Patterico's Pontifications

10/15/2006

Scalia and Strossen on Civil Liberties: Fire Up Your TiVo NOW!

Filed under: Civil Liberties,General,Judiciary — Patterico @ 1:42 pm



Why God made TiVo:

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and America Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen discuss civil liberties at the ACLU Convention.”

It’s on C-SPAN at 5 p.m. Eastern, in just a few minutes. Run, don’t walk, to your DVR.

18 Responses to “Scalia and Strossen on Civil Liberties: Fire Up Your TiVo NOW!”

  1. Will it be live on the net?

    c-span.org/watch/cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
    (Javascript must be enabled)

    It is!

    Christoph (9824e6)

  2. Patterico, this is off topic, but is another debate I think you’ll enjoy.

    From Hot Air, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise institute hands it to Bill Maher and some other unimportant dude.

    hotair.com/archives/2006/10/15/video-aeis-pletka-takes-on-affleck-after-implying-korea-became-more-evil-after-bush/
    (9 min. 19 sec.)

    It is well worth watching.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  3. So whats the ACLUs idea of civil liberties? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND A CHRISTAIN CHURCH BECUASE IT OFFENDS LIBERALS AND MUSLIMS YOUR NEW BORN DOS,NT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE BUT WE MUST SAVE THE CONVICTED CHILD MOLSTER AND RAPIST YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH CHRIATIAN VALUES TO YOUR KIDS BUT GAY RIGHTS WACKOS FROM gladd CAN GO TO YOYR KIDS SCHOOL AND HAND OUT COMDEMS SCREW THE ACLU

    krazy kagu (fbcc60)

  4. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND A CHRISTAIN CHURCH

    You haven’t seen any ACLU work on the free excercise clause?

    actus (10527e)

  5. Very pro debate.

    You can see some of Jeff Goldstein’s linguistics observations between these two. The ACLU chick mockingly claims that Scalia loves referring to history to define the Constitution.

    OHNOES (22a999)

  6. Hey, don’t refer to the, “ACLU chick!” I don’t have anywhere near as positive a combination of words in mind while watching her.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  7. ACLU’s Nadine is a pro at head-in-the-clouds, meaningless rhetorical turns of phrase in lieu of hard facts.

    OHNOES (22a999)

  8. If battling moonbat trolls was a game, that ACLU chick would be the final boss. She definitely had her wits about her more than the average progressive, and actually at times made a point.

    OHNOES (22a999)

  9. Scalia said he was genuinely surprised to learn there is more than one version of the Ten Commandments. In ongoing church-state tensions, he said, such disunity is “insignificant.”

    That’s our originalist.

    steve (e39dbc)

  10. I caught that too, Steve. It’s a major point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. It’s hardly insignificant.

    Further, there are also definitely different translations in English of the various versions. For example, “Thou shalt not kill,” and “Thou shalt not murder.”

    Big, big difference.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  11. Not to wander off the point, but I must not have watched the same Pletka appearance that everybody else saw. I thought she was ill-prepared and shrill. I mean, when Ben freakin’ Affleck is the voice of moderation, something’s very wrong.

    Pletka allowed herself to get pulled into a “nuh-uh-uh-huh” over the body count. First of all, arguing about who killed more innocent people is ludicrous. For those who supported (and continue to support) the Iraq invasion, no price is too high to do what’s right, and for those who opposed it on philosophical grounds, even one death is too many. So it’s a total red herring.

    But if you’re going to allow yourself to get dragged into a war of numbers, at least bring some sources to back yourself up. If Pletka had said, “The UN estimated this many, and Human Rights Watch said this many,” and so on, she would have looked informed and competent. “I pulled it out of the UN’s ass” isn’t persuading anybody, on either side of the spectrum.

    Gah. I know this isn’t what this space is for, but after seeing yet another recommendation of that embarrassing piece of videotape, I just had to vent.

    Jeff Harrell (d16677)

  12. I think Danielle Pletka would be one hell of a political candidate. Can you say “soccer mom”?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  13. Tangentially related topic:

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the Conservatives will introduce legislation this week requiring repeat violent and sexual predators to prove why they should not be declared dangerous offenders and jailed indefinitely.

    Police and victims rights groups have applauded the move as long overdue, while criminal defence lawyers attacked it.

    If this passes as stated, then we’ll all get a chance to actually see its results, not just the theory.

    [And no, I haven’t reviewed it properly yet nyself; I gotta run (the doorbell is ringing!)]

    ras (a646fc)

  14. It’s based on U.S. “three strikes” law, but is somewhat watered down, Ras. Good catch in pointing it out.

    It’s the same thing, but instead of automatically putting someone away who commits their third violent and/or sexual indictable offence (what you would call a felony), the judge reviews the case before making that determination… the onus, however, is “reversed” to the defendent once convicted of his third violent and/or sexual indictable offence requiring him to show that he is not a danger to society to avoid the dangerous offender determination and indefinite imprisonment with no eligibility of parole for seven years.

    cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/12/dangerous-offender.html

    Christoph (9824e6)

  15. Christoph,

    (what you would call a felony)

    For the last time (well, unless I do it again) I gotta tell you: I’m a Canadian, too. Beauty, eh?

    ras, aka genuine hoser (a646fc)

  16. Christoph,

    Seriously, it will be interesting to see how it works out. I am all for locking up the unreformable but as usual fear the slippery slope, altho in this case it appears to be a very shallow slope, at least based on the initial report.

    ras (a646fc)

  17. Sorry, ras, I kinda figured that. I meant that for the U.S. audience. Patterico would have recognized “indictable offencse” anyway since it’s an American legal term. They use the word “felony” for some reason.

    On that topic, I’m not sure how the U.S. three strikes laws are enforced… I read horror stories about a person being sent away for life for their third felony of vandalizing a toilet.

    That’s why the Conservative Party proposal has the final check and balance of it being placed under judge’s review so the offender can prove he’s not a danger to society… and is limited, I understand, to violent and sex crimes only.

    How is it different in the U.S? Anyone know?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  18. Nadine, why caint-ya be true?

    Scalia wants to interpret what’s already in the Constitution, while Nadine pretends what she wants to see is already there.

    Black Jack (211e83)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0772 secs.