Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do you get a rash after you shave your man breasts?

Yes.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Captain
Something to think about in terms of British common law is that there is not a clear separation of powers between the court and the legislature. Ultimately, cases might be heard in parliament, with the legislature sitting as court. So the idea of courts and congresses overruling one another is a particularly unique American idea.

Yes, but note that the house of parliament that was the ultimate court of appeals was not Commons but Lords, and Lords did, once upon a time, indeed overrule Commons when it overreached itself (or overreached itself in tweaking the perquisities of the hereditary peers). So the non-separation of powers isn't quite as bad as it sounds (recognizing, of course, that the executive and legislative are not separate in that system as well). Though, with Blair fucking around with the constitution of the upper house, it may soon be that bad.

Actually, a number of commonwealth countries still recognize Lords as their supreme judicial body.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
To this I will not stoop, except to observe, as Tiffany once so memorably said, "Stiff me on the tip? Get outta here, ya freak! I've picked my teeth with bigger things than that!"

You're an asshole. Big time.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Mainly I never like the idea of the exclusionary rule. We are supposed to be more conservative than the British but they never came up with this crazy idea (punishing the victims because of a police screw up instead of the police). Clearly our founding fathers never even thought of the idea and it seemed crazy to me to all of a sudden to pretend it is in the constitution when no one noticed it before the twentieth century (and then let a bunch of guilty people go free).

It also seemed logical to me that the Supreme Court should only strike down laws if they violated the constitution. If they did not violate the constitution, then the Supreme Court striking it down, seemed beyond their powers.

Busing kids all over the city to go to schools way across town just so schools could be integrated also seemed crazy and in no way in the constitution.

When I read Roe and other cases in Law School they also seemed crazy. Trying to pretent that the right to privacy exists through a "penumbral inference" seemed pure B.S. to me.

However, I had never heard the argument that there are rights that predate the constitution, and such rights could be used to strike down federal legislation. It also never occured to me that the Supreme Court could just make up such rights under a common law tradition. It certainly doesn't say they can do it in the constitution.

Most of the arguments for these made up rights seemed to revolve around trying to pretend the rights they made up were really in the consitution, but hidden, or part of the founder intent. This always seemed like BS to me. However, I never saw a straightforward argument that said that, this right is not in the constituion, but we believe such a right should exist, and there is a tradition in this country and in the common law system of courts making up rights so that is what we are going to do.

I think the exclusionary rule is the product of not wanting to jail the policeman who violated the rules but still wanting a penalty to apply against law enforcement. The Founders live in an age when tarring and feathering the British constable was a noble sport. The issue wouldn't have arisen for the Founder because they would have been happy to throw both the cop and the perp in jail (which is probably the right solution). We needed the exclusionary rule because we stopped throwing cops in jail.

I do think there is a long tradition, though, of finding that abuses of the system against a person shift burdens away from the accused - for example, following Jefferson's election, you were released if convicted under the Alien & Sedition Acts, regardless of what you may have done. But I don't know if this tradition was actually incorporated in decisions. Might be an interesting topic for research.

Busing, of course, couldn't be envisioned by the founders, since the founders, even in much of the North, would have assumed blacks were in slavery. However, the drafters of the civil war amendments were very fond of extreme actions against the south, and the 14th amendment explicitly bars many Southerners from public office. Reconstruction was not a pretty episode, and busing would have been a mild solution to them. I don't view busing as raising very difficult questions of intent.

Roe is farther afield, and has much to do with a radical shift in sexual morays that was precipitated by the development of new technology (birth control). I wrote (but never published) a lengthy paper once on the interaction between the development of birth control and changing social mores, focused on the period around World War I (and specifically on the government's provision of condoms to soldiers in World War I). I think there was a concept of broad inherant rights in the founders, and privacy is not a bad term for these rights though also not ideal, but that abortion and birth control just were not yet part of any realistic legislative equation. So I think Roe is a question of how do you apply old rules to new situations, which is a traditional kind of common law analysis. I would have relied more heavily on the 9th amendment myself, and would have avoiding things that look like setting hard rules (e.g., cutoffs by trimester).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
They are university professors, and Foote seems to be a lunatic. Blow him off at your peril, you neo-Trotskyite.

S_A_M

He's an ACCOUNTING professor at CAL STATE -- and not just any cal state campus, but fullerton. I can't believe you are advocating blowing up such a powerful guy.

Blowing, maybe.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Or if you need an upload, e-mail it to me and I'll put it on our server.

Does that apply to Penske too?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What is the likelihood of getting both in the fantasy draft?

Damn, now I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to admit I never play those things and really don't have a clue. Ouch, that hurt. Thanks much.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Ah, if we're talking wits, you can't omit Oscar Wilde. He and Dorothy Parker are 2 of the most important attendees at my fantasy dinner party.

I'm trying to picture this and read their lips.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm trying to picture this and read their lips.

And there's no filter here, is there?

[Captain]

Originally posted by nononono
Ah, if we're talking wits, you can't omit Oscar Wilde. He and Dorothy Parker are 2 of the most important attendees at my fantasy dinner party.

Perhaps we should add Twain, so there's an American on the list.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Captain
So I think Roe is a question of how do you apply old rules to new situations, which is a traditional kind of common law analysis.

Well, what old rules? Abortion was actually fairly common and generally unregulated through the end of the 19th century, and a heck of a lot of the restrictive laws overturned by Roe were themselves reactions against the change of sexual mores rather than long-standing laws caught out by a sudden technological change.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does that apply to Penske too?

No. He can find his own damned server.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Captain
Perhaps we should add Twain, so there's an American on the list.

Mmmm, Dorothy Parker was born in New Jersey, which I think makes her American.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by nononono
Damn, now I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to admit I never play those things and really don't have a clue. Ouch, that hurt. Thanks much.

You'll get one marquis name, say a Wilde or a Parker. You can also expect solid dependable performers over the course of the season, say a David Niven or a Steve Allen. Towards the end of the draft, you'll end up with people you've never heard of or never want to depend upon, say Charo, Hank Chinaski, and some guy who went to Yale with str8 and used to write for a sitcom. Sometimes they'll surprise you, but more often than not you're stuck listening to Guernica and Gilligan stories while your guests suddenly develop early morning appointments.

[Boo Berry]

Originally posted by nononono
Mmmm, Dorothy Parker was born in New Jersey, which I think makes her American.

Whiff


Boooooo!!!