MattZ

Grover Norquist: Obama is "John Kerry with a tan." (seriously) http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...st_norquist.php

For the sake of argument, how many people in Iran do you think agree with him? And is that relevant to the discussion? EDIT: let me rephrase that -- assuming he was misquoted (which I am not sure about, but believe you) -- how many people in Iran would love to see the end of Israel?

oh man.

I've got a golden ticket...

I just read: The Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.

Let me put it this way. There is no text in the preamble to the constitution that says it should be interpreted by reference to what the framers intended in the late 1700s. And there are no further instructions that, if the intent of the framers cannot be determined, then justices should reference other laws passed in the 1700s because, well, why not. At the end of the day, everyone is putting their spin on the constitution. Liberals and conservatives. There is no right or wrong way to interpret the doc. It is either a living and breathing document, or it isn't. There is no user's ma

This is cool, but I am not really sure what this is going to accomplish other than more speculation...

Why? Sure, Kennedy largely disregarded other states that had made child rape a capital offense, but he cited to evolving standards of decency with regard to capital punishment. And he did cite to evolving state (and other country) practices. Alito dismissed that as irrelevant. Scalia may not have written Alito's opinion, but he signed onto it. If Scalia disagreed, he would have written his own dissent. So, I will take it as a given that Scalia agrees with what Alito wrote.

It is spin because Scalia presents his case, and writes his opinions, in such a way as to suggest that there can be no difference of opinion. As if the cookie only has one side (see also, your response above). When Scalia suggests that this country will live to "regret this day" (see the recent Guantanamo decisions) because of the activist liberals legislating from the bench he is baiting and spinning and arrogantly suggesting that there is only one way to read the constitution and he has a moral leg up on everyone because it's "irrefutable" that other state amendments/legislation regarding

Says who? Who's to say it's not there to guide the analysis under which the second clause should be read? Maybe an infringement can occur if it would not prevent the people from forming a well regulated Militia?

For someone so attuned to the difference in language between a right existing and right not being infringed, I am surprised you missed the first clause of the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says. EDIT: It's amusing to me how many strict constructionists conveniently ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. You know, since well regulated Militias arm themselves with handguns in inner cities.

Here's why: He is when it suits him. And he isn't when it doesn't. Same with legal precedent. He cites it when it suits him. He overturns it when it suits him. No, he's an easy target because of what I said above, and because he attacks the other justices for doing exactly what he does. I am not sure I understand why you think Scalia is so much more of a standup justice than those other 3. Scalia is a conservative leaning individual who goes hunting with Dick Cheney. If you think that his opinions from the bench are based in a more "true" or "consistent" reading of the con

Its true, though. He does write well reasoned opinions based on the constitution. They are bullshit opinions written to justify his own morals (while he criticizes the liberals for doing the same), and he hangs them on a "framers intent" and "strict constructionist" hook, but they are well reasoned and based on the constitution. We've got to give him that.

No argument from me on that. I dont think I have ever agreed with a Scalia penned opinion, but I certainly enjoy reading them and I acknowledge his ability to cloak his own "legislating from the bench" and "using his morals" with opinions that are well-reasoned, strict constructionist efforts.

Just announced. 5-4. Scalia writes the opinion. I guess we know what that means without seeing the opinion.

I just read the majority's opinion and their rationale focused on the unpredictable nature of punitive damages. The potential "bad man" should have some reasonable sense of the outcome of his/her actions when undertaking those actions. The court gave examples of excessive punitive damages being awarded in some cases while none were awarded in others. The court believed ratio of 1:1 (compensatory damages to punitive damages) was fair, reasonable, and predictable. The court also acknowledged that the initial punitive damages of $5billion was meant to represent (roughly) one year's worth of

Right, sorry. I think the majority even said as much in this most recent case.

And you can bet that if anyone is on death row for those crimes in the future, that the defense will cite to this case and claim that the state law is unconstitutional.

there are too many lawyers in this thread. present company excluded of course.

Fair point. Perhaps yours has no bearing (as you pointed out). However it does seem that most of the people agreeing with the dissent are doing so on moral grounds. And to play devil's advocate with myself, you are right that it's a slippery slope. Democracies can easily fall prey to "majority rules" and the constution should be immune to the rising (and/or falling) tide of popular consensus. That being said, I think it's a strained argument to say that death for child rape is anything other than disproportionate. Although I agree that an argument can be made.

I dont agree with you. I think the dissent is using their morals just as much as the majority. You just don't agree with the majority's morals. At least the majority's morals are supported by evolving standards of decency in not just this country, but the world. And this entire issue is a moral issue! Blame the framers for leaving the 8th amendment so broad. How would you expect that morals not be involved here? Would you propose amending the constitution to specifically provide for the limited instances when something is cruel and unusual?

The constitution trumps.

Amen. Although Alito, Scalia, Thomas, etc would tell you that evolving standards of decency are irrelevant.