Happy Independence Day!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Hope everyone is enjoying the holiday. This is an open thread.
Submitted by Brendan on Wed, 2007-07-04 09:30
Tags:
Comments :
BBC reporter freed in Gaza
CNN story
. His release was brokered by Hamas, who basically promised not to kill Army of Islam militants in exchange. Let's hope this is a sign of stability ahead in Gaza.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fireworks!
Happy Fourth of July!
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Awesome! Thanks for the pic =) --nt
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I bet missliberties
Can top that easily. Fireworks are notoriously hard to shoot, whether real or just virtual.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
New article on the SL Republican Party
http://secondchoices.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-sl-republican-party-is...
They talk a little about the debate I mentioned in prior comment.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Ender
Read the prior story on that linked page. LOL.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
lol
I am impressed with your participation :)
And "“That entire sim is Republican,” Yamamoto suggested. “I think they’re subsidized by the sim owners.”"... lol
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Just watching the hot dog eating contest on ESPN
Kobayashi against Chestnut... wow these guys are unbelievable. Joey setting a brutal pace, 39 through 7 minutes, Kobayashi 4 back.
Oooh, now Kobayashi only 2 back, 5 minutes left. Record-breaking pace.
Kobayashi of course with a hurt jaw, still right there in it. They're at 54 and 53 with 3 minutes left.
Chestnut still ahead at 2 minute mark by a fraction of a hot dog.
One minute left! Neck and neck... new world record.
Joey by one with 20 seconds!
Here's the ESPN link
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
A Modern Declaration:
More here
.
Nice!
It is the economy, stupid.
Citizens?
So legal residents don't? I'm concerned considering all the conservative "We can arrest non-citizens and do whatever we want with them". Probably somewhat of scope, but still...
Well citizenship
should carry with it certain privileges that non-citizens may or may not lay claim to. I agree that there are certain rights that all should able to lay claim to, like habeas corpus. But that's a different discussion I think.
If you are being specific to citizenship
Then perhaps you should eschew the word "inalienable"
Interesting point
and one that throws into relief the difference between the ideals of the Declaration and the actual implementation. Slavery entrenched by the Constitution is just the most obvious example. But if the right to life is "unalienable," why do so many argue that for some criminals, it has been alienated? If the right to liberty is unalienable, why are there prisons? Or involuntary mental hospitalization? And if the pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right, why can't those whose possession of child porn (say) brings them happiness possess it?
Seems the practical men of the founding where not averse to taking high-blown idealistic statements with a certain grain of salt. My bet is that when reading instructions for the construction of drawers for a cabinet, when the directions said the sides should be 3' 6" long, they weren't as obsessive as Monk about it.
So far as i know, there have always been certain aliens who did not have habeas corpus rights, for instance, even though this is a foundation of English law. POWs is one example, continued with those fighting against us now.
extremely well said
It seems that the whole foundation of the alternate reality that the far left blogosphere inhabits is based on pretending to take the high-blown idealistic statements literally. The approach is rotten to the core.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think someone
has been drinking today.... ;) Idealism is rotten to the core? Isn't that some sort of oxymoron? : b
heh no
the approach of comparing every single current event to some sort of idealistically inspired utopia, that our founders never intended their words to mean, is what is rotten.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I have to laugh at you
over this comment sorry. The Founders were fighting against a tyrant who denied them their basic freedoms and insisted on his right to do so. This is not some idealistic reading of the Declaration of Independence but rather a genuine historical context. And everything I, and any number of liberals, have discussed relative to this is based on that actual factual well-documented historical context. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. ;)
splitting the baby
I agree that the practical historical context is as you describe, but i also think that the genius of these practical men was to actually write the documents in Enlightenment style idealistic terms, in the terms of people like Locke.
I don't think they thought that saying "all men are created equal" was going to instantaneously free the slaves.
While it is easy to read our present sensibilities into those men, I like to think that even some who held slaves felt the dissonance between the idealistic words and the actual practice.
But the little discussion here including Ender brings up the notion of "original intent" with respect to ruling on laws. There, i think we should always judge the interpretation to the ideal if we can. As if the ideals expressed were the goal that the founders knew we would never perfectly reach.
That being said, there is more than a little "Social Contract" theory and practice in the colonies, so I suppose that it should not be surprising that the colonists did not see the broad rights and privileges that were guaranteed by their governments to be automatically extended to those not participating by citizenship in the Contract.
Most men are
a product of their times. From what I have read, the commonly held view among the Founding Fathers was that blacks were not quite the same as they were and not exactly "men" in the same sense. And I have also read that there were those who were more uncomfortable with this notion than others, and that many Quakers disagreed with this entirely (though this
shows an interesting history of their views). I believe most in our time see the Declaration as inspirational for ideals beyond the limits of the late eighteenth century worldview, mixed though that worldview might have been. I believe that the "liberal" viewpoint that Ender mocks is actually the majority viewpoint. And in the end it is usually the majority viewpoint that rules the day, both now and in 1776, however noble the minority viewpoint (as the Quakers were prior to the Civil War) might seem to its holders.
I agree
I haven't heard Ender expound on this, but the "liberal viewpoint" that I would mock is code-named "living constitution." While I think that the notion that the constitution must be interpreted to take in new realities the framers could not have thought of, it has come to mean that, at best, the decisions and meanings of the language of the constitution can be made without any actual reference to what the language meant when it was written sort of at the will oif the interpretor. At worse, it comes to mean that in Supreme Court decisions, one's political and social philosophy may be willy-nilly used in place of the working of the Constitution.
You may be right or wrong about this being the majority viewpoint now, but it is wrong so far as I'm concerned.
I tend to see things as a series of balances. Not only is there not one right balance, but what is right may be a changing balance.
That's one reason I don't get shocked with politics or side with extreme views. To me, watching politics is a lot like watching nature. It is what it is, and wishing it to be otherwise than it is simply is unrealistic and is bound to cause pain.
That doesn't mean that one can't grow a garden.
Well, in the legal
realm I see a lot of inconsistency. Originalists, as Scalia likes to call himself, seem to me overly willing to interpret the constitution in favor of the Republican Party and the Bush administration, in such a way that significant parts of the Bill of Rights and balance of powers cease to exist. I think they really want not original intent but rather their own version of this living document rather than the liberal version.
I have a rule
on Supreme Court decisions. I ignore the outcome, then read the opinoions. Usually, I read the syllabus, then the dissents, then the Court's opinions.
Thing is, almost always, the question decided has nothing whatsoever to do with what people are arguing about.
Further, because I am not a lawyer and don't have depth in the precedents, I find often that both sides present arguments I can follow. (Kelo's majority opinion is one exception, and the recent Breyer dissent on using race to decide where students will be placed is another.)
I'm not that interested in who the decision helps or doesn't help. All I want is some legal reasoning from the Constitution and precedents, not to some desired result.
I do think that a strict doctrine of original intent is unproductive.
But I take as a model Harry Blackmun, who once mentioned that part of what convinced him to resign before he needed to was a case where a man facing execution seemingly had proof that he was innocent, but his legal challenges had played out, and there was no legal way to prevent his execution. Blackmun, I saw him on one of those talk shows when he was making the tour for his book, said that he felt like everyone in the room knew the man was innocent, but there was no way to find for him legally.
After this came out, speculators pinned the case to one from Texas, in which a man had confessed to the crime, but refused to do so in court unless he was given immunity from the death sentence for it, which was not granted. Blackmun refused to say which case it was, nor give any information which might identify it, and stopped talking about it.
So, ideally, I would like Supreme Court cases to be decided on their legal and constitutional merits, not on what the decision may or may not do.
WE have legislatures for policy decisions.
So, when i hear Scalia talking about a culture war going on, it scares me. But so far, although i thought some of his decisions were a bit bizarre (like his agreement with the liberals in the California medical marijuana case), I haven't seen any case where I can say for sure that he had no argument for an opinion he reached just because it suited his own political persuasion.
In fact, that would be a serious charge, and would require the best evidence to back it up.
(And note, I don't read more than a few cases a year.)
So, the evidence for your charge that Scalia is "overly willing" to interpret the Constitution in favour of the Republican Party? (I take it that the implication here is that if he suddenly realized that his decision was in favour of the Democratic party, that alone would cause him to tear it up and rewrite it the other way, regardless of the legal questions.)
Do you think the the two Democratically appointed Justices are "overly willing" to interpret things in the favour of the Democratic Party, or would that just be all right?
I haven't read
about either of them mounting a questionable legal campaign in favor of a political party's candidate
or hunting with the vice-president and then refusing to step aside when he has a case before them 
. Maybe I missed those stories?
Puh-leez
Eoither read the actual cases and make a point, or get off it. This is just reaching for anything.
As knocienz might say on the first, not that sorry old rhetoric again. There was no "questionable legal campaign" at all. That is as serious a charge as one can make about a Supreme Court Justice, and I would expect you to have the legal arguments to back up that it was a questionable decision (hint: check out the dissent), and also the PROOF that it was a "campaign" and also that it would not have gone the way it did if it was the other way. Lacking that, you ought to be shot. And puh-leex, you may not know this, but Salon is neither a legal reference nor an honest site, being, of course as you know, biased. Why would sokmeone who spent so much time to present a case on the armor actually spend any time there at all?
And duck hunting? This one I will grant you on the Ceasar's wife rule only. What is needed here is some proof of the general rule that no justice (or, more particularly, Scalia) cannot decide a legal issue objectively if it involves someone he shared a duck hunt with.
Do you wish to expand this rule to having Justices recuse themselves whenever anyone they knew in any way whatsoever has some case before them? So that the Supreme Court could try no questions involving anyone in politics?
Scalia actually attached a memo on the question, where he says the recusement is necessary when there is personal loss to the friend involved, but not when there is a question of official duty involved. he then a gave a brief history of other friendships where Justices had partied with friends who had official duty cases before them. here's the first:
The actual case here was sent back to the district court on a 7-2 vote, with Ginsburg and Souter dissenting. Thomas issued his own interesting opinion "agreeing in part and dissenting in part."
Now, do you have any proof of the impropieties that would make this stuff interesting, or are you just issuing the same old talking points?
The case
As for your dismissal of Salon on the whole, Glenn Greenwald, who writes there
, is widely regarded as topnotch. Your complete dismissal of Salon is as strange, and unwarranted, as your seeming refusal to read the comments to a dKos piece.
But on the case in question, I do remember thinking that where state election laws are concerned the State Supreme Court is supposed to have the final say. Here is a snippet from article 2 section 1 of the US constitution:
So the constitution says that the determination of presidential electors is a matter of state law, of which State Supreme Courts should be the ultimate authority, not the US Supreme Court.
I remember being shocked that the US Supreme Court meddled in this particular case. As for whether Scalia pushed for this or not, I think that is a matter of public record. I am not just reaching for anything. I have always felt that, whatever the outocme might have been, the US Supreme Court had no business claiming jurisdiction. To me this is a prime example of Scalia putting loyalty to party, and Bush in particular, above loyalty to the constitution. I am willing to listen to your points, but I have always felt strongly on this one, even before I knew Scalia was the driving force behind it.
Salon is better
than dos, but biased.
In the oral arguments for the Bush v Gore case, the Justices kept reiterating that to take the case, there had to be constitutional issues, article II issues.
Actually, if you read that section again, and realize that the Florida legislature had indeed set the rules for elections, and that harris had followed them to the letter, and the entirely Democratic Florida Supreme Court had over ruled the legislature, you can see the problems that might arise.
Remember, in the matter of Supreme Court jurisdiction, the case was taken 7-2.
I remember being shocked that the US Supreme Court meddled in this particular case.
Of course, the SC did not "meddle" in this case, it was brought to them.
Supreme Court had no business claiming jurisdiction.
Tell that to the seven who decided. The issue was whether the Florida Supreme Court had by overruling the Florida legislature infringed on Bush's equal protection rights. (There were actually a couple of ups and downs to the Supreme Court, and to the Florida Supreme Court.) Those who favoured the Florida Supreme Court intervention said that the Court could do so because it is the job of that court to say what the law was. these people, like the Court, tended to be Democrats. Those opposed said that there was no question of what the law said to be decided by any court. These people, unlike the court, tended to be Republicans. I read the law, and I didn't see anything that was unclear. It had phrases like "12 days before" that the Florida Supreme Court threw out just because, well, as YOU might say, they were pursuing a partisan objective. (I won't say this because I have no proof.
To me this is a prime example of Scalia putting loyalty to party, and Bush in particular, above loyalty to the constitution.
Again, this is a very serious charge, and one that YOU must provide evidence for.
Remember, before and after this happening, "experts" disagreed about the case. So, to me, it is something about which reasonable people can disagree. And did. You disagree with the 7 who took the case.
You know, that's the thing about the Supreme Court. They almost never get unanimity on these things. So we can always say that they are things about which reasonable people, trying their best to make the right decision, can come to a disagreement. To go further and say that you are so smart that anyone disagreeing with yuour view must be guilty of a serious breech of ethics seems to me to be over the line unless you have some very good proof of a breech of ethics. Again, read the case, the oral arguments, try to be objective, and then decide. I think in all hoinesty, you should be ableto see the case from both sides. My bet is that you won't change your mind, for the very same reason you "project" onto Scalia. You are simply saying that you think Scalia was making his decision on political grounds because you are.
dKos is a different story. Here's my history with it. Back when it first started and a while thereafter, I had never heard of it. But i was on about three or four boards where people would respond to my call for evidence with a blind link, often to dKos. In every one of these cases, the links were truly blind, and I was brought usually to some opinion on the site. Of the first 25 times I was linked there, 22 of the claims at the site were absolutely false. So I learned to check in advance before i followed links to avoid it.
I tend to avoid places where I can guess in advance what the take will be on a new issue just from considering ideology. Why bother? What can be learned? Either you disagree with the prevailing ideology, and you are just going their to mess around with the natives for masochistic reasons, or you agree with the prevailing ideology and you are going their to flock with the others of the faith, and to strengthen that faith and to get fodder against heretics. Neither of these appeal to a free thinker.
btw, in 2000, the decision that ended the counting said, basically, that the legislature had the last word, (and so the next day, the 12th, was the last day counting could be done)..
so,
As for whether Scalia pushed for this or not, I think that is a matter of public record.
Oh? Please provide that public record. Not some opinion from Salon or dKos, but the actual public record. I expect something like a tape or memo wherein Scalia says, say, "I don't think that the Supreme Court can have any jurisdiction in this matter, but i want Bush to win, so I am going to push for our taking it."
btw, i think the real problem here was Gore trying to get a limited recount in just counties he thought were to his advantage. AFTER the original recount was done.
And this is a complicated issue. Even now, experts disagree.
If dKos was wrong
22 of 25 times you were dealing with stupid people who gave you links. It isn't wrong that often where matters of fact are concerned. As for what counts for public record on Scalia, I gave you all you're going to get. Everyone knows who among the members of the court was pushing to stop the Florida recount and then claim jurisdiction. I refuse to accept the high bar you set for evidence on this one or your cherrypicked version of events.
Everyone knows?
Odd. I don't. That's a great argument.
My version of events is incomplete, AS I INDICATED. It is not "cherrypicked," nor is it simply partisan, as yours is. In fact, I'm not as sure of anything as you seem to be of the workings of Scalia's mind, or the goings on of the Justices in chambers.
I refuse to accept the high bar you set for evidence on this one
Ok. Lower the bar. Give me any evidence you have for your very serious claim.
I think in
context that word means "not subject to forfeiture." (link
) But you have definitely brought up an interesting point.
Inalienable
While it does mean not subject to forfeiture, I believe it is based on the idea that they are human rights and are not awarded by countries, laws or anything created by their fellow humans (though the recognition of said rights is still highly important as unrecognized rights and five bucks will get you a latte at the airport
Really?
I would have sworn lattes at the airport cost even more than that....
The Declaration
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature´s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
of Independence.
I like the part ...... to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them......
It is the economy, stupid.
Happy Independence Day
to all. Just got home and going to relax. Hope you all are having a wonderful holiday.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hi, everybody.
Here's hoping that everybody enjoyed and had a Happy Fourth of July.
Thanks for the fireworks photos, purpleface.
I had a relatively quiet 4th of July. I went over to my family's house in the early evening for a small barbecue, then went back home, watched a performance by the National Symphony Orchestra on TV, at the Capitol, as the NSO did a tribute to the 50th anniversary of the Broadway musical stage production of West Side Story, which entailed a medley of several prominent songs from WSS, as well as some photographs of the original Broadway stage play cast(s) and scenes. I enjoyed it, but it was shorter than I would've liked. Oh well--that's how it goes sometimes.
Although it rained and drizzled here in the Bay State, I went out to the overpass right near where I live and watched the annual Boston Esplanade Fireworks
display. All in all, it had been a lovely day.
Hi, independentminded
I'm not everybody, just me.
Right now, the neighborhood is filled with the sounds of fireworks, and the cats are hating it.
\
Sorry your West Side Story thingie wasn't longer.
At least you had a lovely day. Reminded me of this old song (I like the Billie Holiday version)
Thanks for sharing fireworks in the rain.
Hi, Madscientist.
Thanks for your encouragement and support. Optomism always pays. Sorry that your cats were so freaked out over the sounds of the fireworks in your neighborhood.
That Billie Holiday song you posted is quite fitting. Thanks for posting it.