MrRain422

I don't blame Israel for wanting to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. I also don't blame Iran for thinking that they need to have some insurance against Israel attacking them.

I think that the idea of arming the people with today's modern weaponry for the purpose of self-defense would have seemed equally crazy though. The whole issue is completely different than it is now, on both sides of the ideological divide. The framers wouldn't have thought about gun rights under our contemporary framework at all. Ono of the main reasons that the 2nd Amendment is so ambiguous and difficult to apply is that it was written to address a different issue than both ends of the spectrum attempt to apply it to today.

Absolutely. That's actually pretty much what I said.

Right, but sometimes the text is ambiguous, and so we sometimes have to look at other things to try to derive meaning. One thing that Constitutional scholars sometimes look at when trying to derive this meaning is the original intent, although there is a wide range of views concerning just how that original intent should be considered, especially since different framers may have had different intents. I'm not saying that original intent should always be deferred to, I'm just saying that it's a useful tool when the actual text isn't totally clear.

Law itself is really nothing but a way of codifying morality.

Really anyone who considers themselves a real originalist (though not necessarily strict constructionalist) would probably say that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete since it's original intent is no longer applicable. At the time that it was written, the general philosophy regarding armed forces was that there was no reason to have a standing military in peace time, as there was no need for one, so if a nation did have a standing army in peace time, it could only be for the purpose of using it against its own citizens. So the Second Amendment was written so that, since there would be no standing

It didn't look like it posted the first time. This forum is running all weird for me today. Oh well.

Scalia is brilliant and arrogant and the best writer on the current court. I leave reading his opinions because they are often hilarious and clever. That being said, he's also prone to his own brand of hypocritical moralizing and ideological wackiness. He's also put himself on some pretty thin moral ground by not recusing himself for political reasons in several cases where he blatantly should have.

Explain how to rule on "cruel and unusual" without morality coming into it. Isn't "cruel" inherently a morality judgement? The long term trend (i.e. from the beginning of jurisprudence until now) is strongly, strongly moving away from using the death penalty. I understand that the short term trends may not necessarily reflect that, but you know, I'm just saying.

To the contrary, that is exactly what their job is. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to the law in question in this case. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but gives no basis whatsoever for determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual". The only way for them to apply the Constitution, then, is to use their own judgment (informed by society's general feelings on what constitutes cruel and unusual, plus the opionins of experts) combined with legal precedent. To me, this is a much more fair application of law than the "don't be a bunch of pussies

Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but the text sure makes it sound like a great speech that Dodd gave on the Senate floor today. http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

Oh man do I love me some Chris Dodd.

I don't see why it even matters. I can't think of a single thing that they could have been doing that they deserve immunity. If they did something illegal, they should be held to the same standard as anyone else and be subject to whatever criminal or civil punishments the system provides for. If they didn't do anything illegal, then they don't need immunity because there'd be nothing to immune them from. The whole point of this is to prevent an investigation into what the telecoms did, because it would likely implicate a whole lot of people in the White House and in both parties in Congres

He didn't say he supported immunity, but he's backed off a LOT in his opposition of it. Last fall, he said he would support a filibuster of any bill that included telecom immunity. Now he's saying basically that he'll ask politely for it to be removed but will still vote for the bill if it isn't.

Me too. I heard John Dean saying that, well, this bill does still leave room for criminal prosecution, possibly an accidental oversite by the bill's authors, and perhaps that that is why Obama is choosing political efficacy over principle on this matter. I've also heard speculation elsewhere that he is just planning on reversing this once he is president anyway, but I see no reason to believe that -- he's given no indication of this whatsoever and it sounds like wishful thinking on behalf of his supporters. This is a major disappointment on all levels.

Guided by Voices - "Zoo Pie"

Not only that, but if a team were having that much fun while losing, they'd get a whole lot of shit about it from both media and fans. The same attitude that is endearing when you're a winner makes you look like a jerk who doesn't care about the game when you're losing. That being said, I don't have a whole lot against the Red Sox. I find most of their players to be very likable. I do hate the way the media covers them, but that's not entirely the team's fault.

I agree with this. I think that it's definately an issue that can easily be thrown back at him, especially if the nuance is left out of the story (as it usually is). However, I'm not really sure that campaign financing is an issue that really sticks with the voters, plus the right can't come after him too hard on it, as McCain has some pretty big financing questions himself. But if it does have any traction, then yeah, this is an issue that can be framed pretty easily to hurt Obama to some degree. Ug, I'm pretty disappointed with Obama's statement on FISA today.

Right, but the current system doesn't give free television and radio time. That's part of his point. I acknowledged the weaknesses in his rhetorical argument, but again I do think that a person can support public financing of elections without supporting the current public financing system if their reasons for wanting public financing are not addressed by this particular system.

Yep, but did he say he supported this specific system of public financing? He's actually been very critical of it due to the fact that, through 527s, big special-interest money is still in the system. He's made the case that even while opting out of the official public financing system, he is still in fact running a truly publicly financed campaign -- his donations are not coming from PACs and special interest groups, as he's held to a policy of rejecting their donations. It sounds very semantical I know, and I understand rejecting this particular claim, but at the same time his complaints

Well, at the moment people within the Obama and McCain camps are arguing about that. Obama's camp says that the subject came up in meetings on other matters, and that McCain's side declined to negotiate it. McCain's people said that that isn't true. Believe whoever you want to in that -- it's pretty ambiguous where the truth lies when it comes to these supposed negotiations -- but that doesn't change the fact that it is false to claim that Obama committed to public financing and then changed his mind.

He didn't really flip on it though. Obama never said that he would commit to public financing, only that he was willing to negotiate some sort of agreement with the Republican candidate to do so.

You're right, everything that's said about him is 100% true. No one is spreading any misleading information about Obama.

It's a pretty misleading and dishonest editorial, yes.