Jenksismyhero

Continuing to offer special protection to certain classes is not equal. Offering special protection to one class but refusing it to others is also not equal. Affirmative action, for example, is another BS exception that the Court has made that cuts against it's Equal Protection mantra. The Court continues to try and 'right a wrong' through it's decisions, which Scalia (and I) argue should be left to the people. This is especially so when the law doesn't discriminate at all. It's purpose was to make everyone equal.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) What Scalia conveniently ignores is that there is an institutional bias against homosexuality in the United States. He also compares it to political affiliation, being a baseball fan and wearing fur. While its true that there probably are baseball loving fur wearing Republican gay people, sexuality does not necessarily equal behavior. It isn't dangerous to be a Cubs fan. It isn't dangerous to be a Republican. In many places in the US and around the world, it's dangerous to be gay. I'm not a fan of Scalia because his basic premise is wrong, and by writing what he writes, does indeed take a position in the "Culture War." Sexual Preference is sought to be included in anti-discrimination laws because there is a pattern of discrimination and violence that has historically been waged against homosexuals, suspected or real. Institutional bias my ass. There's an institutional bias against fat and ugly people, let's create a new protection for them. There are numerous classes that have gone through some form of discrimination before and never received special protection for it, that's his point. The Court is choosing gays as a protected class, even when an entire states population voted the opposite way. That's the Court deciding cultural issues that should be left in the hands of the majority in a particular location.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) Trouble is a lot of times people DO want certain laws and groups like the ACLU tie them up in court and sometimes get them knocked off the books because they simply dont like them. Oh absolutely. Best work written by Scalia, to me, speaking to this issue is his dissent in Romer v Evans. Colorado held a statewide vote to deny homosexuals preferential treatment with regards to discrimination, effectively taking them out of the 'protected' classes of the states anti-discrimination statutes. The people, through the legislature, made this change, but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. It's a great case to read: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...=U10179#Scene_1 Here's a snippet from Scalias dissent, which I agree with 110%:

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) He was responsible in part yes. Should he, as the apparent sole representative of the federal government, have done more? No. Bush got the bulk of the blame when both the local and state governments also failed their constituents. The federal government should be there to assist the state and local resources, not replace them which is what most people want them to do. Bingo. I'm not saying we should rid ourselves of the appeals process because it's costly and time consuming. But if you've exhausted your legal options there's no reason to keep the person around anymore. It's a waste of tax payer money that could be put to better use, like building communities so that criminals don't exist in the first place. Isn't it something like 30k a year per prisoner in this country?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This to me says quite clearly that the Constitution is an affirmative document in explicitly providing powers to the federal government. Meaning, EVERYTHING not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government, was meant to be reserved for the States, or the people (via lower levels of government in some cases). The 10th is by far the most abused and forgotten entry of the Bill of Rights. I blame liberal members of the Supreme Court over the years who have essentially given up on this amendment. They expand the words of the text or read into the text so much that a lot of the clauses are essentially at odds with the original meaning. I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) This is sort of in conflict with your point that the executive is there to administer the policies of Congress. Congress created and funds FEMA, and the executive is supposed to manage it. Therefore, by your logic, the President (Chief Executive) was highly responsible for the debacle of a federal response to Katrina. He was responsible in part yes. Should he, as the apparent sole representative of the federal government, have done more? No. Bush got the bulk of the blame when both the local and state governments also failed their constituents. The federal government should be there to assist the state and local resources, not replace them which is what most people want them to do.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) I thought you said important? Having more powers doesn't make you more important. Important, strong, powerful...all the same in the context I'm talking about. Congress was meant to be the chief policy maker, creating legislation for the country. Today it seems that Congress waits on the President to give it agendas to work with when it should be the other way around.

lol. one of the funniest things i've heard in a while. "i don't want to put you on the spot here, but are you his gay lover?' 'it's not like i haven't thought about it, you know, in vegas, that mexican midget...'

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) Why don't we check out the Constitution instead? Do it! And report back with who has more express powers. Also note that the Supreme Courts role is barely mentioned (and what is mentioned is not the Courts role today).

The faster this guy dies the better this world will be. As I said in another post yesterday, a shot in the back of the head would be a more efficient way to go. Though with his crime I wouldn't mind seeing him tortured quite a bit before he's dead. I hope he rots in hell.

Check out the Federalist Papers and biographies of most of the 'founding fathers.' Most agreed Congress should be the strongest branch of the government. Strongest doesn't mean unchecked. Our current government has two flaws: A) The President has become too powerful. He's the spokesman for our country who is supposed to enforce what Congress legislates. Today, he initiates most legislation and uses his popularity to mold Congress to vote on it. sub a) Because of the new President standard the distinction between Federal and State power is practically non-existent. Katrina is a good example of this. Why was Bush blamed for not acting when the ONLY Federal response came from FEMA. Argue all you want about whether Bush nominated the right guy to lead that agency, but most people thought Bush should have 'done more.' It's not the federal governments job to fix every problem in the country! (So I guess back to the subject of the thread my President will understand his role as leader of all national problems, not state and local problems......but that'll never happen again.) B) Congress is the red-headed stepchild of government. Both the Senate and House are worthless. They fear what will happen if they actually do good. There priorities are job security and networking, not the people. The entire system should go back to the way it was in the beginning when a seat in Congress was more of an annoyance than anything else. The meeting hall was hot, the pay was low, and the reward was doing a good job and not having 15,000 state projects named after you (crazy Byrd). The Federal Government is entirely too powerful and intrusive into our lives. Whether it be gay marriage, stem cell research, gun control, religion etc etc, these issues should be decided by communities, not crooks from DC. My President and Reps would understand their limited role. Pseudo Republican-Libertarians unite!

Huh? What's this got to do with anything? Should we rid ourselves of the entire justice system because we're not perfect? Let's just give up and let criminals run lose because of the small chance of making a mistake in convicting someone... Agree with Nuke. Trial, Appeal and a .50 cent 9mm bullet to the back of the head doesn't cost that much. Who say's I can't? I can make a distinction between an unborn baby who deserves to live and a murderer who doesn't. Nice logic there...but no.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Obama is a rock star. And a Democrat

I don't understand the draw with Obama. He's never been enthusiastic about anything. He doesn't seem to care about any particular issue. He just seems like a guy who agree's with everyone about everything. To his credit there's nothing, yet, to dislike about him either. I dunno, I just haven't seen anything that he's done to really catch my eye or make me think he'll be any different.

1. Someone with the balls of our current president but the brains of our first or 16th president (does that count as not using names? ) 2. Anyone with half a soul who cares about their consitutuents needs but refuses to grant their wants. Also someone who is willing to rally the rest of Congress to reclaim their rightful position as the most important branch of the government instead of letting popularity contests ruin us all. for both: people that actually get stuff done. They manage to create lacy peterson legislation in a matter of days and it takes months and months (if not years) to fix the more pressing needs of the country.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) Unless you die and they suspend your sentence. No kidding. Before I die I'm going to earn billions in fraud and then pass it off to my heirs. Apparently there's no penalty for screwing a ton of people out of their retirements. As for Skilling, I would have liked 10 more years.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) oh come on... thats a dis-proportionate response... Also, the new chick that Jim works with... WAY HOTTER than Pam that is all Agreed. She's ridiculously hot.

QUOTE(bmags @ Oct 19, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) haha, we said the same thing. Damn, did kate look good with that makeup on in the airport or what? As the homeless guy said when I asked if he wanted a beer: "yes!" Desmond as Jesus was something I thought about. I also thought that he might really be dead. He doesn't talk with anyone other than Hurley, who is known to 'see' people that aren't really there. But that doesn't really jive with Ecko and Locke getting out alive too.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Oct 19, 2006 -> 09:14 AM) I felt last night's was the weakest of the year so far. PErhpas because it didn't include the three main characters. I still love the show, but my wife has given up. It can be a frustrating show to watch because you invest so much time and effort and there is so little payoff in terms of what is revealed. What?!? I thought this was by far the best episode this season, if not the best episode since the first season. They changed up the story telling (flashback with boone was crazy) and they opened up more theories (as usual). The give more background to a character that seemed to be guarded...a background which was way outta left field. Also, that polar bear jumping through the fire scared the piss outta me.

I've been waiting for this episode since last season. Locke and Echo are my favorite characters and it looks like they'll be battling 'the beast' tonight. Should be good!

Except that there are the rare occasions in which an innocent person is charged for a crime they didn't commit and without said lawyer that person would be thrown in jail for something he/she didn't do. There is a process we call justice and even though we think everyone is guilty as soon as the cops arrest them, they're not. Also, stop watching Law and Order. It's very, very rare for a case to be thrown out on a procedural error. Mistakes happen and certain trial strategies may be affected by the negligence of the prosecution, but there are still mechanisms in place to convict the guy if he's guilty. As for the frivilous lawsuits, ethical lawyers know not to bring those types of cases to the courts, and ethical judges know they shouldn't hear them. Also keep in mind most of the time jury's come up with the reward amount. You're a perfect example for the point NorthSideSox brought up about overgeneralizing/categorizing people. Being a year away from becoming a lawyer, I find your rant not only wrong but also worthless. Everyone is self-interested and everyone wants to make money. Every business, regardless of industry, exists to make a profit through all legal means. It's ridiculous to criticize lawyers for getting everything they can for their clients when the rest of the country functions the same way. Again, try attending a real trial or talking to real attorneys and stop relying on Law and Order to teach you the reality of our legal system. Should there be some tort reform? Yeah, I would agree something should be done (a cap on punitive damages for one). But you have to really look at the whole picture first. Yeah it might be sad that we, as a society, have to fear lawsuits in situations where 50 years ago we wouldn't have thought of doing such a thing. But that's probably .001% of lawsuits that are on the books right now. You only hear about them because they can sell some papers. The flip-side is that these types of lawsuits have provided more safety and security for a ridiculously large and complex area of the law that has taken years to evolve and will continue to do so in the future. 75 years ago people had no idea that car manufacturers could be held liable for faulty brakes that resulted in a death or that landlords should ensure their buildings are safe, etc etc. You gotta take the good with the bad. But they don't. Again, we're talking about an incredibly small number of cases that are filed and an even smaller amout of cases that make it to trial. Compound that with the years of waiting to get anything out of such a lawsuit. People abusing welfare are worse 'social parasites' than people who sue for a bad reason. In my opinion you're only looking at the bad and refusing to see the good. With such logic I guess I should never invest in business because of people like Kenneth Lay or take part in government because of Mark Foley.

I don't think there's a problem DEFENDING these scumbags that she works for, however AIDING them in their activities is quite different. I agree with Nuke that she should have gotten a harsher (more harsh?) punishment. I don't care if she dies tomorrow, part of punishment is to set examples and deter future crime. This punishment does neither.

I don't really care about the rights issues involved here, but what a waste of tax revenue. What good will it do to have 10,000 cameras? Can it stop crime before it happens? No. Is it going to help solve crimes that do happen? Probably not. Just a big ol' waste of money. Hmm. Daley wasting money. That's new.

Wow. So i'm probably immune at this point.

OK, my thoughts on the premiere: 1. Thank god for DVR. No way I can sit through that with all the commercials. It was annoying for the 6-7 seconds it would take to FF. I couldn't imagine having to sit through all of those. 2. Nothing really new came out...just kinda affirmed some ongoing theories. We knew the Others were playing a role. We knew they knew about everything on the island. We do learn about the new chica, how everyone views 'Benry' as the leader and that the new chica is at odds with him (what was she so sad about at the beginning)? There will be a rift there eventually and I think Jack will somehow get her to come to the 'good guys' side. 3. I think the whole 'they're trying to create a super race or something similar' theory is still possible. I think they've injected Kate with something...either the 'disease' Rousseau talks about or they might have impregnated her. My personal theory is that they've injected her with something and they're going to get her and sawyer to go at it for them. The whole breakfast scene uncovered who she likes more, and then they eventually bring her to him. I think that was a big sign. 4. I, like you guys, think the Other in the cage was a decoy. That was all planned for some reason maybe for #3). 5. As for their 'village' I think it's strange that Rousseau hasn't been there before. She's been on the island for 16-17 years and never noticed it? 6. I'm still not sure what to think of Jacks flashback. Is he pissed at himself for causing his wife to find someone else? Is he sad that he made her unhappy? Is he sad she left? Is he sad how jealous he got and what he did to his father? Or is it everything? It seemed like when he finally found out she was happy that it broke him. But I'm not sure in which way. And I also wonder if the chica really has a big file on him or if she just got lots of info from the survivors from monitoring them. Supposedly others have said that she never said anything to him that we don't know based on what he's told the other survivors. But at the same time they have current technology (dual cd/dvd player in the beginning) so they obviously have some link to the outside world. All and all it didn't really answer anything. Next week should be good because my favorie characters are Lock and Mr. Eko and we should know what happened to them. And I still want to know what the hell the big foot is from (from the finale last season).