earlier together with his dissent, you get an interesting idea of Brandeis' view of the relationship of common law and constitutional principals. He views the common law (first protecting battery, then protecting from libel, etc.) as forming the basis of rights ultimately enshrined, referenced or implied in constitutions; he is not viewing the constitution like a contractual construction between government and people but instead an expression of the people delegating authority to government based in part on common law prinicipals.

I know this has been an issue, with arguments that "there is no Federal common law" being in the ascendancy today. But I'm not sure that's right.

Of course its not right, and of course there is a common law, and of course both the constitution and common law on which it is based give people the basic right to privacy. Strict constructionalism is just a trick of the Right to take away common law basic human rights. Its absurd. "If its not explicitly written exactly as a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist." Its the sort of silly hypertechnical procedural argument judges routinely throw out because to side with it would "frustrate the very intent of the law."

Strict constructionalism throws common sense out the window. Its as intellectually dishonest and imbecillic as biblical literalism.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm sort of ashamed that someone as smart as he can fall for the idiocy that rationality can only be jettisoned for the sake of stupid political positions.

Whereas you and Penske know that rationality can be jettisoned for any number of reasons, right?

S_A_M

P.S. Nice to see that the old bull elephant is back -- should help calm down the herd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Of course its not right, and of course there is a common law, and of course both the constitution and common law on which it is based give people the basic right to privacy. Strict constructionalism is just a trick of the Right to take away common law basic human rights. Its absurd. "If its not explicitly written exactly as a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist." Its the sort of silly hypertechnical procedural argument judges routinely throw out because to side with it would "frustrate the very intent of the law."

Strict constructionalism throws common sense out the window. Its as intellectually dishonest and imbecillic as biblical literalism.

I believe Griswold was 4-3-2
the 4 and the 3 disagreed where in the Amendments the right was found- but they all found it.

Arguing that of course there is such a right- regardless of whether it is in the Constitution- would have been perhaps a more honest rationale. It was not, however, the holding of Griswold.