SCOTUS

I'm a nerd, I can't help it.

I dream of one day sitting on the court and getting vanity plates for my whip that say JUSTICE or SCOTUS.

My favorite Justice of the day is Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia. I dislike a great deal of what he stands for including rampant idealism. Collective religious conservatism. Lack of equal treatment for homosexuals, but dude is just so funny. Not to mention so damn logical.

Quotables:

"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules." RAV v. St. Paul (Majority opinion discussing content based speech laws.)

"Consulting states that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-preference poll on the electric car." Roper v. Simmons (In dissent, arguing that states which bar the death penalty should not be counted in determining a national consensus on the issue of the death penalty for minors.)

"No government official is "tempted" to place restraints upon his own freedom of action, which is why Lord Acton did not say "Power tends to purify." The Court's temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction -- towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs." Planned Parenthood v. Casey (In dissent discussing the court's claim that it was tempted to use the political question doctrine to remove the abortion question from the scope of the courts powers.)

"I find it a sufficient embarrassment that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding holiday displays has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary." Lee v. Weisman (In dissent arguing against the courts holding that prayer at graduation is unconstitutional under establishment clause.)

"Perhaps the dissenters believe that 'offense to others' ought to be the only reason for restricting nudity in public places generally. . . . The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosierdome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd." Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc. (Concurring in the court upholding an Indiana indecency law.)

Feel Free to Beef...

i dont think we agree on the issues to much Milton, but scalia is my man as well.

I like the quote regarding the death penalty - 'since they aren't hip to killing anyone how can they possibly have something to say about killing children.'

In a big family the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it's not perfect, that's okay, there are a lot more coming along.

Antonin Scalia

Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached

Antonin Scalia

[The Freedom of Information Act is] the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost-Benefit Analysis Ignored.

Antonin Scalia

To be honest about it, that is the view of Christians taken by modern society. Surely those who adhere to all or most of these traditional Christian beliefs are to be regarded as simpleminded.

Antonin Scalia

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached

Antonin Scalia"

Logical?

And, yes, I understand the difference between factual innocence reached through improper procedural means and factual innocence reached through proper procedural means. But I'd disagree with the logic of his statement - that a truly, factually innocent person should be executed simply because his trial/appeals adhered to procedural due process requirements.

In other words, if a dude is innocent, he shouldn't die - regardless of what fucking jury said so.

PMB,

You're almost done eh?

Another quote:

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

Tom DeLay to 3 children Katrina survivors in a Houston shelter

Originally posted by Milton@Nov 23 2005, 09:45 AM

Lack of equal treatment for homosexuals, but dude is just so funny. Not to mention so damn logical.

 

Feel Free to Beef...

Quoted post

Ok, I got beef,

Why should a man who likes another mans hairy anus receive equal treatment? Would you let your kids sleep over Gay uncle Petes house along with his live in "buddy" Damon? What kind of equal treatment are you talking about anyway? Like the right to equally get thrown off a cliff right next to Father fondle and Chester the molester?

Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh....you guys know me by now, I'm not an unreasonable guy. But I still don't understand our societys (and especially young peoples) newfound tolerance to homos. When I was growing up, The lowest of low was a fag. But now it's like fags are just like everyone else, Just the queer guy who works in the next department. And women are so openly gay or bisexual these days.

Whats the deal? can someone explain the mindset of these people to me? The people I deal with on a day to day basis are not remotely gay. So honestly, this thing is foreign to me. It just seems like in the past 10 years or so Homosexuality has really popped off and people are all gayed out now. Like it's just a normal way to be or something.

Didn't anybody notice when AIDS hit? It seems like people don't pay much attention to the clear signs. Anyway, i'm sure the arguments will start now, people will call me a homophobe etc etc. ,thats ok. I just wonder why straight people defend homos nowadays, can anyone answer that for me? Maybe Gay is just "in".

if you knew any gays you probably wouldnt be tlaking such simpleminded shit, fortunately for you your religion shelters you from anything foreign. sure there are sexual deviants among gays (maybe even more proportionately to straights) but there are plenty of striaght child molesters and fucks like that too.

i liek it how fuckwits liek you who are yourself a minority (muslim i odnt even know if youre black or not) are often the first to abuse and opress other minorities

Originally posted by yum@Nov 24 2005, 03:33 AM

if you knew any gays you probably wouldnt be tlaking such simpleminded shit, fortunately for you your religion shelters you from anything foreign. sure there are sexual deviants among gays (maybe even more proportionately to straights) but there are plenty of striaght child molesters and fucks like that too.

 

i liek it how fuckwits liek you who are yourself a minority (muslim i odnt even know if youre black or not) are often the first to abuse and opress other minorities

Quoted post

I mean, If I knew gay people, Which I do, (I just don't choose to associate with them) and had I the authority to do so, I would ask them if they wanted help for their disease, If they chose to remain Gay without seeking help or showing any remorse or willingness to change then, off the cliff......and what is your defenition of a sexual deviant? wouldnt you consider someone who enjoys things in their anus a deviant? Or is anus inserting perfectly normal behavior to you?

Also, don't group Homosexuals with Blacks etc. etc. Black folks were born black , somebodys blackness or whiteness is something that cannot be seen as a fault because it is just how they were created. The homo, on the other hand has mutated into this condition of homosexuality from his original, pure state of being.

people who are gay are born that way. Like some people are born Irish.

(although I theorize some people are tramautized into homosexuality)

Like I don't choose to like girls... i just do...pussy gives me a hard on, not rock hudson...

many people shouldn't breed anyway, but that shouldn't foreclude them from helping to raise our children.

I was brought up very anti-gay (working-class Boston catholic) and generally speaking, none of my friends are gay.

I don't have much in common with that group, much like I don't hang with mongolians...

but I realized as I got older that people who are the most homophobic are usually self-hating fags themselves.

Me? I'm live and let live. So although I was against gay marriage and shit, now I don't give a fuck either/either...

"Also, don't group Homosexuals with Blacks etc. etc. Black folks were born black , somebodys blackness or whiteness is something that cannot be seen as a fault because it is just how they were created. The homo, on the other hand has mutated into this condition of homosexuality from his original, pure state of being."

exactly. homosexuality is learned. for the people who dont believe this, where is evidence of a "gay gene?"

genetics is a very young science. the human genome was completly mapped just a few yeas ago. It will take decades if not centuries to fully figure it out.

But more importantly, homosexuality is most likely not genetic. If it was there would be sub-groups/ethnic groups of gays. Which is impossible because they generally don't breed. Homosexuality is evenly distributed throughtout the human population, which suggests to me thats its biological...

and btw, about using evidence and shit, wheres the proof gay people choose to go gay?

:chicken:

How did this thread get off on the genetic basis for homosexuality?

Damn yall.

Originally posted by yum@Nov 23 2005, 07:33 PM

sure there are sexual deviants among gays (maybe even more proportionately to straights) but there are plenty of striaght child molesters and fucks like that too.

Quoted post

dude, men in general are sexual deviants. think about it.

Originally posted by BURLAP+Nov 25 2005, 07:05 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BURLAP - Nov 25 2005, 07:05 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-yum@Nov 23 2005, 07:33 PM

sure there are sexual deviants among gays (maybe even more proportionately to straights) but there are plenty of striaght child molesters and fucks like that too.

Quoted post

dude, men in general are sexual deviants. think about it.

[/b]

doesnt that contradict itself?

and you cant just say osmethign is wrong because of lack of evidence proving it angelofdeath, not that i have ever spent any time considerign whether there is a gay gene, but its caleld an appeal to ignorance :innocent:

What about the burden of proof?

That should shut up all those god fags.

I agree with Dawood. We should tie a rope from all the gay people in the US to all the muslims in the US and shove all of them off a BIG ass cliff. Then we would have no more sexual deviants or terrorists!

US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon'

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

by Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.

Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.

Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.

Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.

"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.

Yesterday Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent in Nassiriya in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

ok I think we got wayyyyyyyy off topic now...I had too much turkey and everything else today...

Originally posted by BURLAP@Nov 24 2005, 09:58 PM

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

Quoted post

this is a very chomskillionaire-ish point that extends to the US definition of what terrorism and counterterrorism are..regardless if wp was used..the US decides what's what. hypocrisy is sweet!

"and you cant just say osmethign is wrong because of lack of evidence proving it angelofdeath, not that i have ever spent any time considerign whether there is a gay gene, but its caleld an appeal to ignorance"

hmmmmmmm lets see. there is no scientific evidence that there is a "gay gene" but yet people still want to claim there is currently scientific evidence that there is a gay gene. i mean thats cool if you want to believe that being gay is not a choice, that you are born that way, but as of right now, there is no evidence that there is a a gay gene. period. are serial killers born serial killers? no, its learned.

Originally posted by BURLAP@Nov 24 2005, 11:58 PM

US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon'

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

by Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

 

 

The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.

 

Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".

 

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

 

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

 

According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

 

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

 

In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

 

The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.

 

Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.

 

Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.

 

"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.

 

Yesterday Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent in Nassiriya in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city.

 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

Quoted post

^^^^We've already got a thread on white phosphorus in fallujah. Take the discussion over there.

My friend is engaged to a larger girl. He's in love and does what he does...I don't worry about the why and wheres on how he spends his nights. Why are so many people here even capable of talking about homosexuality as its being handled - if you want to worry about where a man puts his dick, go for it - I on the otherhand will worry about me and if need be stand up for people who need the right to worry about themselves protected.

If your beliefs are even remotely centered on persoanl freedom than homosexuality should be something you would defend, even if its not something you'd practice.

The homosexuals are people just line anyone else. And as far as a great number of people in this country are concerned blacks and hispanics could be added to the list of those going off the cliff. I don't see how people making a "choice" to do something that doesn't effect you in anything but the most marginal sense is so repugnant to you. You don't want to think about men humping, don't think about it. When was the last time a homosexual hurt you?

I feel like passenger 57...

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Nov 26 2005, 02:04 AM

"and you cant just say osmethign is wrong because of lack of evidence proving it angelofdeath, not that i have ever spent any time considerign whether there is a gay gene, but its caleld an appeal to ignorance"

 

hmmmmmmm lets see. there is no scientific evidence that there is a "gay gene" but yet people still want to claim there is currently scientific evidence that there is a gay gene. i mean thats cool if you want to believe that being gay is not a choice, that you are born that way, but as of right now, there is no evidence that there is a a gay gene. period. are serial killers born serial killers? no, its learned.

Quoted post

what was your point again?

Actually his point was wrong from the get go. Despite the media / Hollywood presentation of serial killers, most do not have lives so horrific they can be even slightly identified as the cause. The abusive homes and all that typically lead to things like school shootings and other outbursts at worst, but not every person who is molested becomes a serial killer right? Actually many at worst grow up in repressive homes, but often that is shown to be a reflection of the community in which the person lived and thus by the logic of "learned behavior" would have created many serial killers. Serial killers are seemingly born without a respect for human beings as anything less than objects - there actual acts are much more like a kid playing with fire and loving it. He plays with fire often, he does it with familiar tools, but often what he burns and how he burns it is altered a bit. Some killers are sexual deviants who get off on something the way you might favor a certain position. Either way, many of the people who work with serial killers (I read true crime stuff a bit) seem to have an overall understanding that the killers themselves seem to be born with some lack of respect for life.

Until genetics grows out of its infancy I'll rely on the people who build profiles of serial killers to determine that. As far as gays are concerned, I think its a mute issue - those who hate them are not those who would take the time to review research or even consider the true meaning of freedom...and leave as evidence of that ignorance the argument which always pops up comparing homosexuals to serial killers as if they share anything at all but the speakers disdain...

I'm in the library. People are wilin out sighing and shit all loud like HUUUUUUHHHHHHH! Finals are a bitch, this is going to be a fast reply and then I'm back to studying.

King Bling: I have to disagree with your descriptive account of the serial killer. While the most famous have been psychopathic (ie lack of empathy, lack of understanding of human suffering, lack of moral emotions, etc.) the majority are not psychopathic. Those we see, like Ted Bundy, who were psychopathic are interesting because of their disconnect with emotion. However, most of them enjoy killing so much because they enjoy the pain they cause to their victims and others. This trait is generally inconsistent with psychopathy or the psychological designation Antisocial Personality Disorder. The rest is pretty much correct, we don't know what causes it besides the fact that there seems to be some connection between fucked up background and violent crime, we cannot say that it is a causal connection or even predictive.

Regarding homosexuals, I don't think it really matters if it is a gene or a choice. They made a choice that doesn't effect the great many people that are outraged by it. In general I think that the hate stems from repressed homosexual urges. But thats just my thought on it. (You closet homos)

Finally, this is not a debate murders and homosexuals thread. And I read a funnny line from Scalia today:

"Surely our social conventions have not coarsend to the point that anyone who does not stand on his chair and shout obscenities can reasonably be deemed to have assented to everything said in his presence." Dissenting in favor of graduation prayer in Lee v. Weisman (Arguing that the majority opinion is psychobabble.)

Originally posted by Milton@Nov 26 2005, 05:09 PM

"Surely our social conventions have not coarsend to the point that anyone who does not stand on his chair and shout obscenities can reasonably be deemed to have assented to everything said in his presence." Dissenting in favor of graduation prayer in Lee v. Weisman (Arguing that the majority opinion is psychobabble.)

Quoted post

Where do you find these?

Scalia is both funny and the king of long ass, complex sentences.

Lawschool man. I don't find them, they find me. Welcome to a 120 page outline for First Amendment Law.

there is a book called Scalia Dissents. It is a collection of his most entertaining opinions. You should check it out on amazon.

I agree though, I had to read that sentence a couple of times to figure out whether he agreed or disagreed. He was basically saying that a student can stand silently and not pray and not be ascribed the religious beliefs of the prayer.

He's gotten significantly funnier over the past few years. In the late 80's early 90's he was one serious dude.

I'm done, man. Passed the bar and the whole shebang.

Nice dude, it's been a good year for you eh?

What are you doing now if you don't mind?