Gay Patriot Header Image

As Bugs Bunny Would Say…

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:20 pm - January 26, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,Supreme Court

… what an Ultra Maroon!

Kerry will try Alito filibuster – CNN

What is it with Democrat Presidential losers who jump the shark after they are defeated in an election?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Commenting on Kerry’s call for a filibuster, The Truth Laid Bear writes:

Kerry has become the Paris Hilton to Al Gore’s Nicole Ritchie on the stage of American politics: creatures whose fame has become self-sustaining; and who remain in the public eye not because of any achievement or acumen, but who are simply famous for being famous.

(Via: Instapundit).

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): In this morning’s (Friday, January 27) OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund writes:

But there is more than a whiff of absurd opportunism. Senator Kerry already knows his effort is doomed. . . . . Senator Kerry is well known for his political selfishness, and no doubt this grandstanding move will endear him to portions of the loony left as he plans to run again for president.

(Emphasis added.)

UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW on 01-27-06 @ 8:25 PM EST): As to Senator Kery and the filibuster, OpinionJournal.com urges Senator Kerry to “Bring It On:”

Apparently, this is not a parody. . . . Imagine the political gain for Republicans after a Supreme Court filibuster–with all of its 24/7 publicity–by blue-state liberals against a modest Italian-American with impeccable legal credentials and stainless ethics. Mr. Kerry really seems to believe that the country will rise up in fury when it discovers that Judge Alito believes that the Constitution gives a President wide powers to defend America.

Back on planet Earth, at least three red-state Democrats have now said they’ll vote for Judge Alito.

Read the whole thing!

Share

64 Comments

  1. It sounds like someone has not gottten over his loss and doesn’t recognize what the Constitution says about Supreme Court appointments. He’s acting like a little child who didn’t get his way and is throwing a bone to the far left.

    As I write this, I understand that 53 Senators (a majority) of 100 have come out in favor of the confirmation of Alito. Just as Sen. Kerry did last November 3, he should acnknowledge that he lost this one and concede graciously.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - January 26, 2006

  2. Harry Reid and the Democrat side of the Gang of Seven have already said no filibuster, so by calling for one, Kerry is basically giving a shout-out to the Kos/MoveOn Moonbats, knowing it won’t cost him anything to call for a filibuster that he doesn’t really expect to happen.

    Comment by V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - January 26, 2006

  3. It strikes me as a huge political blunder. Then again we are talking about John Kerry.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — January 26, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - January 26, 2006

  4. Conservative Guy, I agree with you. This is a blunder which could seriously help the GOP. As it defines the further defines the Democrats as a party of obstruction, not governing.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - January 26, 2006

  5. I disagree with Kerry, but, Bruce, the fact that he lost a presidential election doesn’t mean he can’t stand up for what he believes are his principles.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 26, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - January 26, 2006

  6. You mean his principles THIS week, Jack.

    This is why I think the single most brilliant political ad of the 2004 campaign was the one of Kerry windsurfing…..back and forth, side to side, changing with every political breeze…a perfect metaphor for the man who will say anything and do anything to get votes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - January 26, 2006

  7. Question:

    Did he start this crap before or after the Imperial Grand Wizzard of the Senate came out to support Alito?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2006 @ 1:15 am - January 27, 2006

  8. Alito rules!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 At least all of Alito’s former law clerks say so, including the Democrat ones – see here. That kind of first-hand, bi-partisan testimony is good enough for me.

    My question to you-all: Do you think Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, etc., know they are being unbelievably cheap, lying, cynical partisans?

    Or (incredible as it may seem in the face of all the contrary evidence), do they truly believe the awful, unbelievable things they claim about Alito?

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 1:25 am - January 27, 2006

  9. I don’t particularly care what Alito’s former law clerks have to say about him. They may have cases that might go to the US SupCt, and it is likely that they would not want to alienate him by testifying against him.

    Alito is attributed with having penned two opinions on gay-related issues. The Shore case from New Jersey, involving the requirement that the local school district allow a transfer of a student to a school in another school district because of anti-gay harassment. And the Saxe case, involving a claim that students of particular religious believes have a right under the constitution to harass gay students under the 1st amendment.

    Regarding the Shore case, that was a rather pedestrian opinion involving statutory construction and the appropriate standard that the district court was required to give to findings of fact determined by the Administrative Law Judge that actually held the trial. Pedestrian.

    Alito’s opinion in the Saxe case was much more troubling. It held that students have a first amendment right to harass gay students if they are basing the harassment on a presumed first amendment right regarding religion. Sorry, but that’s stupid. State law provided for a public education system, which was to be available to all children that were not being provided with other options (private, parochial or home schooling). Alito’s opinion essentially said that gay students in public schools could be harassed, which would deny them equal rights promised by the 14th amendment.

    Alito is an idiot.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 6:46 am - January 27, 2006

  10. Oh, and by the way, if GWBush were to nominate intelligent jurists, such as Richard Posner (7th circuit) or Kozinski (9th circuit), I might sit up and listen. Both are libertarian/conservative. It isn’t going to happen.

    Two of the most highly regarded American jurists of the 20th century, Learned Hand and his cousin Augustus Hand (both on the 2d circuit) were never nominated for the US SupCt.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 6:52 am - January 27, 2006

  11. Raj, in #9, your comment on Alito’s clerks is silly. If they didn’t like the man, they just could have remained silent. They wouldn’t need testify against him and so alienate him.

    As far as the supposedly “gay” cases, it’s clear you’re paraphrasing talking points from the HRC or NGLTF or some other left-wing interest group. Talking points which take the decision out of context and misrepresenting his decisions, particularly by using words which make his decisions sound more diabolical.

    And one can see the effects of the smear tactics of the Senate Judiciary Committee and their allied left-wing groups in the tone of your post, calling him an “idiot” and his opinions “stupid.”

    The president has nominated an intelligent jurist, your claim in #10 notwithstanding. Both Chief Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito are jurists of the highest caliber and will distinguish themselves in their service on the Court.

    That said, the Senate had the chance to consider this decision and now a majority of Senators favor his confirmation, including so far three Democrats. They’ve had a chance to consider his record. And even some of his opponents have acknowledged his qualifications.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 7:07 am - January 27, 2006

  12. #5 — Kerry has no principles. He’s an empty suit. When he and Ted “the Drowner” Kennedy call Alito an extremist, they are merely acting as mouthpieces for the Pro-Abortion Zealots of NARAL, the Left-of-the-ACLU PFAW, and the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd at MoveOn/Kos/New York Times. (Yeah, nothing out-of-the-mainstream about those groups).

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 7:13 am - January 27, 2006

  13. To me the issue is quite simple. Is the candidate qualified and does he possess the proper credentials to be a USSC justice? For Alito, the answer is a resounding YES! To say he is not worthy because some leftists feel he must pass a ‘litmus test’ they created is ignoring the objective data that clearly proves the man is eminently qualified. THAT is what ‘advise and consent means’ to me..NOT ‘advise and dissent’ based on my personal views. Alito is in…live with it…

    Comment by benj — January 27, 2006 @ 7:42 am - January 27, 2006

  14. To “Raj” #9, “Alito is an idiot”…….
    Alito is headed for the Supreme Court, you, on the other hand, are writing tirades on blogs.
    Who’s the idiot again?

    Comment by JonInAtlanta — January 27, 2006 @ 10:02 am - January 27, 2006

  15. #14 — Even better. Alito is headed for the SCOTUS, where his opinions will affect the law for decades. The guy calling him an idiot is writing rants on a blog and failing to persuade anyone to even take his opinions seriously.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 10:14 am - January 27, 2006

  16. #9 raj baby “Alito is an idiot”.

    Now, doesn’t that say everything about your ability to persuade, develop a cogent argument, and make an assessment?

    What you should have had the guts to write is “Alito isn’t a liberal partisan hack we can count on voting my way. Alito was nominated by a President who stole the election. I want my Al Gore back. Waaaaaaaaaa!”

    Because, raj baby, that’s what your impotent position reduces to.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 27, 2006 @ 10:15 am - January 27, 2006

  17. BOT, why is that when JimminyCricketCarter opens his mouth or SlickWilly extracts his mouth from some intern’s snatch, the press run to them as if they were Moses bringing another 10 Commandments?

    God, it’s like Bono on a continual loop> don’t these guys know that, like Vermont, they no longer matter? They aren’t relevant. The country’s moved on.

    I’d really like to see Congress take about 60% of the retired Presidential budgets and cut ’em, end the tax advantage for presidential papers, and require Pres Centers and Libraries to have self-appointing Boards in order to secure Natl Archive support.

    Or in the alternative, mandatory burial of former presidents 90 days after leaving office. (Just kidding, in case the SecSer is still monitoring this site). The 1st Ladies ought to get all the goodies given what they’ve had to put up with over the years, tho.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 27, 2006 @ 10:26 am - January 27, 2006

  18. Great! So, my question: Do you think Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, etc., know they are being unbelievably cheap, lying, cynical partisans?

    Or (incredible as it may seem in the face of the evidence of Alito’s goodness), do they truly believe the awful things they claim about Alito?

    This is not just a rhetorical question; I’m trying to figure out something about human nature.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 10:31 am - January 27, 2006

  19. #17 – Matt, obviously Carter and Clinton matter to the MSM, and to the 30% of the country who still slavishly follow them. That’s 90 million people.

    That’s not much of an answer to your question, but I don’t think you can just dismiss them by saying “the country’s moved on” – at least 30% of the country hasn’t moved on. So their crap / B.S. must be swatted down as it bubbles up (from the sewers of the MSM).

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 10:35 am - January 27, 2006

  20. Do you think Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, etc., know they are being unbelievably cheap, lying, cynical partisans?

    I think Kerry has this awareness, but he doesn’t care, because he thinks being a cheap, lying, cynical partisan is the definition of politician, and he may be right. I don’t think he cares much as long as he commands the adoration of the media, and gets unlimited use of Tuhrayzuh’s personal fortune.

    I don’t think Kennedy knows, because, at the risk of provoking a childish ‘gotcha’ from raj, I really don’t think Kennedy’s all that bright. He is just a member of the Lucky Sperm club who cheated his way through college, coasted to the Senate out of sympathy for his dead siblings, and now just reads off whatever garbage his staff sticks in front of him.

    Schumer strikes me as an “ends justifies the means” guy. He wants left-wingers power because his core beliefs are elite-socialist, and he believes that dishonest smear campaigns are a justifiable means to that end.

    Just my impressions. Not worth anything, really.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 10:39 am - January 27, 2006

  21. I disagree with Kerry, but, Bruce, the fact that he lost a presidential election doesn’t mean he can’t stand up for what he believes are his principles.

    Sorry for the language Bruce, but John Allen – are you fucking kidding me? You actually believe this has something to do with principles??? Johny Kerry is the most unprincipled politician I have ever seen in my adult life.

    Comment by Robert — January 27, 2006 @ 10:50 am - January 27, 2006

  22. #20 – Your impression of Schumer is the same as mine of Bob Shrum, in the Political Teen’s extract of the Shrum-Buchanan encounter over Alito.

    Shrum conveys the intensity of his own fear and hysteria over Alito; but Shrum must know, on some level, that the stuff against Alito was all trumped up and the evidence of Alito’s goodness is pretty strong. I got the impression that Shrum was doing a “Dr. Goebbels”, spreading the lie as long and hard as he can, simply because the end justifies the means – Roe vs. Wade must be defended at all costs.

    So, they end up with this weird combination of misplaced idealism (their irrational attachment to Roe v. Wade) and ghastly cynicism.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 10:53 am - January 27, 2006

  23. Bob Shrum is a soul-less uber-sleaze.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 10:57 am - January 27, 2006

  24. #21 – Hah hah – I missed that point the first time around, Robert. But I believe you’re right.

    I have identified one constant principle in the positions Kerry has taken over his career: that U.S. power (and hence the U.S.) must always be submitted to U.N. control; any exercise of U.S. power outside of U.N. control is always, inherently wrong.

    Other than that, every position or “principle” that Kerry has ever taken, he will abandon 10 seconds later (sometimes literally) when the winds change or it’s time to pander to a new audience.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 10:58 am - January 27, 2006

  25. Re: the up-update…

    John McIntyre over at RealClearPolitics takes a similar view. Kerry can never win the Presidency, but, he thinks he can, and he is running. Keeping his name out there and endearing himself to the “nominating base” in a low-cost way is a good strategy for him.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - January 27, 2006

  26. The up-update is pretty much a rewording of my comment #2.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - January 27, 2006

  27. GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 7:07 am – January 27, 2006

    Raj, in #9, your comment on Alito’s clerks is silly. If they didn’t like the man, they just could have remained silent. They wouldn’t need testify against him and so alienate him.

    Sorry, your comment is silly. The question that you fail to address is why were any of these prior clerks called at all? I wouldn’t really care what the clerks have to say about their former boss. What I would be interested in is what the boss has to say about himself. More specifically, his views on legal issues. That was virtually totally absent.

    BTW, liking the man is pretty much irrelevant. The idea that they were kissing his nether regions, which is pretty much what they were doing–perhaps to ingratiate themselves with him in the event that they had cases that might go up to the US SupCt–is relevant.

    Regarding

    As far as the supposedly “gay” cases, it’s clear you’re paraphrasing talking points from the HRC or NGLTF or some other left-wing interest group

    thank you for telling me that, but you would be seriously mistaken. I have read Alito’s opinions in both Shore and Saxe, but I have not read any commentary from HRC or NGLTF. Apparently, unlike you, I do understand the legal and practical issues.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - January 27, 2006

  28. I have read Alito’s opinions in both Shore and Saxe

    Apparently not, or you wouldn’t have misprepresented either:

    Alito ruled in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S. that the parents of a New Jersey student could enroll their teenage son in a high school outside their area.

    Alito on Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001): “There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free speech clause…. When laws against harassment attempt to regulate oral or written expression on such topics, however detestable the views expressed may be, we cannot turn a blind eye to the First Amendment implications.”

    And indeed, he is correct. “Harassment” is not an exception to the First Amendment.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 27, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - January 27, 2006

  29. Well, perhaps, Raj, I was wrong to say that you got your talking points from HRC or NGLTF. Still, yours seems a strained reading of his opinions and offers no actual reference to them. So it seems you are misreading the rulings — or taking some aspects out of context.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - January 27, 2006

  30. rightwingprof — January 27, 2006 @ 3:06 pm – January 27, 2006

    Apparently you do not understand the underlying issue regarding the Saxe case. The issue is that, if the public school district is required to allow harassment under the 1st amendment, it is depriving the student being harassed from equal protection under the 14th amendment, section 1: the right to an equal education provided by government schools. The 14th amendment was ratified subsequent to the 1st amendment.

    If the harassment had occured at a mall or on the street, you might have a point. Since it occured in a government facility–the public schools–you really don’t.

    Alito was apparently unable to understand this issue, and that is what is disturbing. It is a mistake to merely read the words of an opinion, it is necessary to read what is apparent between the words.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - January 27, 2006

  31. GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 4:23 pm – January 27, 2006

    You want links? I’ve got links.

    Shore: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/033438p.pdf

    Saxe: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=994081

    You can get downloads of text from a number of judicial opinions from findlaw.com. It is relatively easy to navigate.

    Regarding “out of context,” no. My position regarding Saxe is stated above. Regarding the Alito’s opinion in the Shore case, it was a rather pedestrian opinion on two issues:

    (i) the statutory standard that was to be applied to the case, and

    (ii) whether the district court gave the required deference to the findings of fact that had been found by the finder of fact–the Administrative Law Judge, who actually held the trial.

    There was no constitutional issue in Shore.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - January 27, 2006

  32. #28 rightwingprof — January 27, 2006 @ 3:06 pm – January 27, 2006

    Apparently not, or you wouldn’t have misprepresented either:

    Alito ruled in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S. that the parents of a New Jersey student could enroll their teenage son in a high school outside their area.

    Um, I did not suggest otherwise. I asserted that it was a pedestrian opinion on a non-constitutional issue. See #31 for details.

    My objection to Saxe, which was an opinion on a constitutional issue, is in #30.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - January 27, 2006

  33. Linking to the cases doesn’t change the fact that your interpretation of them is strained at best, raj.

    I would guess that GPW meant you need to defend your strained interpretations with arguments of greater logic, referring to specific contents/statements of the opinions.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - January 27, 2006

  34. #33 Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 5:02 pm – January 27, 2006

    Linking to the cases doesn’t change the fact that your interpretation of them is strained at best, raj.

    Thank you for telling me that. The unfortunate things for your position are that:

    (i) Regarding Shore, Alito’s opinion was nothing more than a pedestrian application of statutory law and procedure. There was no constitutional issue in the case, and he doesn’t deserve any particular credit for the pedestrian application of statutory law and procedure.

    (ii) Regarding Saxe, Alito’s opinion ignored the obvious 14th amendment equal protection issue.

    I stand by my comment.

    GPW apparently did not know how to access text of Alito’s opinions in the cases, so I provided the links.

    You tell me. What about Alito suggests that he, rather than legal heavy-weights like Posner or Kozinski, should be nominated for the Supreme Court? Other than the fact that the gardener GWBush and his handlers wants Alito there.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - January 27, 2006

  35. #29

    Sorta like how liberals read the Constitution, what is written there doesn’t exist, but they can find anything that fits their agenda (abortion, separation of church and state etc.) written in it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - January 27, 2006

  36. So Raj has moved on from talking about the Fatherland over and over, to using the word “pedestrian” in every post. Here’s another word for you, Raj. Repetitious.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - January 27, 2006

  37. Actually, Saxe makes me feel better about Alito as a jurist; if one reads the Appendix in which the school “harassment code”, the breadth and scope of what it attempts to cover is absolutely breathtaking in its foolishness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - January 27, 2006

  38. Regarding Shore, Alito’s opinion was nothing more than a pedestrian application of statutory law and procedure.

    In other words, he followed the law.

    (Lefites prefer an “outcome-based” approach to jurisprudence, wherein the judge decides on the “right” politically-correct outcome, and then tries to find a creative way to twist the law to accommodate it. See also, Roe v Wade.)

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - January 27, 2006

  39. #38

    Another fine example is when they look at the U.S. Code and somehow find that warrantless surveillance is illegal.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 2:31 am - January 28, 2006

  40. Who’s this John Kerry person anyway? He looks vaguely familiar.

    Comment by glisteny — January 28, 2006 @ 2:50 am - January 28, 2006

  41. #39 ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 2:31 am – January 28, 2006

    Another fine example is when they look at the U.S. Code and somehow find that warrantless surveillance is illegal.

    They, who?

    I’ve looked at the US Code and know full well that warrantless electronic surveillance is legal for a sliding window of 72 hours allowing the Feds to establish probable cause to support their application for a warrant. 50 USC 1801(h)(4)

    Comment by raj — January 28, 2006 @ 8:04 am - January 28, 2006

  42. Who’s this John Kerry person anyway? He looks vaguely familiar.

    I think he fought briefly in Vietnam.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 28, 2006 @ 9:00 am - January 28, 2006

  43. #39 — Actually, it’s a bit more nuanced. When the “scandal” broke in December, the left originally focused on the wiretapping itself. It was only after the polling came back that showed the sensible mainstream of the American people supported listening in on terrorists that the left changed its tactics, and focused instead on the “warrantless” nature of said intercepts: positing the legal absurdity that the intelligence community has to seek permission from a judge every time it wants to intercept an enemy communication in wartime.

    Comment by V the K — January 28, 2006 @ 9:40 am - January 28, 2006

  44. In my opinion, I review cases such as Kelo v. New London ( the eminent domain case that allows local and state gov’t to confiscate homes to, in essence, increase to tax take) when evaluating a judicical candidate such as Mr. Alito.

    In that horrible decision the court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of allowing the taking of homes. The 5 most “liberal” justices have , in effect, allowed this to occur.

    With that said, I view Mr. Alito as a moderate juctice in what at times is a rogue court.

    My 2 cents

    Long Live Jaco Pastorius

    Comment by SixStringBassPlayer — January 28, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - January 28, 2006

  45. I hope Alito will want to reverse Kelo, but we don’t know.

    You are right that it was the liberal justices who brought us the awful Kelo decision, and the conservatives who actually defended the little guy / average citizen.

    Same with the medical marijuana decision a few months earlier – the Court’s liberals overturned it, the conservatives had upheld it.

    It all fits with the idea that Left-liberals reliably and always want to extend government power, whereas conservatives only want to extend government power part of the time, and hence are the lesser evil. I hope Alito will continue to fit that mold.

    Comment by Calarato — January 28, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - January 28, 2006

  46. Now Hillary says she’ll join in the filibuster. Fascinating. Now, when Republicans filibuster the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and Catherine MacKinnons she wants to put on the court, she won’t have a leg to stand on.

    Comment by V the K — January 28, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - January 28, 2006

  47. Except the filibuster rule probably won’t exist anymore, at that point. (If the Dems get 41 votes against cloture on Monday, the Republicans will have to abolish the rule, for judicial nominees, to confirm Alito.)

    In which case, Hillary + 50 Democratic Senators = she gets to appoint whoever she wants.

    I agree Alito is unstoppable, but the Republican position is not without its own dangers.

    Comment by Calarato — January 28, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - January 28, 2006

  48. #41

    Ummmmmm……..No you don’t. Try again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 29, 2006 @ 1:36 am - January 29, 2006

  49. I hope Alito will want to reverse Kelo, but we don’t know.

    You need to get a reality check regarding Kelo. What is the actual text of the 5th amendment? I’ll tell you:

    …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation….

    What the court in Kelo was telling you was that they are not going to substitute their judgement for what is a “public use” for the judgements of the political branches of government.

    I had been led to believe that conservatives wanted the political branches to reign supreme, but I guess that that is only the case when they agree with the determinations of the political branches.

    Comment by raj — January 29, 2006 @ 8:39 am - January 29, 2006

  50. I admire your attempt to defend your fellow liberals, Raj, but answer me this — how is taking and knocking down one set of in-use private homes to build another set of more-expensive private homes “public use”?

    That’s not “substituting their judgment”. That’s exercising common sense.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2006 @ 11:46 am - January 29, 2006

  51. name calling based on a cartoon character? that’s a good basis for intelligent discussion. belittling of people with opposing viewpoints: another sign of fascism.

    Comment by Kevin — January 30, 2006 @ 6:36 am - January 30, 2006

  52. belittling of people with opposing viewpoints: another sign of fascism.

    LOL.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 8:34 am - January 30, 2006

  53. #37 North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2006 @ 7:14 pm – January 27, 2006

    This is a joke, right?

    I’ll give you an analogy. The state requires any juvenile who has hair of a particular color attend some kind of schooling. The state provides schooling at taxpayers’ expense. Parent have the option of sending their juveniles to private and parochial school at their own expense, or to home-school them, if they have the wherewithal. Some of them do not have the wherewithal.

    Someone who has green hair is deemed subject to harassment by some faction because that faction claims a religious tenet that says that green hair is sinful. So their harassment drives all of the juveniles who have green hair out of the school. That strikes me as being a failure of equal protection. They are denying, through their harassment, an equal opportunity to education at taxpayer’s expense. If the school does not stop the harassment, they are complicit in the denial.

    You might not like the fact that there are gov’t schools, but it is the fact that they exist. Moreover, and is more to the point in Saxe is that state law probably required a minor to be instructed to a certain age (usually at least 16). Unlike Alito’s and apparently your opinion, context is everything. If the parents do not wish to, or do not have the wherewithall to send their children to private or parochial schools, why should they not be able to send their children to public schools with the expectation that they would receive the same educational opportunities as other children?

    BTW, take a look at the 7th circuit’s decision in Nabozny vs. Podlesny if you want a bit of education in the 14th amendment’s equal protection issue.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=953634

    If Bush had nominated intelligent conservative jurists such as Posner (7th circuit) or Kosnizki (9th circuit), I’d sit up and listen. Otherwise, no.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 11:45 am - January 30, 2006

  54. #50 North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2006 @ 11:46 am – January 29, 2006

    This is a joke, right? I haven’t defended any liberals–more on that later. What I have commented on is the hypocrisy of self-described conservatives. They tend to approve of court decisions that conform to their world view “Weltanschauung.” And they bitch&moan about court decisions that do not conform to their world view, and complain about an “activist judiciary”–even the portion of the judiciary that is elected. The hypocrisy is rather evident.

    The “more on that later” is that I pretty much turn a deaf ear whenever anyone throws out the epithet “liberal.” I’ve criticized Stevie Miller (the blogger at IndeGayForum”) for his rather extensive use of the “leftist” epithet. Of course, Miller is a self-described recovering lefty–so his use of the “leftist” epithet can be analogized to a recovering smoker rejecting smokers.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 11:46 am - January 30, 2006

  55. #53: No, it is not. But your response is, because you attempt to use a hypothetical situation in which something did happen to justify creating a draconian policy to prevent something that might happen.

    The point of Saxe is that you are not allowed to abrogate free speech to that extent because people might abuse it; there has to be a clear pattern of abuse for that to be allowable. So, unless you can prove there was a situation in which all the students of a specific type were driven out of that school, your argument is useless.

    #54: No, but again your response is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 2:13 am - January 31, 2006

  56. that’s a good basis for intelligent discussion. belittling of people with opposing viewpoints: another sign of fascism.

    In that case, I think you win the trophy for fascism on this board, Kevin.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 2:15 am - January 31, 2006

  57. #55 North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 2:13 am – January 31, 2006

    No, it is not. But your response is, because you attempt to use a hypothetical situation in which something did happen to justify creating a draconian policy to prevent something that might happen.

    This is positively silly. A situation in which something did happen is, by definition not a hypothetical situation.

    One thing that you apparently do not wish to realize is that rules against harassment in public schools–which children may be required by law to attend–is not censorship. It is well recognized that government may make time, place & manner limitations on speech, as long as those limitations are content neutral. The plaintiffs in the Saxe case could take their rants to the public square and rant to their hearts’ content. Children are not required to be in the public square.

    But, in a venue in which children arguably are required to attend? No.

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - January 31, 2006

  58. It is well recognized that government may make time, place & manner limitations on speech, as long as those limitations are content neutral.

    Ah, but you see, Raj, the policy specifically addresses what the individual is saying — in short, the content.

    This is positively silly. A situation in which something did happen is, by definition not a hypothetical situation.

    So this isn’t a hypothetical situation?

    Someone who has green hair is deemed subject to harassment by some faction because that faction claims a religious tenet that says that green hair is sinful. So their harassment drives all of the juveniles who have green hair out of the school.

    After all, something happened in it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 12:06 am - February 1, 2006

  59. #58 North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 12:06 am – February 1, 2006

    A point that you continually wish to evade is the fact that state law requires the minors to attend public school, if the parents do not wish to (or do not have the wherewithall) to send them to private or parochial school, or to home-school them. The obvious 14th amendment equal protection issue was lost on Alito and appears to be lost on you.

    Until you address that issue, I’m done with this thread.

    Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 11:52 am - February 1, 2006

  60. LOL….that is because, Raj, if you take that tack, state law requires, with this policy, that students be forced to go to a place where they must give up their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression regardless of whether they abuse it or not.

    How does that harmonize with the Fourteenth Amendment?

    The answer — it doesn’t. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “due process”, which means you cannot arbitrarily strip people of their rights. This policy emphatically strips students of their rights to free speech and expression based solely on content.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - February 1, 2006

  61. #60 North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 3:19 pm – February 1, 2006

    This policy emphatically strips students of their rights to free speech and expression based solely on content.

    NDT, you still have evaded the 14th amendment’s equal protection issue. I’ll quote it for your convenience:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Try again

    Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - February 1, 2006

  62. Actually, try making an accurate quote, Raj:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Of course, the reason you do that is because the policy in question clearly violates the first two phrases in that section. Your argument for equal protection only works if you ignore the additional caveats to the Fourteenth Amendment that those two phrases provide; namely, that “equal protection” does NOT allow the abridging of the rights of others and does NOT allow the denial of due process.

    You see, Alito read the whole of the law and realized that the rights of students concerning their education did not justify stripping every student of free speech and expression rights.

    But, since you oppose Alito, you conveniently left that part out to attempt to strengthen your irrational argument.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - February 1, 2006

  63. NDT, I can quote the entire 14th amendment if you wish. All five sections of it. The reason that I did not is that the rest of the amendment had nothing to do with the equal protection issue that you continually wish to evade.

    The state provides schooling, and it requires minors to attend some sort of schooling. Why you are unable to address that “equal protection” issue is beyond me. Until you do, I am done with this thread.

    Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 6:41 pm - February 1, 2006

  64. Ah, but you see, Raj….I did.

    Your argument for equal protection only works if you ignore the additional caveats to the Fourteenth Amendment that those two phrases provide; namely, that “equal protection” does NOT allow the abridging of the rights of others and does NOT allow the denial of due process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - February 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.