Well Explained

 However, I hope he does not make tomorrow (as he suggests he might) what I believe to be the flawed argument that, because elderly or sterile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry (or more broadly, because procreation is not made an absolute prerequisite to opposite-sex marriage), the purpose of marriage cannot reasonably be viewed as fostering procreation.

As Dale knows, all laws are to some extent over- or under-inclusive. A law designed to encourage (or discourage) behavior A may in practice reward (or punish) people who do not engage in A (or reward/punish those who engage in A only occasionally just as much as those who engage in A regularly). Similarly, the law may reward/punish some people who NEVER engage in A, or it may result in some combination of the above (i.e., rewarding/punishing less than all of those who engage in A while simultaneously rewarding/punishing some who do not).

This kind of imperfection is simply an unavoidable feature of law, and of all human endeavors, and it seems to me entirely unconvincing to point to the mere existence of some over- or under-inclusiveness respecting behavior A as “proof” that the statute cannot have had the purpose (or cannot have the effect) of encouraging/discouraging A.

Most of us would agree that the purpose (and, we hope, effect) of speed limits is to promote automotive safety. Nonetheless, few would deny that there are some drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit without incident. Similarly, most would admit that some drivers who do not exceed the speed limit (like those who drive 35 mph on the freeway or who simply drive badly although observing the speed limit) pose a safety risk. Yet, most of us would consider it silly to point to the safe drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit or the unsafe ones who drive below it as “proof” that speed limit laws have nothing to do with highway safety.

This one's a keeper

This post on QandO explains exactly my trouble with all the crap coming down from the Left about judges and the Supreme Court. I don't understand people who hold all those contradictory beliefs. Like my dad says, all they care about it power, and how to keep it.

Edit: I guess this looks a little silly, now, doesn't it?

People who live in an alternate reality

This guy does. I wonder why he reads Althouse.  Seems a little weird. Anyway, I don't know how to communicate with people like that because his reaction to Harry Reid is so different to mine that I wonder if we're even seeing the same thing. I despise Harry Reid. And the thing he, and our friend, said about Alito are so false and screaming, it gives me a headache just to read it. How often can they cry wolf? Sheesh. I understand that in their world, all conservatives are extremists, and that a conservative becomes a dangerous extremist when he's nominated for a position of influence, but, Come ON.

 

Oh, and Althouse's point was that if Democrats treat ALL conservative jurists as "EXTREMISTS!!!!!!" just because they are conservative, it will necessarily force presidents to nominate someone without a paper trail. When any sort of paper trail leads to EXTREMISTS!!!!!!!!!!, it's hard not to want to avoid that kind of asininity.

Volokh lends me an argument

" For most, quite possibly all, of us, our moral beliefs ultimately rest on unproven and unprovable moral axioms. The Constitution doesn't consign those whose moral beliefs rest on unproven and unprovable religious axioms to a lesser citizenship, under which they may not enact their views into law, while others with the same views that rest on unproven and unprovable secular axioms are free to do so."

 

And boy, did I need it.

 

For the record, I think cominginsecond is an idiot anyway.  One of those guys who absorbs platitudes and sound bites and spits them back without checking them out for himself. I mean, he subscribed whole hog to the "fake but accurate" theme of the forged National Guard memoes. What a maroon.

Seamus Hasson

Brilliant man. Came to the law school last night to talk about his new book, The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War over Religion in America. I think he's right on about how to go about ensuring that everyone has the right to believe in public. I do NOT believe that people have some sort of right to avoid being exposed to ideas they don't believe in. It's not secondhand smoke, people.

Alice Batchelder

She's my choice.

Right to Bear Arms

This post sums up my jurisprudential view on the 2nd Amendment. I love it when people who've heard a soundbite or two cry "It's a militia right!" Oh, now they're originalists? Except they forgot the 14th Amendment has to come into play. Oh, and Roper is ok to invoke a (phantom) national consensus but 2nd Amendment jurisprudence has no such right?

A small experiment

I wonder if I'll be depressed  unhappy if this doesn't work. 

Anti-State or Anti-Left?

I'm absolutely an anti-state conservative, well, libertarian. But, like Dale, I see anti-statism as the sine qua non of conservatism. I believe Reagan did also. George W. Bush? Not so much.

Very Cool

You have to try this optical illusion.

The new bill granting some immunity to gun manufacturers

The anti-gun commenters at Volokh are really dense. Over and over people try to explain to them about personal responsibility and how a gun is an inanimate object which requires a live person for its utility, and try to explain the difference between negligence and strict liability. I will make two quick comments. One, there's a Kossack there who thinks guns are an "ultrahazardous item" and therefore gun manufacturers should be treated accordingly. When someone points out that automobiles actually kill many more people each year than guns do, and you don't hear a cry to make those an "ultrahazardous item", the Kossack says, yeah, but guns are intended to kill. So they're ultrahazardous, even though they aren't very hazardous, because of the intent of the manufacturer? (or someone. I'm not clear who the intender is). Which is it? Of course, that grants his proposition that guns are manufactured with the intent to kill, well, something.

 

People proceed on this issue with no facts. They have a gut instinct, a knee-jerk reaction, and then they go with it. Guns are dangerous! Guns kill people! The news media is complicit in spreading the story that guns are only used for evil, and for tons of evil, at that. Lost are the stories of someone who uses a gun in a proper manner, who protects with it, who saves another. Lost are the statistics that show that a bucket of water around the house causes more deaths each year than guns. I don't pretend that you can find truthful statistics on such a polarizing issue. But most of these folks don't even look for them.

Harriet Miers = Warren Burger

I've been reading The Brethren, by Woodward, and it's a pretty bleak picture of the jurisprudence of Warren Burger. It was all about the correct result. How is Harriet Miers any different?

Judicial Activism and the Commerce Clause

I could write an article about slippery slopes in real life, and only talk about Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Buckley on Jurisprudence

The article of William Buckley referenced in this post at QandO expresses how I feel about Constitutional jurisprudence. I don't want judges to "do the right thing." It's not their job. It's the job of the legislature. If you can't convince enough people that what you want is "the right thing", it should give you pause that maybe it isn't. Not that that sort of awareness ever stopped Chairman Mac. The "right thing" for judges is to apply the law that is already written, not write their own moral choices into the law. Emanations and penumbras, indeed.

Trolls

How annoying. And then to go back to the original place they came from in order to gloat about how aware and righteous they are, and how backwards and foolish we are. What is this, the 3rd grade? Drives me nuts.

Why couldn't it have been Kozinski?

I mean, the reaction to Harriet Miers has not been good from either side of the aisle. Why couldn't Bush just have nominated Alex Kozinski?

I am SO behind the times

I JUST BARELY figured out with this newfangled internet thingy, how I could post to my blog using email. Will I use it more often now? I guess we'll see.

Telegraph | Opinion | Making a pig's ear of defending democracy

Mark Steyn cites a story out of Britain that is scary. I second Eugene Volokh's comments on the subject. Once you have a right not to be offended, the only way that right can be enforced is by controlling each and every act of the people with whom you come in contact, with the incredibly subjective standard of "Did X's actions/word bug me?" as the threshold for state action.

More links on Scalia's Jurisprudence

A collection of links about Scalia's jurisprudence.

Scalia's constitutional interpretation.

Scalia's constitutional interpretation.: "it's what the people who agreed to the text understood it to mean when they voted to ratify."

The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement

Glad I saw this article by David Corn.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Services of Prostitutes

Another real-life example of the slippery slope.

Reid Announces Opposition to Roberts

Can someone explain the tripe cited in this article? It should be clear to rational observers that Democrats were going to oppose whoever Bush nominated, and they don't particularly care about the facts on the ground, or the personal characteristics of the nominee. I mean, if they say this crap about John Roberts, they'll get blow-out-your-windows screechy if Bush nominates someone like Janice Brown or Michael McConnell (either of whom would be fine with me personally). They've lost all grounding, this "reality based community." How can anyone trust anything they say?

Big Lizards

One can only wish one had a name as cool as Dafydd ab Hugh. He has started a blog after being a frequent commenter on other sites I visit often. Good on 'im. It makes me wish I had a cool name. Mine is boring. Here's the story.

We were making up fake names one summer in high school, and this is what I came up with, because I thought it sounded cool. Jinnmabe, like it's, you know, a Djinn or a Jinn. It's pronounced "Jin-MAH-beh". I've really only had one friend who called me that to my face, and, well, I won't lie, I liked it.

Althouse: "They will do what they think is in their interest, however they define it."

The analysis from commenter Simon at Althouse's blog is spot on. But does Bush realize this too? That's the question.

The Beautiful People and the Dutiful People

This article by Michael Barone is definitely a keeper. I have long believed this, and it's why the crap I get from the liberal Mormons is so odd. I DO want to help poor people, and YOUR policies, Mr. Mormon Democrat, aren't getting the job done; in fact, they're making things worse.

"Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends."

So go Roberts's comments on the subject. Here's what a commenter at Althouse had to say:

T]he implied opprobrium in this text on the unwillingness of most American Judges to allow international law to bleed into constitutional interpretation, is predicated on the assumption that the use of foreign materials is relevant to the task of an American Judge. This predicate is highly dubious.

There are two great schools of thought regarding the American constitution and how it should be interpreted. One, subscribed to on the Supreme Court currently by Justices Scalia and Thomas, holds that in order for a constitution that is ratified by the people, and by its own terms can only be amended by their elected representatives (which Judges are not, and should not be), must be given a fair reading in light of what the document says, and what that text meant when it was adopted.

The other, "the living constitution", subscribed to by most of the other Justices, holds that in order for the constitution to remain meaningful to society, its provisions must be interpreted in light of "the evolving standards of decency of American society", meaning in effect that the Constitution has no fixed meaning, and that Chief Justice Marshall was wrong when he wrote in Marbury v. Madison that "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written", and correct when he added that "[t]he distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed."

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a subscriber to the former theory. But what's important is that, within either paradigm, it is hard to see what value foreign precedent might be. If you're an originalist, you're looking for what a statute or the constitution meant when they were adopted. Obviously, if you have that theory, subsequent foreign legal precedent is irrelevant, because it can't change the meaning of the text. But, even if you buy into the other school of thought, even if you're a living constitutionalist, what relevance would foreign law have to your view of your task? If you're looking to give the text the best meaning it could have, in light of the contemporary standards of decency in American society, what are you looking for? The standards of decency of AMERICAN society. What does looking to foreign court decisions tell you about the contemporary standards of decency in American society? Nothing.

So if you're an originalist, foreign law is irrelevant. If you're an honest living constitutionalist, foreign law is irrelevant. The only way it's useful, the only context in which it's relevant, is if you have a third approach to interpreting the law. And that approach, I fear, is exactly what the living constitution tends to be in practise: judicial paternalism. It is the approach that calls on a Judge to determine, "what is the best answer to this case? What do I think is the fairest outcome in this case? What is the best for society? And how can I remove the legal and precedential barriers to the imposition of that outcome?" Having asked those questions, the paternalist needs to write an opinion that looks like the product of a judge; and thus, they turn to doctrines like substantive due process, and increasingly, they turn to foreign law. They are, in the words of Clinton administration Solicitor-General Seth Waxman, "attracted by any notion, or principle, the logic of which carries us to a result we think is just."

And so it is. In the context of the modern court - and it is clearly on display in Roper v. Simmons and Lawrence v. Texas, for example - foreign sources are cited selectively to support the result desired by the author (in both examples above, Justice Kennedy; although Justices Breyer and Ginsburg most often fall back on foreign sources). In Printz, for example, Justice Breyer cited the example of Switzerland to show how Switzerland had approached the Federal system. This might be very valid if he was writing for a Swiss court, but America is not Switzerland! Maybe their system is better, I don't know - but the point is, their system isn't ours! Justice Breyer claims that "we might learn something" if we look at foreign precedent. That's true, as far as it goes; we might also learn something from taking a class in automobile engine maintenance, a PBS special on the chemical composition of Jupiter, a class in foreign & comparative law, or an hour watching Music TeleVision (strapped, presumably into a contraption similar to that used in A Clockwork Orange), but while these endeavors might all be very enlightening on some level, I would find discussion of those subjects somewhat out of place in a judicial opinion on the meaning of the constitution of the United States. "Interesting" is no more the criterion for "relevant" than "people feel passionately about this" is the criterion for "is this constitutional?"

The Constitution has a mechanism for changing its meaning; it is located in Article V, and it does not include the passing of laws by the legislature, or the precedents of courts American or otherwise. The Constitution also has a mechanism for importing foreign law into American law: the treaty process. Neither of these are to be found within the power of the federal courts; not only is the use of foreign materials irrelevant, but it is also borderline unconstitutional.

For a Judge in a common law jurisdiction, this might be a good idea; but in a system governed by a written instrument, it is indefensible. It is easy, to the point of lazy, to casually opine that the American legal system is insular. But what is missing, and what cannot be missing for the argument to be rescued from the depths of meaningless rhetoric, is a coherent explanation as to why foreign precedent should be of any relevance to the U.S. system.

Federal Response to Katrina

"But Bush's management style -- which relies on others to do their jobs -- is clearly inappropriate for government. The Federal government, after all, is the nation's nanny, and for Bush not to have recognized that local governments are essentially figurehead regimes quite unable to handle local emergencies (nor should they be required to: we have the federal government for that, after all, and they have all the money and power) is a failing of imagination UNPRECEDENTED in the annals of EVER."

So opines Jeff Goldstein at proteinwisdom.com. I wish I'd written that. I think the media has pulled a swindle on the American people. Not only is the human death toll not nearly as bad as first reported, the federal response is much better than has been reported. The truth is so irrelevant in times like this, I guess. It makes me sad.

"They get high on their own self-righteousness, with no evidence, but plenty of thoughtless profanity and hatred."

I love it when someone sums up what I'm thinking, but much more clearly and briefly than I could. Thanks, Patterico.

Bolton: stirring up trouble or doing his job?

Seems to me the answer is pretty clear: doing his job.

Ace of Spades HQ

I am fan of Christopher Hitchens. His analysis is spot on, and he can turn a phrase.

Maimed for a Lie

This is disgusting.

Jane Galt-Economics of Oil

Basic economics for the those who don't understand the law of consequences.

At last, someone who understands me

And me. This sums up how I think about the war.

Religious Reasons for Lawmaking,

I was looking for this and I don't want to lose it again. I appreciate that Volokh keeps a list of related topics at the bottom of posts.

Lileks strikes again

This is hilarious. I love the riff on the people who think they are bringing up something you've never heard before. "Well, golly, I never thought of that. I guess you win this argument. I'm in your debt, sir."

First Day of School

Today was the first day, and not nearly as stress-free as I was hoping. I feel a little like I have a better handle on things, but maybe I'm just tired. I have changed back and forth but I am going to stick with Iago, because I've always liked the name, and no one else I know has it. If I had a boy, and my wife would let me, I'd name a son Iago. Cool.

My first link to a left-wing site

Just so I could say, this dude is wrong. Sheehan has made herself look really bad. Public sympathy only extends so far, and an implicit belief in her "moral authority" may be part of DD's make-up, and most left-wingers' make-up (although I don't think it is, they just like to say so when the situation is in their favor), but I don't think most people are thinking, "well, I supported the Iraq war, but now I hear that someone who has lost a son in Iraq is against the war. I guess that means the time for thinking is over, and now is the time for knee-jerk emotional reaction." I'm sorry for her loss. Apparently many in her family do not agree with her. Will the left elevate their opinions to the level of Cindy's? Is their loss not the same as hers? See this QandO post for a longer version of my point.

Angry Young Bloggers

This post at soxblog explains why I am reticent to throw my hat in the ring. Contention and I do not mix. I just can't handle it. I can take vigorous intellectual debate, and detailed criticism, but when the personal attacks start flying, and the cuss words show up, I'm out. I only discuss things with people to try to convince them, and if someone is personally attacking me, or cussing me out for thinking the way I do, there's not much point in talking, is there?

Quoted!!

The incomparable Jeff Harrell has quoted me. Yes, that's right, one of those letters to the editor is MINE.

Breyer on Giving Foreign Courts "A Little Boost Sometimes":

I gotta keep this post on a talk by Justice Breyer on Giving Foreign Courts "A Little Boost Sometimes": handy: the commenters have a pretty good handle on why it is just dumb, dumb, dumb to cite to foreign courts. Stretching to justify prior actions indeed.

American Indian Mascots

Just heard a radio segment on Eric Uh-silly-us, with him talking to the two people responsible for defending the NCAA's ban on post-season appearances of school mascots which depict Native Americans. My questions: 1) You say that you don't necessarily know better than the Seminole Tribal Council of Florida as to whether Florida St. is offending Seminoles, just that you know that some Seminoles somewhere are offended. Then why are you trying to coerce schools into doing what you have decided is right? 2) On a related note, you also mention that one of your guiding principles is letting the schools have institutional autonomy. That's why you've restricted your coercion to the post-season. Huh? The Fighting Illini is offensive, but only during the playoffs. If it's so important, important enough for you to fiddle with "institutional autonomy", why not go whole hog? Because of the amount of rebellion, I'm guessing. Cowards. 3) This is another example (and Eric mentioned it) of some nanny coming in and saying, you don't know best, I know best, me and the 15% who feel as I do, we know better than the unenlightened, unwashed 85%. And, since we've got the stick, we'll beat you with it till you conform.

Mess with the dynamics of the market and face the wrath of the law of unintended consequences

Keeping the poor poor. This is why I advocate a free market, and why the Mormons who accuse me of not caring about the poor are ignorant. It's fine and dandy to have good intentions (guess what? Republicans actually have them), but if your methods suck, your intentions aren't worth much. Intentions do not put the Triscuit in my belly, to paraphrase a bit.

Possibly Helpful Book

Volokh's Legal Writing Book.

Potentially Helpful Article

How to Read Cases

Inertia: Second Phase

Oh, yeah, somehow I managed to overcome the hill, and get stuff done, and guess what? It all took me YEARS less time to finish than I had anticipated. Of course, now I don't feel as bad about the time wasting, which in turn makes me feel bad. It's a vicious cycle.

Also, they stole my favorite line

Which is, if we had some ham, we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some bread.

"Deferred Success"

Look at this. I'm sorry. As polite as BC is, and how vehemently NS and the others protest, I just have a hard, hard time understanding why anyone can support the Democratic Party. It's just ridiculous. The outright spin and lying that goes on, the inability to give ANY credit to "the other side", the vacuum where rational, reasoned argument should be. I've heard that "budget cuts" one before, in the context of Arnold. The Democratic California Legislature wanted to increase funding for education by something like $4 million, and Arnold cut that proposed funding back to $2 million, and the LA Dog Trainer called it a "budget cut." An increase of $2 million is a budget cut? These are some messed up priorities and world views we are talking about here, people.

Inertia

An object in motion remains in motion and an object at rest remains at rest, unless acted on by some outside force. Right? That's the law, and we mustn't disobey the law. Well, how do I burst out of my lazy, casually interesting, light, supreficial conversation/learning phase, and jump into a think-it-through-and figure-out-the-damn-tax-code mode, where I could actually get some work done? How? I have no idea. I have slipped to the depths of actually contributing to my own piss-poor effort of a blog in order to avoid the work that must be done by Friday. Here we go, one, two, threeeeeeeee.....

9 OTHER "standard background check" investigations the New York Times is actively pursuing on SCOTUS nominee John Roberts, Jr and his family

Very Funny

Althouse: "Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?"

I thought the last paragraph of this post, after referencing Jim Lindgren, was instructive. It immediately made me think, "When they are learned, they think they are wise, and they harken not to the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves."

Authors to Check Out

Bernard Cornwell, Shannon Hale,, Stephen Lawhead

Car Seats

My wife and I had wondered about the whole car seat thing. THis article highlights the mentality you have to deal with in the pursuit of the truth of this question. There's always someone who is worshipping at the altar of last years science, accepting it as true, believing in it despite evidence to the contrary, even fighting against the search for evidence. Sad.

Lileks Kills Me

James Lileks points out why people who can give you an entire psychoanalysis from what you wear are, well, psycho. I especially love the Mormon reference. Too true.

John Roberts

Good. I think. But we don't know, do we? His opinion in "the french-fry case" gives us cause to hope, though, doesn't it? A judge who will say, "This law is stupid. It's damn stupid. It's so stupid as to be ridiculous. However, since I am not the legislature, it is not my job to judge the wisdom of a particular law, but whether or not it comports with our Constitution. Since this damn stupid law IS rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, I can't find it unconstitutional." That's what I want judges to do, leave the lawmaking to the lawmakers. 51%-ism, hah! People who use that phrase (which is called democracy in most other quarters) sound like poor losers. "I can't win elections, because most people think I'm nuts. Damn you, 51%-ism!"

Some people have a Faux intelligence

Yes, I used a French word. Get over it. Tango Delta is the best example of someone who clearly considers himself very smart, talks in a manner calculated to show you how very intelligent he is, but actually is dumber than a bag of hammers. He can't even understand the concept that everything has its opposite. Light without dark is meaningless. If light permeated every inch of existence, and no darkness were found anywhere, who would come up with the concept, let alone a word, for the absence of light? Moreso with concepts like "joy" and "sorrow." If we never experienced the absence of "joy" it wouldn't resemble the joy we feel now because it would just be the way things are. "Absence of joy?" you'd say. "The absence of the way things are now? What do you mean?" It's a simple philosophical concept, especially when the idea of perception and reality being related is taken into account.

That's the main reason why he bugs me. What an arrogant infant.

The Religion of Liberalism

Boy, the philological arm of the Left did good work when they narrowed the definition of "religion" to only Christianity and similar things. Atheism? Not a religion. Liberalism? Not a religion, it's a political philosophy. Right? Well, as QandO points out, the left is as willing to ignore evidence because of "faith" in a value system as any "fundamentalist" on the Right. Hell, anyone who is still a socialist in this day and age must of NECESSITY ignore mountains of history and evidence. The thing is, it seems to me, even Christians have more solid evidence to back up their faith than liberals. The way Christianity has changed lives for the better, the influence on culture and politics, Christians have something they can look to when people challenge their faith (not to mention the personal spiritual experiences they may have). What can liberals point to? Books? Newspaper editorials that tell them, "yes, we've no success so far in history but THIS time, I swear, socialism will work instead of resulting in the death and starvation of millions. What a joke.

Thoughts on Left libertarianism

More and more, I find that my favorite website is the QandO Online Magazine. Those guys just always know what they're talking about. THe problem, as I see it, is that neither I, nor anyone else, could ever get elected to even a statewide office espousing these ideals. Why not? It's not because they are wrong or misguided. Indeed, I find them exceedingly wise. I just think Republicans AND Democrats have fallen in love with, or at the least, become accustomed to, the idea that government is the answer to their problems. And anyone who steps up to say, no, YOU are the answer, YOU and ME, as individuals can independently band together, without government "help" or intereference and solve whatever problem we are currently facing, anyone who says that is viewed as a crank because, hey, overwhelming government involvement in our lives is "just the way things are, man. Get used to it." And most of those who secretly think, "you know, I'd LIKE less government involvement in my life," are too scared of what will happen if government steps out of things. There are plenty of people crying disaster and fire and brimstone consequences if the government isn't around to save us from ourselves. So, fundamentally, a lack of courage discourages (pun intended) many people from acting on their libertarian impulses. Because, at some point, the libertarian candidate has to stand up and say, "Yes, many of your businesses will fail. Individually, some farmers will not be able to make it, because farming is unprofitable/they are porr farmers/businessmen. One of those may be YOU. But with that added freedom from being "rescued" by government, comes the freedom of low prices, the ability to do and make and sell what and how you want. There IS bad, but the good outweighes the bad.

Anyway, here's the article I wanted to link to. Thoughts on Left libertarianism. Some fools think there is a way to reconcile "As little governmental involvement as possible" with "as much governmental involvement as possible.

1975 Redux?

I know I haven't written anything in a long while, and I usually use this space as a bookmark for interesting posts and thoughts. I know a lot of those are from QandO, so here's another. 1975 Redux? This is awesome, it says exactly what I would like to say to the pinheads at my school who are too in love with feeling righteous to examine the consequences of their proposed actions. "Bush Lied!" is not good military strategy, and I'm at a loss to understand the historical argument that surrender is a good thing. Maybe I'm reading the wrong books.

Good list of science fiction

Instapundit.com -

WTF?

This is absolutely appalling. Just disgusting. And I'm talking about the legal conclusions, not just the dumb-ass people involved.

What does the Supreme Judicial Court of Sierra Leone have to say to us?

What does the Supreme Judicial Court of Sierra Leone have to say to us?

So Much For What We Stand For

I know the Blogfather linked to this list of Republicans abandoning their principles, but some of these are just plain stupid. Since when do Republicans stand for "tradition" as an amorphous, all-encompassing idea? Anything that is a tradition must be upheld by Republicans or they're hypocrites? Come on, that's third grade thinking. And the federalism argument is, well, very narrow minded. EVERYONE has their overriding principles, which trump other principles at certain times and places. This doesn't mean that they don't believe in the overridden principles, just that there is a higher one. What exactly are they to do in that situation, exactly? Sit on their hands, crying "Federalism!" while these same critics say "So much for Republicans standing for a "culture of life." They're damned if they do, damned if they don't, so I, for one, don't have a problem with them prioritizing their values, and letting higher ones trump lower ones.

It seems anytime there's a post about "principles" everyone wants to paint with as broad a brush as possible, because then it's easy to find inconsistencies.

This is the kind of thing you shouldn't read in the morning if you're hoping to have a good day

Paying for conservation. Sure, Oregon does lots of loopy stuff, like make suicide legal, but this takes the cake. You damn socialists, get your hands off my life!! A "vehicle mileage tax"? Why not a "breathing" tax too, while we're at it, since that would get EVERYBODY, and increase revenues, and some people wouldn't be shirking on paying "their fair share" to society. Since, everything we own or are belongs to the government and they so graciously allow us to live. How wonderful. Idiots.

4 down and 1 to go

Finished community property today. Weird. I wish she wrote better questions. I know, I know, maybe I just didn't understand it well enough. Maybe. Or maybe the questions weren't specific enough to deal with the specifics of my knowledge. It happened to Rusty last semester, it could happen to Lizzy.

Next up: Evidence, and I have two hours tonight, and all day tomorrow to learn it. So why am I writing about it online instead of reading. Because, it's what I do.

The Cherry-picking left on health care

This post from McQ sums up why I am a conservative leaning libertarian. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.

Two Tests Down

Jimmy Mac is now out of my life. Good riddance to bad rubbish. He is a total unmitigated ass. The last test question was "Please rank all the current Supreme Court Justices from most conservative to least conservative (none are really liberal)." Well, no shit, when they are ranking on your card-carrying-Communist spectrum. How is this a legitimate question? Who gives a shit what their political preferences are, and how are my personal preferences (which I must use to gauge their politics) any of your damn business either? Oh, and HOW is this related to our study of Constitutional Law? I understand that it's just par for the damn course in your class, where we NEVER talked about the law, and if a case name was mentioned once a week, that was a lot of cases. The class should've been called "Jimmy Mac's Personal Feelings" but a required class, and one that I am paying tuition for? If this law school ever hopes to take its place among the better ranked and thought of small schools (let alone the nationally renowned schools), it'd better do a MUCH better job of preparing its students on the LAW, instead of leading them in political indoctrination classes where religious beliefs are derided, and large groups of people who merely hold a different political philosophy are called bigots and other slanderous names. What a joke.

Humor and Wit in Supreme Court Opinions:

Is it any surprise that most of the entries are Scalia? And all of the actually funny ones?

JustOneMinute: Krugman On Ideology

JustOneMinute: Krugman On Ideology

School Mistakes Huge Burrito for a Weapon -

School Mistakes Huge Burrito for a Weapon Notice that the name of the boy who did it is Michael Morrissey. I always knew he was trouble.

Hey, you! Yeah, you, the ignorant religious bigot! Vote for Me!

This post could sum up my whole semester in ConLaw with Chairman Mac. High-larious.

Who's Pro-Choice Now?

David Boaz of the Cato Institute highlights the glaring inconsistencies of the National Organization for Women and the so-called "pro-CHOICE" movement. Not so free with the choice when it's something you don't like, now are you?

Another Economics Books to Read this Summer

More summer reading on economics.

The Shape of Days: There’s a line, and it got crossed

Jeff Harrell is quite upset about a Mac site (he's a Macophile) that tells people how to illegally download stuff off the Internet. One of my best friends writes music for a living and he is equally up in arms about illegal copying and downloading. I've had many conversations about this and I've come to a few conclusions. One, it is currently illegal. I don't think there's much doubt about that. Two, morally, it's no where near as clear. Now, we're talking about two different things, here, downloading and copying. Downloading is a little more clear, morally, since you didn't pay for it, but you want it. But what if you did pay for it, by paying for cable to see a TV show, but missed it due to a power outage. Can you morally download it to watch it, even though you're not paying the downloadee but you DID pay the cable company and didn't get what you paid for? As for copying, once I buy something, do I own it or don't I? Why can't I make copies for my own personal use? Why am I restricted to using something I own in the manner in which someone else wants me to use it? Isn't there a Constitutional right to privacy?(Griswold v. Connecticut) I have a real problem with letting people buy a lawnmower and then saying, you can't loan it to your neighbor.

And Celebrities Wonder Why People Think They're Stupid

There is a new MTV Reality Show which will show ridiculously overpaid women cavorting and pretending to be poor for a few minutes so they can preach to the rest of us. Doesn't that sound compelling?

Oh, and Eva Mendes is NOT pretty. Her face is FUNKY, people, FUNKY.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Muddled Understanding

Edward Whelan at National Review Online makes clear that Ruthie is like the rest of the lefties here at the law school. Adrift in their own sea of feelings, willing to eviscerate procedure in order to effect the changes THEY think should be made, contemptuous of the democratic process and masses, prone to use inflammatory rhetoric ("extreme" to describe the idea that the Constitution means what it says?) to cover up shoddy thinking. What a mess.

More Nukes!

Dale Franks has a compelling little piece on why environmentalists are stupid and shortsighted. Not that you needed me to tell you that.

Putting the Period Inside the Quotes

Eugene Volokh gives the smackdown to my legal research and writing professor and he doesn't even know it. I KNEW putting the question mark inside the quotes was wrong and stupid! Oh, the arrogance of the academy, who snootily look down their noses at ACTUAL lawyers, because THEY are professors. Or, in this case, instructors. What a dummy.

Putin: Soviet Collapse a 'Tragedy'

Vlad Putin needs to be watched very closely. The money quote: "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory." Yeah, so? The fact that millions of people freely chose to move so they didn't have to stand for days in a bread line is BAD? Reminds of a joke Ronald Reagan used to tell. Russian guy goes in to buy a car. The salesman says, "Thank you, comrade, that'll be 10 million rubles. The car will be delivered in 10 years." "Fine," says the Russian guy. "But can you deliver it in the afternoon?" The salesman says," We're delivering it 10 years from now and you want to us to be sure to come in the afternoon?" "Yeah," says the Russian guy. "The plumber's coming in the morning."

One Week Until Finals

Well, here we are, with one week until my Creditor's Rights final and I am just browsing through my ConLaw outline. I tell myself that I have it all planned out, but really, I am just putting off the inevitable, which is a recipe for disaster. "Seize the day!" they say, but what if the day is full of dusty old Article 9 statutes about how the debtor's name must appear on the financing statement? Huh? What then? Sometimes I really curse my decision to choose law school over a career as a pool repairman. And, the golf course is closed today and tomorrow for a tournament, so there'll be no relief down that alley.

Oh, and see this for a discussion of why the state monopoly argument doesn't work in the issue of making pharmacists fill out prescriptions which are morally repugnant to them.

Asymmetrical Information: Economics in One Lesson

Megan McArdle recommends a book on Economics for Beginners. I will have to try it out.

Hillary is a bad politician

This article talks about what a bad politician Hillary Clinton is because she's such an obvious politician. I tend to agree with that, but there is power in having a public perception that you are a genius, even if you aren't one.

The New York Times > Education > A Group at Princeton Where 'No' Means 'Entirely No'

A Group at Princeton Where 'No' Means 'Entirely No'. Horror! Shock! The humanity! How dare these young people deny their sexual urges!

Sheesh. I'm sure it's just me but this is such a dog-bites-man story. Well, maybe it isn't to most people and that's what's so sad.

A yiddish examination I have to read later

Yiddish in Court, which I got, of course, from the Volokh Conspiracy.

I often wondered if this was a myth

Conglomerate Blog: Blind Grading in Law School tackles the problem of "blind" or anonymous grading of law school exams. It does get a bit nasty in the comments, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Megan McArdle A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

Megan McArdle has a good point about the libertarian response to a particular argument in favor of gay marriage. I too have been bugged by this particular argument, but now I know why.

Captain's Quarters

Captain's Quarters highlights a disturbing trend to compare everything that you don't like to racism or Jim Crow. My Con Law professor does this constantly. I wonder if he knows how much it destroys his credibility (which wasn't great to begin with).

The Visor I want

BYU Bookstore - The Game Embroidered Y Brigham Young University Visor

I like Blogger

But I wish I had the money, time, and know-how to create my own web page. Oh, well, maybe some day.

Death

My wife's grandma died yesterday. Well, really she was just a very, very, very good friend of the family who had been filling the role of grandma ever since her dad died 9 years ago and his parents abandoned the family. It's a long and complicated story, but suffice it to say, she feels like her grandma died. So, we're buying her a ticket to fly down so she can go to the funeral on Saturday. It's a tough thing, but her sister is taking it much worse than she is. Grandma was old and had lots of health problems so it shouldn't have been a shock but apparently it still was for some people. As someone who never had much contact with grandma, I am sad for my wife. My strategy for helping in the grieving process is to hug and say nothing except, "I'm sorry."

Jeff Harrell is Cool

What I've always wanted to say to a "journalist" Of course, I also always wish that I had to skill to say things the way that Jeff does. I am a serious wannabe writer, who has no talent, no creativity, and not enough brains to even follow a train of though from one end of the tracks to the other.

Of course, it may be that I have used up my creative juices in other areas, areas that I will no longer entertain. When it comes right down to it, there are only so many hours in the day, and I already am not getting enough sleep, thanks to the boy getting up at the crack of dawn every doggone day. It's a good thing he's so darn cute, or I wouldn't put up with it.

I guess what I am saying is, expect more from me in the future.

Religion and Politics

Great article on politics and religion.

Rambling

Shining and new, like a bright copper penny.
I have really come to despise Jimmy Mac’s class. What exactly am I learning about Constitutional Law except which laws, rulings, and concepts Jimmy Mac likes or hates? Likes Douglas and Marshall, hates Scalia and Thomas, got it. Can we move on? Good hell, I’m paying for this tripe?
Terri Schiavo is everywhere, including our halls, where the debate has gotten mighty heated, and the one guy defending her gets called names, anti-religious names, by his Mormon friends. Nice.
I also have recently seen a disturbing tendency to place the presumption on the wrong side of the line. “You can have my beard when you pry it from my cold, dead face?” This qualifies for meek and humble? Apparently for some people’s misunderstanding it does.

Mark Steyn on How I Feel about the U.N.

Couldn't possibly say it any better.

Althouse: Terri Schiavo and federalism.

Ann Althouse has a great post about the federalism arguments that opponents of Terri Schiavo have forwarded. She makes great points, but everyone always overlooks the third-grade nature of such complaints. What in the hell does it matter what I said three years ago? Listen to what I'm saying now, and tell me if it's a good argument.

Althouse: Music to read by: the suggestions.

Althouse: Music to read by: the suggestions.

A great post about judicially created "rights"

This post is a beautiful exposition of the foolishness and, yes, danger of the current idea of the Supreme Court, its function, and the things it has read into the Constitution.

Vodkapundit - Alternate History

This parody by Stephen Green is dead on, and therefore, makes me very sad.

Democrats care more about their own power and prestige than the freedom of others.

My proof? "There's always hope that this might not work." How sick that Osama and Zarqawi and the Dems are hoping for the same thing.

Rambling

I got nothing to say except, I am bored to death with school, I have been bitten hard by the golfing bug, and I currently have no work to do, so the income stream will temporarily be cut off. That is the bad news. The good news is that I don't need to feel bad about golfing instead of working, because there's no work to do. Great.