PetiteSirah wrote:ObamaCare is unconstitional. I'm hoping for judicial change.

It will be interesting to see how it comes out. I read somewhere that they won't have a decision until late June.

Bill Maher doesn't like hate crime laws. Truthfully, neither do I. Does that make me a bad liberal? I watched the show, and the really interesting part is not discussed in this article. Another guest argued in favor of hate crime laws because hate is destructive and can lead to criminal activity. Can lead to criminal activity, according to her, so it's a crime? It seems reasonable to apply harsher penalties to "hate crimes" which involve vandalism and harassment. In other words, burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn or painting a swastika on his door would carry a harsher penalty than putting a bag of dog poo on the porch and lighting it on fire. But for me, once you've killed someone because he's sunshine on my shoulders/black/muslim/whatever, is he deader than if you'd killed him because he took your parking spot? I find the idea of ranking deaths very distasteful. Once you do that, you're implying that some deaths are worth more than others - and some aren't so important.

I've never liked hate crime laws either. It's one thing to penalize someone for his/her actions, it's another to do so for what he/she was thinking when taking those actions. I'm far from convinced that criminal sanctions against certain (inherent difficult if not impossible to prove) thoughts are something we as a society want to impose.

coynedj wrote:I've never liked hate crime laws either. It's one thing to penalize someone for his/her actions, it's another to do so for what he/she was thinking when taking those actions. I'm far from convinced that criminal sanctions against certain (inherent difficult if not impossible to prove) thoughts are something we as a society want to impose.

isn't that the difference between murder and manslaughter though? the intent or thoughts?

joelsisk wrote:isn't that the difference between murder and manslaughter though? the intent or thoughts?

Not exactly. The difference is typically premeditation, or, as the common law put it, "the (a) unlawful (b) killing of (c) another person with (d) malice (e) aforethought".

Just to warm you up for the Haggadah... And people wonder why so many Jews go into law.

One's feelings and thoughts at the time aren't really relevant to the murder/manslaughter distinction (except perhaps in a case of imperfect self-defense), and planning to kill people is planning to kill people, regardless of the motivation to kill them. Intent is not motivation.

joelsisk wrote:isn't that the difference between murder and manslaughter though? the intent or thoughts?

The requirement for a particular intention, mens rea, as an element of a crime has long been a mainstay of Anglo-American criminal law.

It's not that the intention, the thought if you will, is a crime, rather it's that the specific intention (which can be inferred in various ways) combined with the action determines the classification of the crime.


(Note, however, in the middle ages, this was not true: as an English chief justice (Brian) said The thought of man shall not be ried, for the devil himself knoweth not the the thought of man. - quoted in 2 Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law 474-475 (2d ed. 1898)

PetiteSirah wrote:ObamaCare is unconstitional. I'm hoping for judicial change.

QFT.

kylemittskus wrote:QFT.

Early reports on Oral Argument seem promising, but I don't want to get my hopes up...

And I guess hoping that SoSo or Kagan think that the commerce clause presents any limits on Congressional power is a fool's errand.

Ginsburg is even more predictable than the (liberal) pundits are saying that Thomas is -- she's NEVER held anything to be outside the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause power.

rpm wrote:The requirement for a particular intention, mens rea, as an element of a crime has long been a mainstay of Anglo-American criminal law.

It's not that the intention, the thought if you will, is a crime, rather it's that the specific intention (which can be inferred in various ways) combined with the action determines the classification of the crime.


(Note, however, in the middle ages, this was not true: as an English chief justice (Brian) said The thought of man shall not be ried, for the devil himself knoweth not the the thought of man. - quoted in 2 Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law 474-475 (2d ed. 1898)

mens rea, everytime I see this word I giggle. It sounds like the byproduct of gonorrhea

Arguments are over in the ObamaCare cases - it's in the hands of the court.

I took the time to listen to all 3 days worth of argument - fascinating to a lawyer like me with an interest in Constitutional law.

Overall, I thought the anti-ObamaCare forces fared better than the government, but you can never really draw firm conclusions from the questions the justices ask. Sometimes it reflects their concerns, sometimes its to solicit answers they think will persuade other justices, sometimes they're being devil's advocates.

With that caveat, I would be surprised if the law survived. I think the individual mandate is rightly in deep trouble, and I think there is a far better chance than I thought a couple of days ago that they will strike down the whole law, since figuring out what to keep and what to strike would be such a complete mess.

So, how do people think the SC result - whichever way it goes, will play out in the election?

rpm wrote:
So, how do people think the SC result - whichever way it goes, will play out in the election?

If you recall, I was not a fan of the law back when it was being debated and voted on. That said, my objections were more policy-driven than Constitution-driven. I have no idea how the Court will decide on the case.

In the end, I don’t think the election will hinge on this decision, whichever way it goes. The economy will far outweigh it in importance, and other issues will as well. The impact the law will have has pretty much already occurred, with the decision in either direction just hardening what people already think.

But maybe there are some people who haven’t been paying attention the last few years, and will wake up before the election and look to see what’s happening. For them, how it affects the election will depend on several things, only one of which is the decision itself. If it is overturned, in whole or in substantial part, it will be used to show overreach on the part of the Democrats, to Obama’s disfavor. If it is upheld, its electoral impact will be more muted. But also playing a part are:

When the decision is handed down – the closer to the election, the more impact it has.

The opinion of the Court – a strong rejection carries more weight than a rejection on narrow, technical grounds that lend themselves poorly to 10-second sound bites.

The Republican nominee – Romney has less room to criticize the law than Santorum would (and Santorum won’t get the nomination anyway).

The reaction of both sides – silence, crowing, whining, and misrepresentation will be part of the political landscape no matter what the decision is. How adamant these reactions are will be important – there is a tendency these days for the winning side to go too far and look foolish. If this can be avoided it will help the party of restraint, but maybe I’m being too generous with the electorate on that point.

rpm wrote:Arguments are over in the ObamaCare cases - it's in the hands of the court.

I took the time to listen to all 3 days worth of argument - fascinating to a lawyer like me with an interest in Constitutional law.

Overall, I thought the anti-ObamaCare forces fared better than the government, but you can never really draw firm conclusions from the questions the justices ask. Sometimes it reflects their concerns, sometimes its to solicit answers they think will persuade other justices, sometimes they're being devil's advocates.

With that caveat, I would be surprised if the law survived. I think the individual mandate is rightly in deep trouble, and I think there is a far better chance than I thought a couple of days ago that they will strike down the whole law, since figuring out what to keep and what to strike would be such a complete mess.

So, how do people think the SC result - whichever way it goes, will play out in the election?

I listened to yesterday's hearing, and am listening to today's at present. From what I understand the first day of the hearing was essentially whether or not the opponents yet had standing to bring a challenge to the mandate in the first place, predicated on the penalty/tax distinction (please correct me if I'm wrong; at some point I will likely go back and listen to the first day's argument, but if there is more substance to it I may do so sooner rather than later).

It does sound like the opponents have the upper hand at present (which would have been almost unthinkable just a week ago), and I think that Clement clearly did a better job at responding to questions than Verrilli did. Of course it is dangerous to read too much into the questions the justices ask, but I do think (or at least hope) that it is telling that Kennedy acknowledged the significance of "tell[ing] the individual citizen that it must act... is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."


I can't say that I think the result will influence the election either way, to be honest; I suppose overturning it could rile up the Democratic base and get them more likely to go to the polls, but I would have said the same thing about the Citizens United decision, and the Republicans still fared relatively well after that decision.

rpm wrote: So, how do people think the SC result - whichever way it goes, will play out in the election?

This is just a guess, but I think it might be better for Obama if Obamacare is shot down. I don't think he'd lose many supporters, and some anti-Obamacare voters might not be as motivated to get to the polls if their issue no longer exists. On the other hand, if Obamacare stays, the anti-Obamacare voters will be even more motivated.

It will be marginal, at most. If it's overturned, as it should be, it will be 5-4. With Kennedy and Scalia (and Ginsburg) getting up there in years, the prospect of 3 more Obaminations on SCOTUS will frighten people to the polls.

PetiteSirah wrote:It will be marginal, at most. If it's overturned, as it should be, it will be 5-4. With Kennedy and Scalia (and Ginsburg) getting up there in years, the prospect of 3 more Obaminations on SCOTUS will frighten people to the polls.

You are, of course, and unfortunately, assuming 'the masses' even notice, or care.
It used to be, and is written, voting requires an informed electorate, and given the current press, any likelihood of that occurring seems nil.

re:sc decision - I think it will hurt Romney more than Obama in the election. Either way, he's on record as being more liberal than Obama.

What is the difference between the currently drafted mandate and the position championed by the Heritage Foundation 20 years ago? (not to suggest the HF speaks for all conservatives)

canonizer wrote:re:sc decision - I think it will hurt Romney more than Obama in the election. Either way, he's on record as being more liberal than Obama.

What is the difference between the currently drafted mandate and the position championed by the Heritage Foundation 20 years ago? (not to suggest the HF speaks for all conservatives)

The notion of a mandate was always controversial on the right, and Heritage Foundation's erstwhile support was an outlier as early as 1994. Politicians tend to like it, citizens and serious constitutional scholars, not so much.

There has also been a resurgence of interest within Constitutional scholarship of the question of limits on the Commerce Clause. In law school in the 1970s, I can remember being one of the few who thought Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S, 111 (1942) was wrongly decided and that Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905) was correctly decided. Now, there is a growing body of serious legal scholarship which takes precisely that view.

rpm wrote:The notion of a mandate was always controversial on the right, and Heritage Foundation's erstwhile support was an outlier as early as 1994. Politicians tend to like it, citizens and serious constitutional scholars, not so much.

There has also been a resurgence of interest within Constitutional scholarship of the question of limits on the Commerce Clause. In law school in the 1970s, I can remember being one of the few who thought Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S, 111 (1942) was wrongly decided and that Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905) was correctly decided. Now, there is a growing body of serious legal scholarship which takes precisely that view.

QFT.

I'm glad to report that at GMU, at least, those views were hardly controversial, and may not have been in the minority.

David Bernstein (my evidence professor), in particular, has done unbelievable work on Lochner. His latest, Rehabilitating Lochner, is an amazing work of legal history, revisionist in the best sense in that it contextualizes the case and utterly demolishes the overly simplistic, post-hoc, just-so story commonly taught in the legal academy and accepted as gospel on the left (and passivist parts of the right). His supporting law review articles are similarly great.

See Law & Liberty symposium here. (links to individual posts at the top)

In addition, Ken Kersch's work has also made important contributions to understanding the 1860-1960 period.

rjquillin wrote:You are, of course, and unfortunately, assuming 'the masses' even notice, or care.
It used to be, and is written, voting requires an informed electorate, and given the current press, any likelihood of that occurring seems nil.

While I'm not one to defend the state of today's press, I don't know that I would blame voter apathy ('neither noticing nor caring') on it. I would conjecture that it is instead a result of a base-level of material comfort and well being already being met for the majority of people in this country.

I believe RPM has posted before about the decline in crime coinciding with cheap consumer goods; I would be inclined to argue that the increase in voter apathy and decrease in voter-turn out is related - if you can live a relatively comfortable life in your current state, you're less inclined to care about what the government is doing or to be engaged to participate in making significant changes.

When large flat-screen TVs can be bought for the equivalent of a week's worth of work at a minimum-wage job, it's harder to get as worked up about politics as it might otherwise be.

jawlz wrote:While I'm not one to defend the state of today's press, I don't know that I would blame voter apathy ('neither noticing nor caring') on it. I would conjecture that it is instead a result of a base-level of material comfort and well being already being met for the majority of people in this country.

I believe RPM has posted before about the decline in crime coinciding with cheap consumer goods; I would be inclined to argue that the increase in voter apathy and decrease in voter-turn out is related - if you can live a relatively comfortable life in your current state, you're less inclined to care about what the government is doing or to be engaged to participate in making significant changes.

When large flat-screen TVs can be bought for the equivalent of a week's worth of work at a minimum-wage job, it's harder to get as worked up about politics as it might otherwise be.

panem et circenses

rpm wrote:panem et circenses

Indeed, though I am (slightly) more skeptical of the resulting dangers than most who would use the phrase, mainly because I think a system that makes a comfortable life nearly universally available and affordable isn't a bad system and a shift away from such a system would generate the civic engagement that is otherwise lacking.

If the majority of people are more-or-less content with the status quo and can live the lives they want, I don't know how we can reasonably expect more engagement, short of things like compulsory voting (which has its own set of problems).

A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

gregorylane wrote:A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

like everest awesome.

gregorylane wrote:A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

Damn special, imo. Congrats!

gregorylane wrote:A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

Woot! Mazal tov to him!

gregorylane wrote:A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

We are proud, if I may speak for the masses; that is damn fantastic!

gregorylane wrote:A bit of a highjack...All of my hyper educated woot friends might be proud to know that my eldest (in his words)..."won an NSF Fellowship. Three years of Federal support for his research and the biggest career award for Graduate students in the sciences." In Computational Bio-physics at University of Chicago.

Now, can anyone explain to me how special this really is?

To quote Joe Biden (yay for tying it back in to the topic), "This is a big procreate*ing deal."

PetiteSirah wrote:To quote Joe Biden (yay for tying it back in to the topic), "This is a big procreate*ing deal."

Thanks all for weighing in. We are quite proud and anxious for him to "come home" more. He says he is now beholden to the NSF and not the Professors with whom he works.

Just for that it is a big procreate*ing deal!

gregorylane wrote:Thanks all for weighing in. We are quite proud and anxious for him to "come home" more. He says he is now beholden to the NSF and not the Professors with whom he works.

Just for that it is a big procreate*ing deal!

QFT - but, now he's part of the evil empire....

rpm wrote:QFT - but, now he's part of the evil empire....

He does stray to this forum from time to time, so maybe he will take this to heart. His politics are his own. I have tried over the years to 'steer' his political thought processes, but alas...he has a mind of his own. I do believe that Academia has intruded into his politics (how could it not?), but every now and again he'll show a conservative vein.

Ya gotta love 'em no matter which way they go, no?

gregorylane wrote:He does stray to this forum from time to time, so maybe he will take this to heart. His politics are his own. I have tried over the years to 'steer' his political thought processes, but alas...he has a mind of his own. I do believe that Academia has intruded into his politics (how could it not?), but every now and again he'll show a conservative vein.

Ya gotta love 'em no matter which way they go, no?

A mind of his own...that sounds like a great thing. If you could place him firmly in one category or the other, and accurately predict his thoughts on any and all issues, then maybe you'd need to worry.

chemvictim wrote:A mind of his own...that sounds like a great thing. If you could place him firmly in one category or the other, and accurately predict his thoughts on any and all issues, then maybe you'd need to worry.

This is a paraphrase, but: "He can take his'n and beat your'n, and he can take your'n and beat his'n."

I believe that was a phrase coined about Paul (Bear) Bryant, by a rival coach when discussing his Alabama football teams.

James is the same way...he takes the opposite side of a debate, just for poops and giggles. drives me crazy, but makes dinners fun!

gregorylane wrote:This is a paraphrase, but: "He can take his'n and beat your'n, and he can take your'n and beat his'n."

I believe that was a phrase coined about Paul (Bear) Bryant, by a rival coach when discussing his Alabama football teams.

James is the same way...he takes the opposite side of a debate, just for poops and giggles. drives me crazy, but makes dinners fun!

Fun for you two anyway......sigh.....

Time to stir up more trouble ....

Obama campaign website yanks BET videos following TheDC’s reporting

The result is that the campaign will broadcast the message — often outside the view of the established media — that “any opposition to Obama is based on race, and it is open season [on African-Americans] if he loses,” Bell (Jeffrey Bell, a veteran GOP strategist) said.


“The person of him is so jarring to certain people that it has caused people to step into the way back machine and want to be in the ’50s,” Joy-Ann Reid, an African-American journalist and talk radio personality, said in another. “I think there is a sense of panic that’s developing in part of the majority culture.”

That's two of the reasons we can't afford 4 more years of Obama. #1 that we must be racist if we question/oppose him, and #2 that we fear him and want to go back to the 50's.

Who wants to go back to the fears/problems of the 50's??? Threat of Nuclear Holocaust, Korean War, Witch Hunt for anyone associated with a potential Communist, etc. are not things people want to go back to!

MarkDaSpark wrote:That's two of the reasons we can't afford 4 more years of Obama. #1 that we must be racist if we question/oppose him, and #2 that we fear him and want to go back to the 50's.

Who wants to go back to the fears/problems of the 50's??? Threat of Nuclear Holocaust, Korean War, Witch Hunt for anyone associated with a potential Communist, etc. are not things people want to go back to!

To be fair, these are just dumb people making statements that are about, but not related to, Obama or his politics. People make dumb statements all the time. These just happen to be applicable right now.

kylemittskus wrote:To be fair, these are just dumb people making statements that are about, but not related to, Obama or his politics. People make dumb statements all the time. These just happen to be applicable right now.

Actually, they are for his campaign. As in his propaganda machine is planning on using these behind the MSM when he starts campaigning.

Or can you think of another reason they were on Obama's Website???

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, they are for his campaign. As in his propaganda machine is planning on using these behind the MSM when he starts campaigning.

Or can you think of another reason they were on Obama's Website???

Ah! Apologies. I didn't click the link. Bad ideas then. And 4 more years is indeed bad.

Wait a sec. The comment about the 50's was made by a journalist on a video made by BET - as I read the article, neither of them is associated with the actual Obama campaign. Having a link on a web site is different from being a confirmed strategy of the campaign committee.

The claim that the Obama campaign will say that opposition to Obama must be based on race came from a GOP strategist, and is an assertion without any real evidence supporting it (unless you consider "they had a link on their website to something where someone said something that can be construed that way, and therefore it's an official policy of the campaign" as being real evidence).

I retract my apology and comment and stand by my first statement. Your turn Sparky.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Time to stir up more trouble ....

Obama campaign website yanks BET videos following TheDC’s reporting




That's two of the reasons we can't afford 4 more years of Obama. #1 that we must be racist if we question/oppose him, and #2 that we fear him and want to go back to the 50's.

Who wants to go back to the fears/problems of the 50's??? Threat of Nuclear Holocaust, Korean War, Witch Hunt for anyone associated with a potential Communist, etc. are not things people want to go back to!

Yawn......

Most likely cause, some tadpole staffer put the stuff up, someone higher up the chain saw it later and said, are you a friggin tadpole and had it taken down. His campaign didn't produce the video's, BET did. Think Swift Boats.

Obama himself isn't stupid enough to turn this into a racial election. He'll lose if he does that. Insofar as BET pandering to black people, well, it isn't Cracker Entertainment Television now is it? It's playing to the audience that watches the network, exactly as one would expect. Which is why you're not very likely to see many Pro Obama pieces on Fox News this month.