It’s Official — The “Supreme” Court is now the National Super-Legislature — Updated
Posted by WLS:
The majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana (appropriate irony) authored by Justice Kennedy is a stunning exclamation point on the Court’s move this term of impose itself as the unelected sovereign dominant over all things eminating from the political branches of the various governmental entities of the United States of America. This capstone sentence near the end of the opinion is all you need to read and absorb to fully appreciate the complete absence of guiding constitutional principle underlying the liberals+Kennedy with respect to their view of their place vis-a-vis the representative democratic branches of the governmental units:
“Each of these propositions, standing alone, might not establish the unconstitutionality of the death penalty for the crime of child rape. Taken in sum, however, they demonstrate the serious negative consequences of making child rape a capital offense. These considerations lead us to conclude, in our independent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”
Got that? The “propositions” mentioned are a variety of policy arguments, not one of which has any relationship to the language of the Eighth Amendment which prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment. No one “proposition” standing alone makes the death penalty for child rape “cruel and unusual” in a constitutional sense. But all of them considered together do.
Their “independent judgment.” F*ck all those elected officials in whom the voters have vested the authority to exercise judgment on their collective behalf. Frankly, I can’t believe no Justice in the majority suggested to Kennedy that he remove the “our independent judgment” language. But, then again, maybe they wanted it exactly the way Kennedy wrote it — no time for subtlety.
A few of the more precious bon mots of enlightenment courtesy of Justice Kennedy:
“When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional committment to decency and restrait.”
“It is an established principle that decency, in its essence, presumes respect for the individual and thus moderation or restrait in the application of capital punishment.”
“In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment, we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be ‘freakish'”.
“Evolving standards of decency are difficult to reconcile with a regime that seeks to expand the death penalty to an area where standards to confine its use are indefinite and obscure.”
“The incongruity between the crime of child rape and the harshness of the death penalty poses risks of overpunishment and counsels against a constitutional that the death penalty can be expanded to include this offense.”
“It is not at all evident that a child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the death of the perpetrator.”
“Society’s desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice. The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system; and this is but a subset of fundamental difficulties capital punishment can cause in the in the administration and enforcement of laws proscribing child rape.”
But, lest he be too solicitous of the child victim’s welfare, Kennedy next rips children as testifying witnesses:
“The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a “special risk of wrongful execution” in some child rape cases.” (Citing the ever reliable National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers brief.)
“In most cases justice is not served by terminating the life of a perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense.”
What a beautiful sentiment. We as taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year to incarcerate pedophiles so that they, with the help of the “system,” might finally understand the error of their ways.
What kind of society is it that wants to cut off such meaninful and important efforts at self-enlightenment by something so barbarian as imposing the death penalty on a man who raped his 8 year old stepdaughter so savagely that a laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus.
Fortunately for all of us, he might now get the help he was so obviously crying out for courtesy of the Louisiana prison system.
**Update: Barack Obama has come out against the Court’s decision today:
“I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama said at a news conference. “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”
I wonder if that means that Obama thinks Roberts and Alito are better models for future Supreme Court appointments than Ginsburg and Breyer?
I’m a death-penalty opponent so I’m not disturbed by the result here, but I mostly agree with you regarding Kennedy’s reasoning.
But why the pot-shot at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers? That was unnecessary.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 6/25/2008 @ 2:42 pmWell said. Can we impeach the b*stards? I didn’t know that a dunce hat came with the robe. When the constitution was written people weren’t just shot, or hung, they were drawn and quartered! In the 1800’s wasn’t horse stealing a hanging offence? Legal reasoning, we don’t need no stinkin legal reasoning, there is a “consensus.” I want to pull my freaking hair out I am so pissed off at this monstrocity of a legislative act by some dorks in robes. Isn’t the legislature’s job to carry out the will of the people and the judiciary’s job to “interpret the consititution?” The constitution be damned we five j*ck*sses know what’s best for america. I can’t freaking believe it, first they give constitutional rights to foreign nutjobs captured on a field of freaking battle! Now they say child rape is not as heinous as murder? They’re right, it is not as heinous as murder, i’s freaking worse than Murder you knumbskulls! The only consolation I guess is that the other prisoners in the general population will deliver justice to the child rapists by torturing the MFkers and then killing them. Damn the Supreme Court. Let them enforce their rulings themselves, oh that’s right, there is no SC Police — YET. Can you tell that I am very frustrated and upset with this abomination? Have a nice day! (I’m usually a pretty level headed guy so I apologize for the dramatics) I just can’t ***ng believe it. All those years of Pre-law and Law School down the bleepin drain…. We have “consensus law” now.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 6/25/2008 @ 2:55 pmBecause only from the NACDL would I expect a pedophile to be defended from the death penalty on the basis that “kids make stuff up.”
Inapporpriate touching case? Fondling case? Maybe.
Not on the types of cases that are going to bring the death penalty into play.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/25/2008 @ 2:57 pm“When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional committment to decency and restrait.”
Is this not as viable:
“When the law does not punish by death [as in this extraordinary circumstance], it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional committment to decency and restrait.”
Dana (f12688) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:00 pmFortunately for all of us, he might now get the help he was so obviously crying out for courtesy of the Louisiana prison system.
If they put him in the main pop, possibly. Life expectancy for a “short eyes” is about 15 minutes, last I heard.
mojo (8096f2) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:05 pm“Society’s desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice.”
Am I reading this correctly? Did he use the victim to justify not properly punishing her rapist?
brobin (c07c20) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:13 pmNot on the types of cases that are going to bring the death penalty into play.
I think that’s rather optimistic of you. In this particular case, sure, you’re confident of the guy’s guilt. But knowing prosecutors, the death penalty will be sought in every possible case by some. I’m sure there would be cases where physical evidence wouldn’t be nearly as certain. Just look at the hideous stuff going on in Mississippi right now with Dr. Hayne.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:16 pmYeah, ignore the fact that a kid’s been brutally raped…
Because that isn’t a decent into brutality.
Fucker. Does Kennedy live in the same world we do?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:16 pmLike Phil in comment #1, I too am an opponent of the death penalty, but I hate to see it abrogated by judicial fiat and not by a consensus my offellow citizens.
If the Court continues to substitute their judgments of morality for that of the people, the people will have no recourse but to muck up the Constitution will several amendments in an attempt to reclaim the power that the judiciary has usurped. Surely anyone who values our Constitution can see what an unappealing (pardon the pun) outcome that would be.
JVW (ce519b) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:22 pmAnother thing that is striking about Kennedy’s majority decision is the complete absence of any effort in it to respond/rebut the criticism leveled at it by Alito’s dissent. Usually there are footnotes or references in the text of the opinion responding to the dissent.
But, from Kennedy’s opinion you would think that the decision announced was 9-0.
I think that’s quite insulting to the 4 Justices in the dissent, and I think it completes Kennedy’s walk in Stevens’ shoes. Given the manner in which CJ Roberts went after his reasoning in Boumediene, I would not be surprised if Kennedy never wrote another significant decision in which the CJ voted in the majority with him. All the significant decisions he has authored over the last couple years have been assigned to him by Stevens when Kennedy voted with the liberals.
Jan Crawford Greenburg should pen an Afterword to her book on the Court that addresses Kennedy’s performance this term.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:34 pmKennedy’s opinions seem to be becoming more incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:38 pmAgain: Will this have any impact in November? I’m guessing not much.
Old Coot (85f458) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:47 pmFine, I’ve got another option on how to handle this problem.
Pass legislation reducing the punishment for the killing of a convicted child rapist to a maximum of a $10 fine.
Rhymes With Right (653b5f) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:48 pmAside from the brutally obvious point that juries, not witnesses and victims, mete out punishment, Justice Kennedy’s logic is frightening in its implications.
Would the liberal justices decide that, as children are incapable of making a “moral choice” that could result in a death, albeit a just death, it is unconstitutional to perform an abortion on a young girl who has barely passed puberty?
Under Kennedy’s logic, it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty when a child is a witness for the prosecution. Imagine a man who murdered a group of kindergarteners and their teachers, leaving only a few toddlers alive. Would it be violative of the Constitution to impose the death penalty, as that dreaded “moral choice” would be forced upon the traumatised children?
As for “evolving standards of decency:” if our society were to evolve to the point where the vast majority of states and citizens believed it permissible – and, in fact, right and just and good – to torture child rapists before their death, would such a punishment then meet constitutional muster?
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 3:58 pmbridget, you’ve identified just one in a score of completely incoherent arguments – as usual in a Kennedy opinion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:01 pm“the Court’s move this term of impose itself as the unelected sovereign dominant over all things eminating from the political branches of the various governmental entities of the United States of America.”
Ahh, that’s quite a bit overstated. The “cruel and unusual punishment” provision is somewhat special, as it was intentionally left vague by the founders so that it would evolve over time. They were well aware that society was dynamically becoming more civilized and still in the process of shedding the barbarity of medieval punishments — being drawn and quartered and burnt on the stake were still on the books in Britain, flogging was still around, etc, although such punishments were subject to much criticism and increasingly rarely applied at the time.
They could have explicitly stated what punishments were prohibited, and for what crimes, say by specifying that hanging was the only permissible way to execute someone, and listing the specific crimes that are capital crimes. But they wisely refused to set their contemporary conceptions into stone by enshrining them in the Constitution. Instead, they left it vague so the prohibition would keep up with social conceptions of what constituted “cruel and unusual” as society became more civilized. They knew it would evolve over time, prohibiting more and more punishments over time.
And if you accept Marbury v. Madison’s statement of judicial review, it is wholly unremarkable that the Court will look at a punishment passed by a state legislature to see if it is cruel and unusual by contemporary standards, and declare it unconstitutional if in the judgment of the Court, it is.
I can certainly understand people thinking the Court made the wrong decision and went to far here, that execution for child rape is not barbaric or uncivilized. But that is a difference of judgment and opinion, between some people who wear robes and whose job it is to decide the meaning of the Constitution and other people who don’t have that job.
But I don’t see this as an alarming usurpation of democracy or legislative power. There’s a provision in the constitution intended to be examined from time to time applying evolving contemporary standards. And, if you accept Marbury at least, it is the Court who has to determine that line when presented with a state law alleged to have crossed the line. Nothing really unusual here in regards to the history of the cruel and unusual clause or longstanding understanding of the Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution and declaring laws unconstitutional.
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:07 pmSure, Aplomb, nothing going on here, move along. Nothing to see. Move along.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:10 pmThe only way he will ever understand that is by growing a conscience (unlikely) and, post-conscience-invasion, having a daughter whom he loves more than himself.
Pigs could spontaneously evolve wings, too, but we don’t use that remote possibility as the basis for our jurisprudence.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:12 pm“Again: Will this have any impact in November? “
Probably not. FWIW, from Obama and good on him:
“…there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.”
And the great Jindal hits the nail on the head:
“One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana.”
Dana (f12688) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:14 pmKennedy sounds like he’s slowly turning into an abolitionist on the death penalty. The grand sweep of the language he’s using (descent into brutality, etc.) gives me that impression.
Kennedy’s been pretty liberal this term. It’s giving ma a queasy feeling, or perhaps just half of one, that he’ll piss me off royally tomorrow by not joining what I expect to be Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Back to Kennedy… This decision is an impeachable offense. And it won’t be the end. I really think that some day in the next decade, the Supreme Court will write finis to capital punishment. Least dangerous branch my ass.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:15 pmgiving me a queasy feeling.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:16 pm“In most cases justice is not served by terminating the life of a perpetrator …”
How is measuring this? How does he know this to be true? What empirical evidence is this based upon?
bridget, I don’t believe he can grow a conscience – it would require a serious deflation of ego and he’ll hold onto that with a death grip. What other answer can there be for one so smug?
Dana (f12688) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:20 pmThis is why I hope Kennedy sides against Heller, and writes the dissent, becase it will be high-fucking-comedy…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:37 pmYep, Scott.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:38 pmDana: Kennedy’s the oracle. Of course he knows.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:39 pmBut that is a difference of judgment and opinion, between some people who wear robes and whose job it is to decide the meaning of the Constitution and other people who don’t have that job.
A rather remarkable statement from Aplomb. If one wants to decide the “meaning” of the Constitution one has only to read it. Your comment seems to be supporting the idea that the Constitution can be infinitely stretched to encompass whatever is floating around in the zeitgeist of the liberal elite at any given time.
JVW (ce519b) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:40 pmHey, JVW, its not our job.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:42 pm“A rather remarkable statement from Aplomb. If one wants to decide the “meaning” of the Constitution one has only to read it. Your comment seems to be supporting the idea that the Constitution can be infinitely stretched to encompass whatever is floating around in the zeitgeist of the liberal elite at any given time.”
No, you can’t just read the Constitution when the drafters intentionally included a phrase as vague as “cruel and unusual.” Tell me what that means, specifically, for all imaginable types of punishment for all imaginable types of crimes, and tell me how you got that just by reading the words.
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:46 pmThe Constitution means whatever Aplomb wants it to. And Kennedy can now act as the Grand Lord and Master of all Legislatures. Good Allah, the arrogance is remarkable.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/25/2008 @ 4:58 pm“Cruel” is any sentence that is grossly punishing out of balance with the scale of the offense (such as death penalty for littering), and “unusual” is something that is particularly degrading and outside the norm (such as making a weenie wagger be locked into a cage, naked, in the Town Square at high noon), instead of being assigned something from within the standard range of punishments that have been legislatively prescribed for such offenses.
But I have to agree with Heinlein on this one. Cruel and unusual may not mean what YOU think it means, either.
“I do not understand objections to ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment – and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning us when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? … As for unusual, punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose.”
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:16 pmI agree that “cruel and unusual” was intentionally left vague to allow it to evolve over time, but it pertains to the punishments themselves, not to their appropriateness for particular crimes. If execution through lethal injection is not “cruel and unusual” by modern standards, just looking at the punishment itself and ignoring the crime, then the people should be free to administer it to jaywalkers as well as murderers.
Nels Nelson (a474bc) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:18 pmAlpomb at 28: The 8th Amendment doesn’t prohibit the death penalty — it prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.
The Fifth Amendment specifically contemplates the use of the death penalty — “No person shall be … deprived of life … without due process of law.”
So, whatever the framers contemplated in 1791 with the 8th Amendment, they didn’t consider the death penalty either “cruel” and “unusual”.
The appropriate punishment for a particular type of criminal activity is a matter for the legislature to decide. That was the case in 1791, and that is the case today.
The Court’s action today is that of a Super-Legislature, not that of a co-equal branch of gov’t that serves only to interpret the laws as adopted by the legislature.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:26 pmThis would likely be not as horrific were Kennedy not so fond to look to foreign countries and texts not named the Constitution in order to find justification for his usurping the role of the legislature.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:33 pmNelson at 31 — can you or someone else here specifically point to something authoritative source for this proposition that the 8th Amend. was purposely left vague in order to “evolve” over time? Frankly, that’s a extra-judicial construct created by 4 idiotic justices in 1958 — Warren, Black, Douglas and Whittaker — in a case that had nothing to do with the death penalty.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:33 pmWe ought to ask Cyrus Sanai to hack into the home computers of the majority here and see if they have anything incriminating there. Serve the bastards right.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:35 pmAplomb – They absolutely can just read the Constitution in making these kinds of rulings. There is nothing other that the statute in question, and precendent that they should be reading. I know the living breathing evolving piece of paper allows for your ever expanding role of the Courts and government, but the Framers all rolled over in their graves after hearing Kennedy’s drivel today.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:39 pm“The Constitution means whatever Aplomb wants it to.”
Where did I state anything that implied that is sor should be the case. I’m starting to think people are dodging my point because they can’t counter it.
Consider the other two provisions of the same Amendment providing that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.” How much is excessive in either case? You can’t just read the text and get your answer, because the framers wisely and consciously left it vague. A court is forced to look at the contemporary landscape and apply it to the facts. Fines for various offenses will rise and fall with shifting societal values, as the framers well knew, so they clearly intended a challenged fine to be considered under standards contemporary at the time of the offense, not the standards of 1791, hence the deliberately vague language.
If you get a fine of $500,000 for a broken tail light, the Constitution does not tell a court that is excessive just by reading the text. It only tells the court that you have a right against being fined excessively. It forces a court to consider the current state of fines and punishment in other jurisdictions. If your state is the only one in the country that imposes a fine over $500 for a broken tail light, a court would be compelled to enforce your constitutional right and reverse the fine. If the court defers to the democratic process and legislative will, without considering whether the fine is excessive, it is not doing its job ensuring that individual rights are protected against state action. This is exactly contrary to the Constitution, which provides you a right against excessive fines, and Marbury, which established that courts can overturn unconstitutional state actions and laws.
Only difference with the intentionally vague “excessive fines” language and the intentionally vague “cruel and unusual punishments” language in this child rape case is the closeness of the question and the emotions involved. The Court still had the duty to seriously consider the issue as even a child rapist retains constitutional rights. You can disagree with the majority in this case, as did four other Justices. But you can’t deny they were compelled by the Constitution to consider it, and in deciding that this punishment was cruel and unusual under contemporary standards, determine with independent judgment what those standards are today.
The very nature of the vague and shifting cruel and unusual standard requires a court to impose its judgment on whether the state’s legislature crossed the line, by considering the wider context of the current state of society and what other jurisdictions are doing and why. It isn’t usurping legislative will, it’s protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in the way the framers intended and the states ratified. This case may well have been wrongly decided on the facts at the end, but in terms of the process, the duty of the court to examine state action in light of protected constitutional rights, there is nothing remarkable about the decision.
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:40 pmThat is the problem I have with the concept of “evolving standards of decency”.
After all, society can evolve where it is “decent” to stone women to death because they committed adultery, or to gas people to death because they are Jews.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:47 pmCastrate the b@st@rd and then throw him into general population and let the prisoners take care of him.
Sara (3337ed) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:49 pmI agree with Justice Alito’s dissent, except for the very last part, where he comes to the conclusion that the presumption that a state action is constitutional should overcome overcome the fact that extending the death penalty beyond crimes that cause the death of the victim puts us into an “an area where standards to confine its use are indefinite and obscure.”
Roberts goes on and on about all the different measurements that can be applied in order to limit the death penalty once you’ve let it out of the box. For those who are pro-death-penalty, that probably sounds pretty tempting — more criminals to kill!
But in fact, we’re talking about limiting the power of a state to kill people. I’m not broken up about putting the brightest-possible bright-line limit on that power. That, to me, is actually conservative.
Kennedy’s all-over-the-map reasoning just sets himself up for a point-by-point rebuttal from Alito. So Kennedy’s ultimate decision produced a conservative result, but it’s basically unintentionally so.
Phil (0ef625) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:55 pmThere is nothing “Conservative” about Kennedy’s “ultimate decision”, Phil.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 5:59 pmThere is nothing “Conservative” about Kennedy’s “ultimate decision”, Phil.
Sure there is. That’s why Obama agrees with Alito et all. He likes the idea of having virtually unlimited state power as long as he agrees with the ends achieved.
The dissent is actually being liberal — liberal about the state’s power to kill people. It’s of those things neocons are more liberal about than anyone.
Phil (0ef625) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:02 pmPhil, you seem to have no understanding of Conservative thought. Conservative ideology does not countenance any general limitation on state power to make and enforce criminal laws.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:05 pmNo, SPQR, you’re talking about Republican thought.
Phil (0ef625) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:06 pmYou have that backwards, Phil… Kennedy’s opinion removes power from the states, which is a Democrat goal, while Alito argues that the state should be allowed to decide – while not a “Republican” view much anymore due to fuckence from party leadership, it is textbook Alito in that it is strick constructionist.
And that at least makes it anti-democrat.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:07 pmYou are quite confused, Phil. But that’s common among people who misuse the term “neocon” as you do.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:07 pmHey, Phil, great use of the fallacy of equivocation there.
In case there are any idiots reading, that was not meant as a compliment.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:10 pmWell, unless Phil means the ORIGINAL meaning of “Liberal”, which hasn’t applied to the Democrats in at least 60 years…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:11 pmWLS, perhaps that was sloppy writing on my part, as I was trying to concede one point to make another point. I’m not sure that this language was intentionally left vague. But looking to modern definitions is necessary, isn’t it, to keep from having to constantly amend the Constitution? Does the 2nd amendment only cover ownership of 18th century muskets?
Take this exchange from Scalia’s confirmation hearing:
Nels Nelson (a474bc) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:12 pmScott, I don’t think Phil really understands any of the labels for political thought he throws around regardless of time period.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:13 pmSPQR, 43: “Phil, you seem to have no understanding of Conservative thought. Conservative ideology does not countenance any general limitation on state power to make and enforce criminal laws.”
You honestly can’t believe that. What the hell is the Bill of Rights other than general limitations on state power to make and enforce criminal laws?
A criminal law against public assemblies to worship Christ.
A criminal law against criticizing the government.
A law abolishing juries and attorney assistance in criminal cases.
Etc.
Conservative ideology doesn’t countenance any general limitations on state power to make and enforce these laws? What happened to the Constitution?
I think you have mixed up Conservative ideology with Totalitarian ideology.
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:26 pmLADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!
I present to you proof that Aplomb failed Civics class!!!
Aplomb, did you ever read the TENTH amendment?
And the Bill of rights specificly states things the Fed can’t do. Like make us testify against ourselves, or deny us a trial, or makes laws that restict speech…
The Bill of Rights is nothing BUT making sure the States have powers. In fact, the 10th says that unless specificly granted to the Fed or prohibited to the States, then they default to the States of the individual…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:30 pmLawyers, phugh! This child has been sentenced to a life of cruel punishment. She will be forever changed by this rape. I was raped as a 20 year old and only through the sheer force of will, do I keep it in the past and not let the scumbag haunt me and continue to control my life — until I feel threatened and then those feelings of hopelessness and helplessness return all out of proportion to the perceived threat most of the time. This man has sentenced this child to a lifetime of fear. She may not even remember why, but she will forever remember what that fear feels like.
Death to a child rapist is letting the scum off easy. Torture is too good for him.
Sara (3337ed) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:32 pmScott Jacobs, 52: So conservative ideology does not embrace the 14th Amendment?
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:33 pmI’m definitely not as nuanced as many here seem to be. Both sides of the aisle. So, I’ll just say a cruel and unusual punishment seems perfectly fitting for a cruel and unusual crime. Any nuanced person deem the child rape details to be anything other than cruel and unusual?
allan (27f9cd) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:36 pmI do believe you said “Bill of Rights”… Did they add to the ten, and not tell me?
And really, the 14th Amendment is hardly overly restrictive. It would still be up to the States to decide the application of teh Death Penalty, something Kennedy and most Liberals these days finds anathema…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:38 pmI wonder if Justice Kennedy’s decision would have been different if one of his granddaughters had been brutaly raped. You can’t kill this slug because he did not end that child’s life? Does the good justice really think that this child now has a life?
Her life is basically ended. She will spend years in therapy and will never have a normal life that women have. She will never have a child, be able to sustain a relationship with a husband. There are more ways to end a life beside stopping the beating of a person’s heart.
Where is NOW on this ruling? Arn’t they the organization that is always telling us they fight for the rights of women (and little girls)? Oddly silent just as they are on the many crimes against women in the rest of the world.
This ruling sickens me. If that were my daughter, I can promise you, that slug would have never made it to the Supreme Court building. Can anyone tell me how Mark Lundsford is feeling tonight? Justice Kennedy? Hello?
Basically, the SCOTUS is sending their message loud and clear: they are the ruling body of this nation and the legislative and executive be damned. Five UNELECTED black robes have decided that our property rights can be violated (Kelo), POWs not covered by Geneva can be treated like citizens and national security be damned, and now our children are expendable so we can have an evolving standard of decency.
So what is left for the American people? How do we stop a train that is burning up the track to change our nation into it’s opinion of a socialist utopia? What recourse do Americans have? How many SCOTUS justices in the history of our nation have ever been impeached? One?
Next? Abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Compliments of five black robed gods.
retire05 (5fcc71) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:39 pmExactly Allan. Cruel and unusual would be dead by sodomy for shop-lifting, not for brutally raping and perminately disfiguring a young child…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:40 pmAplomb, you are just being an ass frankly. Try to follow the context here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:42 pmCongress can strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction. What happens next?
We pick our federal judges and justices when we pick our President and Congress. Vote. (Republicans vote on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Democrats vote on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.) Your vote counts more than you may think it does.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:47 pmScott Jacobs, 56: “I do believe you said “Bill of Rights”… Did they add to the ten, and not tell me?
And really, the 14th Amendment is hardly overly restrictive. It would still be up to the States to decide the application of teh Death Penalty, something Kennedy and most Liberals these days finds anathema…”
So, if the 14th Amendment is not overly restrictive, and it is not up to the Supreme Court to apply Bill of Rights personal freedoms to the states (despite the 14th Amendment) in the case of the 8th Amendment . . .
I guess tomorrow you hope the Court decides that despite the 2nd Amendment, states are free to ignore the right to carry handguns and pass laws againt it? That’s only a limitation on the Federal government?
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:50 pmI am going to trust that the Bubbas of Louisiana will apply the Dahmer solution, but with the twist of some hard objects first.
Sara (3337ed) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:50 pmThe concept of “or to the individual” in the 10th, and “individual right” (as has LONG been the collective beliefe) for the 2nd just sails right past you…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/25/2008 @ 6:55 pmIt doesn’t sail by me, I want to know what the difference is.
If the Second confers an individual right, why does that constrain a state from passing a law against handguns if the Bill of Rights only restricts Federal action? What is the difference between the individual right to carry a gun and the individual right against cruel and unusual punishment, in terms of State laws infringing either?
If the Tenth reserves an individual right to carry guns that each state must respect, why doesn’t it reserve an individual right against cruel and unusual punishment that each state must respect?
How do the individual rights contained in the Second and Eighth differ, in terms of the Supreme Court’s ability to restrict state laws that might infringe those individual rights?
Aplomb (c2286c) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:01 pmSo rapist can have a free shot at Kennedy’s grandchildren or other offspring. I have seen the old saying ‘what goes around, comes around’ come true a lot of times. Kennedy is open to the challenge by any rapist in the country.
Scrapiron (d671ab) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:01 pmScott, I don’t think Phil really understands any of the labels for political thought he throws around regardless of time period.
I understand what “conservative” and “liberal” mean. They are adjectives, not nouns, and I used them as such. You’re the one that started using capital letters and for some reason treating them as nouns.
Phil (0ef625) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:03 pmNo, Phil, this was not a small “c” conservative opinion. It was an activist opinion taking the liberal position to a “bright line” which may also be called “legislating from the bench” although I prefer Justice Black’s “permanent constitutional convention”.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:19 pmNo, Phil, what you have been doing is just inventing Conservative ideology by pulling out of your backside something that has nothing to do with actual Conservative ideology. There is absolutely no support for your assertion that limiting the ability of states to decide the punishment of crimes under their jurisdiction is a Conservative idea. You just invented that yourself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:30 pmKill them all.
love2008 (1b037c) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:32 pmEven if we are to accept that “cruel and unusual” contains within it an explicit direction to evolve with the times, it does not rationally follow that executing a child rapist is unconstitutional, nor that Eighth Amendment jurisprudence takes the form given to it by the liberal Court.
The states were meant to be “laboratories of experimentation.” We could determine the answer to empirical, policy-oriented questions by enacting certain laws in one state and comparing the results to other states. If the experiment worked, other states could adopt the same measures.
“Unusual,” then, must mean something more than “not average.” We cannot simply consider one side of the bell curve to be “unusual” and then outlaw it by constitutional fiat. To do so imposes a rigid uniformity on states, the demands of which are the most lenient of punishments for any criminal act.
If execution for child rape is now “cruel and unusual,” then it follows that states which had similarly “unusual” statutes to provide for the death penalty for one murder only (instead of multiple murders, for example) would likewise be “cruel and unusual.”
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:34 pmOver 200 years ago, it was decided that impeachment not be used to redress court decisions, but what else is there when a court repeatedly abuses its authority? Is there a point where justices would be impeached?
If the Court were to rule that it was OK for the government to censor “untrue” criticisms of the President, based on some mumbo-jumbo about evolving standards of deference seen in other countries (e.g. Asia, Africa, Russia), would that be enough?
Or not only overturn Roe, but add that abortion was always a violation of the Constitutional rights of the unborn based on a penumbra of rights emanating from the 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Would that be enough?
At what point does Congress abandon the prohibition on judicial impeachment for judicial nonsense? There really ought to be an effective check and balance here….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/25/2008 @ 7:49 pmmost of us pagans have no trouble executing people if our sensibilities are sufficiently outraged, such as by the rape of a child. the talk on here about constitutional amendments and impeachment overlooks another option: secession/dissolution of the union. look what happened to the soviet union at the end of the 1980s, it was an economic transition dictated by antisynergy, where the whole was no longer greater than the sum of the parts. think that can’t happen here?
assistant devil's advocate (d931dc) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:33 pm#69 – love2008
That’s your best comment EVER!
Icy Truth (1e7f95) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:36 pmHey, love2008. You were referring to Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, et al; right?
Icy Truth (1e7f95) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:40 pmBridge, your posts are brilliant as always, but please stop giving Tony Kennedy more ideas for his continuing drift to the left. Even in my Death Penalty class there were certain clever ideas I avoided expressing because I knew the future Brennans would take them and run 😛
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:42 pmPhil has resumed pulling shit out of his arse. Aplomb has no problem with the Court usurping the role of the Legislature. If they chuck out the 2nd Amendment based on the liberals feelings, it ain’t gonna be pretty.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:47 pmAlan,
If you are the Alan I think you are – have you stalked me all the way over here? :p
You should have taken Abortion Controversy instead. 🙂 (Better yet, you should have taken Bioethics, which would have made three conservatives in the class!)
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:48 pmI’ll assume that was a rhetorical question. I’m heartbroken you didn’t notice sooner, really. But that’s what you always do, isn’t it? 😀
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:52 pmHeartbreaker? Moi?
I thought it was you, because you’ve mentioned reading Patterico, but you never used “Alan” when you’ve responded on my blogs. I was certain that this “Alan” creature had to be an entirely different person than the one who calls me Amy because he doesn’t know any better. 🙂
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:57 pmP.S. Check your email.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 8:58 pm#74
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:06 pm“Hey, love2008. You were referring to Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, et al; right?”
Yep!
Called. I haven’t done it since fall 2007 and I don’t plan to do it again for at least a few days.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:08 pmThe 14th Amendment does that, by constraining States from abridging the rights protected by the Federal level Constitution. (The actual language used is “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.
Part of the privilege and (legal) immunity of being a citizen of the United States (as opposed to being a citizen of just California) includes the protection of the Second Amendment, including that whole “shall not be abridged” part…
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:11 pmAwwww… heartwarming to know that I’m still interchangeable with Amy. 🙂
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:16 pmHenceforth, only when I’m royally pissed at you.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:21 pmWhich is pretty much every day. 😉 I seem to have that effect upon you. 🙂
Cheer up. The bar exam will be over in six weeks!
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:23 pmOh, you’re a cruel one to remind me of that.
Now, to make a voodoo doll of you, what materials do I need?
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:24 pmBut, anyway, back to why Tony Kennedy sucks.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:25 pmSugar and spice and everything nice.
Or just a lot of chocolate. But what a waste of a perfectly delectable foodstuff.
That’s a broad subject. Why not make a voodoo doll out of him instead of me?
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:28 pmscott jacobs will be heartbroken to see that mister alan has a senior encumbrance on the affections of this bright young lawbabe.
assistant devil's advocate (d931dc) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:29 pmDude, don’t get all Secured Transactions on me.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:31 pmYou are way out of line here.
The judicial branch is a 1/3 co equal branch of the greatest government in the history of the earth.
They did their job.
Go fornicate with yourself.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:31 pmIf our government is the greatest in the history of the earth, it’s not because of decisions like this one. And I shan’t fornicate with myself; I’m holding out for a two.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:34 pmADA – Alan and I know each other from law school. We’ve been irking each other for a while now.
You Ivy Leaguers… so many standards.
They ought to start acting like it, rather than running amok and engaging in the jurisprudential equivalent of, “You can’t make me, nah nah nah.”
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:45 pmjharp can only fornicate with him/herself, if at all. There’s not that much demand for middle-aged, droopy-breasted bearded ladies.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:45 pmI don’t understand “so many standards.” I have but one standard: anything that’s female, human, and not retarded is good enough for me.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:46 pm“If our government is the greatest in the history of the earth, it’s not because of decisions like this one.”
Yeah, a really big decision that will 0 effect on 299,999,999 people.
Who really gives a fuck. Lock em up. It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Meanwhile….. war, foreclosure, dollar sucks, $136 oil, $4 gas.
And a half a dozen Americans will spend the rest of their life in prison instead of being executed at 5 times the cost.
No wonder our great country is fucked.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:47 pmi’d be more impressed with the claim that we have the greatest government in the history of the earth if our currency hadn’t devalued by almost half during the current administration.
alan is holding out for a two, ok alan, here’s a tip: get her name right! bridget is not amy. amy is not bridget. carol is not jean. tiffany is not madison…
assistant devil's advocate (d931dc) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:51 pmForeclosure is the economy’s way of saying you can’t get away with not paying your debts. You can think of it as pest control if you like. Or perhaps not–Congress is about to bail everyone out, apparently on the theory that personal responsibility is un-American. (I’m reminded of that old Bloom County comic strip where Steve Dallas says something to the effect of, “Who fired half their government when their space shuttle landed where it shouldn’t have? THE COMMIES!!!“)
A bullet costs pennies. Get rid of this insanely complex appeals process and the death penalty’s real economic cost will be shown to be a fraction of what it currently is. Get rid of the death penalty and the resources that are pumped into blocking the imposition of death sentences will be redirected toward getting life sentences invalidated or otherwise cut short. I remember when the New York Times (always wrong but never in doubt) called life imprisonment “death in all but name.” Lawyers will be only too happy to take up the anti-life-imprisonment movement when the death penalty gives way. Then we’ll be hearing about how expensive it is to lock someone up for life…
Our country is fucked because of people like you.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:53 pmAnd a half a dozen Americans will spend the rest of their life in prison instead of being executed at 5 times the cost.
I’ll be very glad to donate my garden spade and even wield its edge against the base of his skull. I’ve had it for a while but I think I paid less than $20.00 for it.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:54 pm“i’d be more impressed with the claim that we have the greatest government in the history of the earth if our currency hadn’t devalued by almost half during the current administration.”
Keep the faith. It’s just that we’ve just endured the worst administration in U.S. history.
We’ll make a comeback.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:55 pmADA: Thank you for expressing concern about the currency. I thought I was the only one.
As for bridget, apparently she’d tear a hamstring stooping to my level. (So she said, anyway.) Besides, she’s really more of a six.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:56 pmJust kidding, Bridge.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 9:56 pmAlan,
Do you not realize that whether or not we execute criminals is nothing compared to issues we face.
We always used to call your type “majoring in the minors”.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:00 pmHarpy, are you allergic to specifics? Were you raised by bumper stickers? Or is it just fun for you to make assertions rather than arguments?
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:01 pmOuch! Ouch! I felt that from over here. :p
Look, we’ve been over this: I have three main dating rules. You violate two of them. No, they don’t cancel each other out, and no, it’s not a “any one of the three” thing.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:03 pm:snif snif: I smell bullshit coming over from comment #106…
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:05 pmbesides, she’s really more of a six.
oh noes! somebody needs to hire a seduction coach.
majoring in the minors.
since you raised the subject, i’d be happy to examine your major league credentials.
i have three main dating rules.
please elaborate.
assistant devil's advocate (98252c) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:11 pm“Harpy, are you allergic to specifics? Were you raised by bumper stickers? Or is it just fun for you to make assertions rather than arguments?”
I truly don’t know you intended by this post but I’ll try to be clear.
A 1/3 co equal branch of the greatest government ever in the history of the earth made a decision today that you disagree with that will affect a minute portion of Americans.
And dickheads like you use something like this to distract from the very serious issues that affect 299,999,999 of the rest of the country.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:12 pmADA: The dating rules are what she tells me because she’s too polite to admit that the sight of me makes her shudder with bile-rising convulsions. She’s a dork like me, so she understands the value of not hurting other people’s self-esteem. I.e., she lies like a rug about the reasons why she wouldn’t date me, lest I find out the real reason, which is ironic because the more implausible the lie, the more obvious and hence the more insulting the truth. (E.g., when a woman says, “I don’t date guys from my dorm,” which is a lie someone else told me, it clearly means, “If you were in my toilet bowl, I wouldn’t bother flushing it.”)
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:15 pmAlan, my twin will confirm the dating rules. They are, for those who don’t know me in person: no one younger, no one with the middle initial J, and no engineers.
I learned the hard way.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:19 pmjharp, your own fervor on this point vitiates your case for it. “dickheads” is somewhere between unhelpful and provocative in the language of diplomacy. your continuing references to “1/3 co-equal branches” erroneously suggests that the supreme court is like an orange in a paper bag containing three oranges; in actual fact, these oranges have complex, correlative roles, and many of us believe that the judicial orange usurped the role of the legislative orange today.
assistant devil's advocate (98252c) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:22 pmThe number of Americans affected by the decision has no relevance to the illegitimacy of the decision. And the fact that the Supreme Court is a coequal branch of the government has no relevance to whether its behavior in this case was legitimate. The assertion that ours is the greatest government ever, if true, doesn’t owe its truth to decisions like this. You can’t cloak a judicial decision in legitimacy by pointing out that the institution is part of a great government. What you said of Kennedy v. Louisiana can with equal correctness be said of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Korematsu v. United States, Stenberg v. Carhart, Roe v. Wade, and other monstrosities. All of those horrific decisions were handed down by a co-equal branch of history’s greatest government. That doesn’t make those decisions legitimate.
And I’m not comparing Kennedy to Dred Scott–I’m simply showing you that the lofty terms you use have no relevance to this discussion, because they can be said of absolutely any Supreme Court decision. The greatness of our government and the judiciary’s role in that government have nothing to do with whether this decision were correct, or even defensible. The courts have done very, very bad things, and this isn’t the worst, but it’s horrible, even though it doesn’t affect that many people, because it’s pure judicial legislation.
I don’t use this decision to distract from more important issues. I think all the issues deserve attention–including the issue of judicial overreach. Just because we’re discussing this case doesn’t mean we’re trying to distract anyone from the other issues. Unless you think that any time we discuss any issue other than the most important ones, that somehow means we’re distracting people from the bigger issues. I guess, by that logic, when you talk about the fourth-most-important issue (whatever that is), you must be distracting everyone from the third-most-important issue, and so on. But of course that’s stupid logic.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:23 pmADA: You’re wrong. It helps jharp to call us dickheads, because that distracts us, if only temporarily, from his shoddy reasoning.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:25 pmADA: I think you see what I mean about how the more implausible the lie, the more obvious the truth. But she’s such a charmer it’s impossible to be mad at her!
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:28 pmJust out of curiosity, what were those values in late October, 2006 (just before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress)?
Because my almanac says they were barely half that (USA Today reported the US average as of Wednesday, October 18, 2006, was $2.219/gallon (Link) and crude oil was less than $70/barrel.)
The prices were relatively stable throughout the first six years of Bush’s tenure, but shot up drastically in the last 18 months. Almost doubled in 20 months.
Gee, which branch of government is it that legislates energy policy? And which party is in charge of both chambers of that branch?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:30 pmalan, i have some good news for you. you’re definitely on bridget’s radar, and as i have found, it is actually a better prospect for the future to be disliked by a woman than to be thought too inconsequential for her to acknowledge you.
bridget’s rules: there ought to be a gray zone for men who are slightly younger than you are; maybe alan is an older soul in a younger body, doesn’t that beat the reverse alternative? i don’t see how the middle initial makes a difference. there are a lot of bad engineers out there to date, but there are also some terrific engineers.
assistant devil's advocate (98252c) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:31 pmDrumwaster: a few more years, and the judicial branch–oops, I mean, Anthony Kennedy–might be the one legislating energy policy. lol
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:32 pmSo if it affected more people (say, just about 4,000 of those 300 million), you’d be perfectly okay with a unilateral decision from a different “1/3 co equal branch of the greatest government ever in the history of the earth”?
Or are you this insistent only with things you want to agree with?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:34 pmStates just need to ignore these dumbass scotus rulings. Are your Bader Ginsburg’s and Souter’s gonna assemble some kind of nambla army together to enforce their perverted pontifications?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:42 pmI’m torn on this one. I am strongly in favor of the death penalty for murder. I am strongly in favor of three strikes laws that have automatic long sentences regardless of how petty the new crime might be. Yet, I am sure that the death penalty for crimes that do not, or are not likely to, result in death is a disproportionate penalty. I think that I would come to the same result as SCOTUS did.
Ira (5a8831) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:42 pmFor the record I don’t give a dam about the Supreme court’s decision today. I don’ think it amounts to much at all.
And drumwater you are a complete fool to somehow blame the 18 month old slight dem majority Congress (49-49-2 Senate) for the fucked up state of affairs we are in.
And with a republican majority Supreme court and republican President to boot.
God help us with folks like you out there.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:45 pm“States just need to ignore these dumbass scotus rulings.”
Good one j curtis. Some sound reasoning there. What could you possibly be thinking I have no idea.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:48 pmThis is just another shot across-the-bow of the Legislative Branch.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:49 pmAny Member of Congress, who fails to introduce – and support – legislation to over-rule the outrageous rulings spewing from the fertid brain of J.Kennedy, or won’t support impeachment, should be voted out of office.
But, of course, the collection of linguini-spines on the Hill will do what they always do: Nothing!
Will this be the time that the People will have to take matters into their own hands?
“And drumwater you are a complete fool to somehow blame the 18 month old slight dem majority Congress (49-49-2 Senate) for the fucked up state of affairs we are in.”
You’re the one who brought up the gas prices. So ADA brought up the gas prices when the Republicans controlled Congress, versus the gas prices when the Democrats controlled Congress. Now you’re saying you don’t want to hear that. Does it embarrass you to be so damn inconsistent? I mean, you’re making factual statements that you can’t possibly support (blaming Bush for the gas prices), and when someone shows you why you can’t support the wild claims you make, you bitch and moan and say “God help us with folks like you out there.”
You’re not an intellectually serious person. That’s obvious. You’re just a blind partisan hypocrite.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:51 pm123
Probably the same thing Lincoln was thinking when he pissed on the Dred Scott ruling.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:52 pmExcuse me, that was Drumwaster, not ADA.
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 10:52 pm“And drumwater you are a complete fool to somehow blame the 18 month old slight dem majority Congress (49-49-2 Senate) for the fucked up state of affairs we are in.”
You’re the one who brought up the gas prices. So ADA brought up the gas prices when the Republicans controlled Congress, versus the gas prices when the Democrats controlled Congress. Now you’re saying you don’t want to hear that. Does it embarrass you to be so damn inconsistent? I mean, you’re making factual statements that you can’t possibly support (blaming Bush for the gas prices), and when someone shows you why you can’t support the wild claims you make, you bitch and moan and say “God help us with folks like you out there.”
You had better get yourself into rehab and soon.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 11:06 pmRehab for what, moron?
Alan (0cf397) — 6/25/2008 @ 11:13 pm“And drumwater you are a complete fool to somehow blame the 18 month old slight dem majority Congress (49-49-2 Senate) for the fucked up state of affairs we are in.”
“You’re the one who brought up the gas prices.”
From the response above it’s pretty obvious that you’re not thinking clearly. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it’s either booze or drugs. If it’s simply that you’re dimwitted I apologize.
jharp (cb7adf) — 6/25/2008 @ 11:44 pmDamn, and I had a shot until that last one. Story of my life.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/25/2008 @ 11:45 pm#122 – jharp
And with a republican majority Supreme court and republican President to boot.
— Since when is there a Republican majority on the Supreme Court?
Icy Truth (1e7f95) — 6/26/2008 @ 2:21 am– Since when is there a Republican majority on the Supreme Court?
The pretense that the court is Conservative is annoying. There’s an attempt based on the appointing president to make this claim. Nevermind that some Republican Presidents were appointing ‘moderates’ (who later turned out to be liberals) as an olive branch attempt of dealing with a hostile Democratic legislatures.
That and Souter just plain lied, imho.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 6/26/2008 @ 3:35 amWoohoo!
There’s hope yet!!
*winks*
And the age to not be younger than would be what? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:07 amjharp is just one of those misery pimps. He thinks by endlessly repeating the same stats about the war, the economy, etc … that he is making some kind of profound statement. I was going to say it is Levi, without the cussing, but it has taken to profanity in a short amount of time.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:25 amthis article provides hope that maybe people are fed up w/ these kind of decisions from the court. perhaps the senate needs to review the docket each session and decide which cases the supremes can hear and which they cant. kind of remind them the system is one of checks and balances not oversight.
chas (3a293b) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:38 amI know this is a stoooooooooopid stooooooooooopid question, but by what authority does this band of SC Justices take on the role of a Legislature?
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 6:39 amFirst, the SCOTUS is non-partisan, and that is their raison d’etre, to break the ties between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Second, I can’t imagine that you would claim that Republicans are sui generis pro-death penalty while claiming that a 5-4 decision against the application of the DP is somehow the result of a Republican Court. (Them pesky facts again.)
But you’re avoiding the question. Since when does SCOTUS legislate energy policy? Please provide examples of this phenomenon.
Wait, with a split like that, then Harry Reid wouldn’t be Senate Majority Leader, because Cheney would break any such tie in favor of the Administration, but since your “2” are Joe “Independent Democrat” Liebermann and Bernie Sanders who would be as close to being an official Socialist as you can get and still get elected in the US. (He openly admits to being a Socialist.)
So the reality is 51-49 in favor of the Democrats.
You’re trying to ignore reality and the facts will always trip up stupidity of the level you are displaying.
Once again, which branch is the one that writes the laws, and which party controls that branch?
As far as saying that I can’t blame the sudden spike with the Dem takeover of Congress (especially since they coincide so neatly) while you blame Bush (despite the fact that oil and gas prices held fairly steady during the previous six years, including the 9/11 attacks, Katrina/Rita, and two wars in the Middle East, and only started spiking after the Dem majority was elected in November ’06, nearly doubling since then), that is intellectual laziness that I find reprehensible in anyone but you.
You are forgiven since you clearly have nothing else to offer but blind partisanship and angst.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 6:41 amIf all I did was listen to neocons, I’d think that the only constitutional things a government can do are kill more people, imprison them for longer, imprison them faster, torture them more often, or deport them more.
As I’ve said before, Republicans have become the party of “kill, torture and imprison.” What other goals do they have, really? Oh yeah — I forgot deporting/building border walls. Republicans are the party for that, too.
They only way they can convice anyone to vote for them is to scare them into thinking they need them around to fight the even scarier people “out there” who are threatening us.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the big-government Democrats, but at least they want to use big government for something besides killing, torturing, and imprisoning.
Especially since it turns out Republicans are willing to spend just as much money as Democrats — but just to further killing, torturing and imprisoning (oh, and deporting/building fences).
The Democrats might not be practical, sensible, or thrifty, which turns me off, but at least they’re trying to spend money on things like healthcare and education and supporting the elderly/poor.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 6/26/2008 @ 6:42 amThis is one of the standard Leftist talking points, where they forever declare Souter a Republican because he was appointed by a Republican. They cannot imagine that he is not, because Lord knows, their nominees remain firmly in the Ginsberg camp.
Drumwater – They have no problem legislating other issues? Why not energy policy?
Phil has trotted this one out before. It is completely devoid of substance, but apparently the voices in his head are getting a little rowdy again. Racists.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 6:52 amWell, if it’s any consolation, at least “only” four members of the Superlegislature saw fit to judicially decimate the Bill of Rights today. Maybe this was the strategy, to release all their outrageous opinions first, then end on a more sensible note so we’d remember them in a more positive light.
Xrlq (b71926) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:23 am“They only way they can convice anyone to vote for them is to scare them into thinking they need them around to fight the even scarier people “out there” who are threatening us.”
Phil – Isn’t that EXACTLY what Barry O tried to do Friday night?
The politics of fear!
Catch the fever!
Let’s play two!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:24 am“The Democrats might not be practical, sensible, or thrifty, which turns me off, but at least they’re trying to spend money on things like healthcare and education and supporting the elderly/poor.”
Phil – Check Bush’s record in these areas. He has been no slouch and it is one reason he has angered conservatives, but it is nice of you to overlook it with your idealogical blinders.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:27 amBecause Democrats NEVER do this, do they? They don’t have any “vote Republican and more black churches will burn” ads running, do they? (At least not this cycle, but it is still early on…)
Except that Dems think the threat is inside the borders of the US (them mean ol’ nasty patriotic Rethuglicans who are preventing this country from becoming the haven of peace and light and puppies and kittens and chocolate sprinkles and licorice rainbows the Democrats would make it into, if only those evil Rethugs would just die off en masse), while the Right side of the aisle is trying to prevent us from having an 11th century mindset (that represses women, kills homosexuals, and imprisons and tortures political opponents) succeed in killing everyone they can who doesn’t agree with them…
It ain’t just a river in Egypt, pal…
Show me where the Constitution gives this – ANY of this – authority to the Federal Government. Article and Section, please. (Include the paragraph, where appropriate.)
I’m not saying they couldn’t, nor that they won’t. I’m saying that they haven’t (yet), and therefore cannot be held responsible for writing the laws that create and amend national energy policy over the past 18 months.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:27 amDrum – We can thank San Fran Nan and Dirty Harry for the gas prices, to be sure. We are still waiting on their plan to reduce prices. So far, all we have heard is their idea for a punitive windfall profits confiscatory tax. Even Warren Buffet had to point out how egregiously wrong they are.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:42 amTo quote Baba Wawa: “Twoo. Vewy twoo.”
(Of course, I denounce myself for saying such a thing.)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:52 amDrumwaster – A denunciation is redundant. It is a given that you are a jingoistic xenophobic racist sexist homophobe that rapes Mother Gaia for fun.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:55 amJD – You are a misogynistic meateater who believes liberalism is a mental disease.
I love you man!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:57 amAllah dammit, daleyrocks. If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times that you simply cannot accurately describe me without the use of the terms jingoistic, carnivore, xenophobic, racist, sexist, and homophobic.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:01 amJust as long as it is understood, then…
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:05 amSorry JD, I was trying to be brief.
Aloha snackbar.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:06 amWhen SCOTUS came out with Massachusetts v. EPA, they started legislating energy.
davod (5bdbd3) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:10 amGot a link? You have piqued my curiosity.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:12 amThat was earlier this year on regulating CO2 as a pollutant, wasn’t it?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:15 amIs this “impeach ’em all” month at Patterico? First Kozinski, now the five liberal Supreme Court justices.
This time around, an impeachment process would give more rights to state legislatures and the people who would enact laws that they like. We can easily imagine a situation in which the Supreme Court had ruled that state legislation comported with the Constitution, and Senators disliked the decision enough to begin impeachment proceedings. That would give the Congress, as well as the Supreme Court, oversight and veto powers over state legislation – a situation that greatly augments the power of the federal government and diminishes the ability of the people to effectively govern themselves.
The proper time to vet Supreme Court justices is during nomination hearings. We allow a substantial amount of intrusion and questioning up front so that the judges may govern as a co-equal and independent branch of government after nomination.
I will note that this is another problem with the Seventeenth Amendment: Senators have no incentive to veto nominees who have no regard for state legislation.
While the Supreme Court’s record of shaping state law to fit its own policy considerations is shameful at best, the answer is not to make that branch a subsidiary one to Congress, whose record is not much better.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 8:55 amI looked up the case on Wiki, and don’t see it as legislating as much as getting a Federal Agency to actually enforce the laws on the books (written as far back as Carter).
I would disagree with the legal conclusion, since Executive Branch agencies usually have much broader discretion on HOW they choose to enforce laws, and the harm specified (global warming, therefore Massachusetts might lose some land if the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise) was wildly speculative (it’s well beyond the purpose of a judicial branch to decide scientific questions), but I don’t see them as writing laws in the EPA case (as they did here).
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:04 amScott Jacobs – you’re slightly older than I am.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:07 amImpeachment cases have a high hurdle- two-thirds of the Senate must affirm for removal.
While the authors of the Constitution did not want judges to have absolute immunity for their actions, neither did they want judges to be removed at a whim.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:11 am[in best Homer Simpson voice] Woohoo!
So, where would you like to eat in celebration of your kicking the bar exam’s ass?
🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:18 amWhich is only 17 more votes than they need to be put on the bench (or kept off of it) in the first place.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:19 amPhil does not have ideological blinkers, he’s completely ignorant of any ideological concepts at all that don’t come from his fevered imagination.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:22 amAs has been said,
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:24 amSomeplace that serves vegetarian food.
[Waits for nk to browbeat Scott Jacobs about not pursuing Volvo-driving vegetarian lady lawyers.]
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:28 amEh. No one’s perfect, Bridget…
I, for example, am just too humble… 😉
So long as you aren’t militant and will allow me my steak and non-boca burgers, we’ll be fine. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:29 amWhen it comes to eating meat – I’m pro-choice. 🙂
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:35 am[Waits for nk to browbeat Scott Jacobs about not pursuing Volvo-driving vegetarian lady lawyers.]
Nope. I have said what I have said but I wish I hadn’t. Like my father said (truly) “the worst woman for the whole rest of the world could be the best woman in the whole world for you”.
Scott, keep your guard up, but never be afraid to approach ladies.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:36 amP.S. If you do go to a vegetarian place, Scott, have the cabbage and rice. (I make it with a red, buttery broth but recipes vary.) You won’t notice that you’re not eating meat.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:42 amLike McDonald’s?
They serve salads and French fries.
Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:47 amYou glorious woman you… 🙂
And for the record, I pass the other two rules as well…
Guess I need to find an all-vegie recipie that doesn’t even include chicken broth…
Hrmmm… Would steak-sause be verbotten? I have something for eggplant I’ve been meaning to try…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:50 amI am not glorious, as Alan will tell anyone within earshot. He’s actually met me… and been in class with me.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:52 amPlease… I have way more class than that…
I was thinking a Wendy’s that had a salad bar… 😉
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:52 amBah. I refuse to believe such lies.
With out a doubt Alan is just trying to hide his desire for you…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 9:54 amA1 is actually vegan. (Weird, I know.)
Would that “buttery red broth” actually be known as “beef?” :p
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:08 amNo, because then you would catch on. 🙂
I assume you’re vegetarian by choice, not dietary requirement?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:13 amBy choice initially. As I haven’t eaten meat in about 10 years, though, it might to strange things to my body.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:23 amIn the spirit of never, ever finding out, I swear to God I’ll never intentionally add anything even resembling meat into food I make you…
*shudders*
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:27 amWould that “buttery red broth” actually be known as “beef?”
No. It contains half a stick of butter. The recipe is actually very straightforward. Chop an onion. Chop a cabbage. In an eight-quart pot drop a tablespoon of olive oil. Brown the onion. Brown two heaping tablespoons of tomato paste. Add just enough water to cover the cabbage. Add the butter. Add salt and pepper. Add cabbage. Cabbage will produce own water. Cover. Simmer cabbage to a little below desired tenderness. Add rice. Cook covered until rice cooks the way you like it. The only delicate operation is the amount of water which will determine whether you get soggy or separated rice.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:37 amEh – just promise to hold my hair back. 🙂
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:38 am*Cook covered until rice cooks the way you like it.*
At low heat.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:39 amGod, that almost sounds good…
I just usually can’t STAND cabbage, and only like it when it comes as part of the vegie-stuff you get when you order something at a japanese restaraunt…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:42 amLet’s be honest: most cooked cabbage smells like baby’s diapers. [nose crinkle]
I would rather smell steak or pork.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:44 amYou want me topull your hair?
My my my… Are you the fast mover… 😉
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:44 amI think I missed something….
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:45 amJust me being pervy… It happens… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:48 amI still think I missed something.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 12:12 pmNow here is an application for pepper spray, bridget …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2008 @ 12:17 pmOi! Silence from the Peanut Gallery!!
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 12:20 pmafter reading some of this, i’m wondering if there’s an upper age limit in bridget’s rules. i’m 53 and still have 90% of my hair; also, no middle initial at all and no professional engineering.
assistant devil's advocate (83fe12) — 6/26/2008 @ 12:43 pmI swear to God ADA, if you ruin this for me…
🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/26/2008 @ 12:47 pmROFL.
ADA – may I plead the Fifth?
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 3:16 pmI feel so unloved…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 4:27 pmWhy? I didn’t insert this into my comments:
Why the lack of love? Maybe you should get a dog – they’re good for unconditional love and affection.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 4:39 pmIt burns! It burns like hygein!!!
*Note: Odds are good you don’t read the webcomic that’s from. You seem like someone with taste… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 4:58 pmMace the dog too, that’s what I recommend.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:00 pmNot helping!!!
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:01 pmAnd why get a dog, I have a cat…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:08 pm(Small voice): no idea.
SPQR: I’m a dog lover. There will be no Macing of dogs.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:11 pmGreat… Now you have me missing my old Westie…
Darn you people…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:15 pmScott – Were you planning on fessing up about your chronic flatulence problem or were you going to save that as a surprise.
I’m sure some women may view that as a feature and not a bug.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:25 pmDogs have owners. Cats have staff.
Dogs will come when you call. Cats will take a message and get back to you later.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:26 pmNever did like you, Daley… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:29 pmEeeewwwww!
I’m not one of those women. This obviously isn’t going to work.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 5:39 pmUndone by Daley’s lies…
Curse you Daleyrocks, and your sudden yet inevitable betrayal..
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 6:08 pmDon’t give up, Scott. Where would the world be today if Columbus had turned back? If Washington had said “Valley Forge is too cold, I’m off to the Bahamas”? If Sir Edmund Hillary had said “I ain’t climbing that thing”?
What seems insurmountable and inscrutable turns out to be anything but to those who try.
Fortuna fortes faves.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:24 pmDraco dormiens nunquam titillandus
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:29 pmSpeak english, damnit!!!
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:31 pmRomanes eunt domus
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:34 pmI would never do that, Drumwaster. I appreciate my own nap time too much.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:34 pmSpeak English, damnit!!!
Fortune favors the brave.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:36 pmNever tickle a sleeping dragon.
The Romanes family is going to their home.
Centurion: What’s this, then? “Romanes eunt domus”? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/26/2008 @ 7:46 pmBrian: It says, “Romans go home. ”
Centurion: No it doesn’t ! What’s the latin for “Roman”? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, “Romanus” !
Centurion: Vocative plural of “Romanus” is?
Brian: Er, er, “Romani” !
Centurion: [Writes “Romani” over Brian’s graffiti] “Eunt”? What is “eunt”? Conjugate the verb, “to go” !
Brian: Er, “Ire”. Er, “eo”, “is”, “it”, “imus”, “itis”, “eunt”.
Centurion: So, “eunt” is…?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, “they go”.
Centurion: But, “Romans, go home” is an order. So you must use…?
[He twists Brian’s ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is…?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, “i” !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, “ite” !
Centurion: [Writes “ite”] “Domus”? Nominative? “Go home” is motion towards, isn’t it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, “Domum” !
Centurion: But “Domus” takes the locative, which is…?
Brian: Er, “Domum” !
Centurion: [Writes “Domum”] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it’s not done by sunrise, I’ll cut your balls off.
Finally – a cultural reference I understand! 🙂 Thank you, Drumwaster. 🙂
bridget (add3eb) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:46 pmWell you should have SAID you were that kind of geek… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/26/2008 @ 10:51 pmOh, well, for the record: I’m that kind of geek.
bridget (add3eb) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:49 amI am still unconvinced that “Liberty Bells” isn’t the song that should play at my wedding…
Though “Yakety Sax” would probably fit too…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:53 amWhat does your future wife think of those plans?
bridget (add3eb) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:06 amI would need a future wife first…
You volunteering to take one for the team? 😉
Those are just the ones I’d like to hear. I highly suspect that should I get married (I think this has been covered) I will have zero say in anything…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:13 amWhat’s the Latin for “get a room”?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:17 am😛
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:21 amI get a finder’s fee whenever someone hooks up because of my blog.
5 dollars for a cheap one-night stand.
100 dollars if there is a second date.
And it goes up from there.
Scott, you still owe me 95 dollars — and 19 readers.
Patterico (1b1404) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:43 pmOh Good Lord.
I would need a future wife first…
You volunteering to take one for the team?
Mush.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:55 pmI get a finder’s fee whenever someone hooks up because of my blog.
Patterico, remember that DRJ isn’t around much these days, so Scott apparently had to find someone else to flirt with.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:56 pmWe need to point Scott at the conjugal harmony website.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:59 pmSigh. It’s not about Scott and what he needs. It’s all about the girl and …
Well, some they do and and some they don’t,
nk (11c9c1) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:20 pmAnd some you just can’t tell.
And some may will and some may won’t.
With some it’s just as well.
No, I was not volunteering – either for wifehood or one-night stands. There will be no “hooking up” because of Patterico’s blog – or if there is, I won’t be involved in it.
[nose crinkle]
bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:49 pmScott will be crushed…
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:56 pmUh-oh. He’s going to blame me.
Patterico (98e459) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:59 pmWell, at least that’s free… :-/
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:05 pmOh, please. Katiewithroses or AmyPeikoff will make a return appearance, and I’ll be yesterday’s news.
bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:07 pmI don’t think so.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:15 pmNever heard of ’em.
Patterico (783968) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:15 pmFor those hard up, recent spam offers people not seeking marriage material opportunity for one night stands at onlinebootycall dot com. I did’t bother looking at it. My big laugh was the contact from an allegedly 26 y.o. Russian beauty who has a job offer in Miami but found herself short of airfare. Somehow she managed to fall head over heels for geezer me with no effort on my part. Bottom line she needs $900 yet for ticket. I should send money western union to Moscow. Oh, it came with a nude pic. I guess some fall for these scams and so let the buyer beware.
Ain’t love grand?
madmax333 (a9a580) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:18 pmi would never do a hookup, but i’m not averse to a dalliance or a fling.
assistant devil's advocate (ade679) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:40 pmI’d think this would be motivating you to study more, bridget.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:41 pmThat it is, SPQR.
bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:22 pmif you come up here, i’ll give you a practice bar exam!
assistant devil's advocate (ade679) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:40 pmYou’re all horrible people, and I never liked any of you.
🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:35 pm