On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> clw@no-spam wrote:
>
> >> I'm thinking that Bill is either enjoying another cushy day-off, or is
> >> goofing off at the expense of City taxpayers again!
> >
> >Providing cogent public information is the epitome of public service.
> >What did you do on your lunch hour that benefited humanity?
>
> You think Bill's net surfing during business hours is public service?
>
Where's Bill working these days?
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> clw@no-spam wrote:
> >> I'm thinking that Bill is either enjoying another cushy day-off, or is
> >> goofing off at the expense of City taxpayers again!
> >Providing cogent public information is the epitome of public service.
> >What did you do on your lunch hour that benefited humanity?
> You think Bill's net surfing during business hours is public service?
Which hours would you suppose that I might be allowed to net surf?
> I don't have to answer for my lunch hour since I am on my own time,
> and not using a taxpayer-subsidized account.
Hey, benny, you and me are like BROS!
I ain't using a taxpayer-subsidized account neither!
[Don't you find this constant alias shifting a bit, well, tiresome?
and, jejune too boot?]
Peace and justice,
"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f04a0fd.58973219@no-spam
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Now you have just proven yourself to be a conservative nutball. There is
> >nothing harmfull about oral or anal sex between two consenting adults.
>
> There can be. They (particularly anal) are particularly effective at
> transmitting certain diseases. That's not politics, its medicine (and
> note that I have NOT advocated sodomy regulations or criminal
> restrictions.)
>
> >Like prostitution. Are you for legalized prostitution? I am.
>
> Yes.
>
> > At least I'm
> >consistant.
>
> Me too.
>
> I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted by
> state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
And I believe everybody should have equal protection and a right to privacy
no matter what state they live in.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Joni Rathbun wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
> > Where's Bill working these days?
>
> Well, as softball season is over and volleyball is still a couple
> months off, mostly around the house.
>
> Worked in the garden. Trimmed a hedge. Went to lunch with an old
> friend. Did some shopping. Cooked diner.
>
Just as I imagined. Keep up the good work :)
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> clw@no-spam wrote:
>
> >> I'm thinking that Bill is either enjoying another cushy day-off, or is
> >> goofing off at the expense of City taxpayers again!
> >
> >Providing cogent public information is the epitome of public service.
> >What did you do on your lunch hour that benefited humanity?
>
> You think Bill's net surfing during business hours is public service?
>
> I don't have to answer for my lunch hour since I am on my own time,
> and not using a taxpayer-subsidized account.
>
Odd. Here I am in Nevada using the same provider to access
these newsgroups as Bill's using.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:15:25 GMT, Heck's Kitchen <upstart23@no-spam> wrote:
> Not me. (although with 48 states allowing freedom of choice, one
> would expect that there have been more such experiences in those than
> in the 2 that are anti-freedom.)
OK, then you're either lucky, really actually in Oregon, or
out-of-state but never really noticed that gasoline smell on your
hands after someone spilled on the nozzle and didn't bother to wipe up
after themselves.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@no-spam>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/BBXAJ5vLSqVpK2kRAtyQAJ46Am5V8FpOGX2Act1XWlPg9FxdAQCffZdx
1AyV/BCj+nHaNspPbZ4jOpk=
=6GUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam>
> > There is nothing harmfull about oral or anal sex between two consenting
adults.
>
> There can be. They (particularly anal) are particularly effective at
> transmitting certain diseases. That's not politics, its medicine (and
> note that I have NOT advocated sodomy regulations or criminal
> restrictions.)
>
> >Like prostitution. Are you for legalized prostitution? I am.
>
> Yes.
"...effective at transmitting certain diseases. That's not politics, that's
medicine..."
> > At least I'm consistant.
>
> Me too.
Nope.
> I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted by
> state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
Ah, a state's rights man. Well NOW we agree on something. :>
-c
Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted
> by state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
Would you say the same thing if a majority of the USSC
refuses to overturn a state gun control law and says that
such laws ought to eb "enacted by state-by-state legal
process"?
You need to start thinking of individual *liberty*
(as this recent majority opinion makes clear)
when it comes to any level of government sticking
its nose where it isn't needed. To not do so
only invites other you disagree with to claim the
same interpretation for denying your own favorite
rights.
Bob t
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307282348540.10024@no-spam>...
> Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> > I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted
> > by state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
> Would you say the same thing if a majority of the USSC
> refuses to overturn a state gun control law and says that
> such laws ought to eb "enacted by state-by-state legal
> process"?
That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex.
While I think the law was stupid I hardly think it unconstitutional.
IMHO, this is one more example of the courts finding rights which are
not there. The courts should not assume a dictatorial role.
What is really frightening about this case is Kennedy's reasoning. He
claims that we must bring ourselves into line with modern western
thought! Say what? We are to allow other countries to tell us what
our constitution means! And this is not an isolated case. In the U
of M racial discrimination case, Ginsburg and Breyer cited the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (to support discrimination!) in their vote to allow
racial preferences. And Bryer has said he found "useful" court
decisions from India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe for cases about legal
delays of exceution.
It is astounding that this nation, the result of a rebelion against
the tyrany of another nation, would be put in a position of blindly
accepting the authority of other nations, especially a nation with
such a reputation of "freedom" as Zimbabwe has. I have to agree with
Scalia's dissent, it is not the court's job to "impose foreigh moods,
fads or fashions on Americans."
While it is valuable to look at and learn from what other countries
are doing, that should be done with judgement. We should selectively
determine if we can benefit from that information. It is stupid to
blindly follow their example just to go with the flow. Such foreign
practices should be adopted, if at all, legislatively, not judicially.
Well, you have passion going for you, if not a lot
of sense.
hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite) wrote in message news:<ccf77bfa.0307290913.5a9810e7@no-spam>...
> That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex.
> While I think the law was stupid I hardly think it unconstitutional.
> IMHO, this is one more example of the courts finding rights which are
> not there. The courts should not assume a dictatorial role.
Ehm . . . I think it was the local law that was dictatorial;
the Supreme Court merely said it had gone too far, according
to the broad rights enjoyed by American citizens under the
Constitution.
> What is really frightening about this case is Kennedy's reasoning. He
> claims that we must bring ourselves into line with modern western
> thought! Say what? We are to allow other countries to tell us what
> our constitution means!
No: We may consult the sense and wisdom of other nations.
Your reasoning might well have prevented us from considering
the moral rectitude of doing away with slavery in the 1860s,
just because European nations had the temerity to think there
might be something wrong with it.
> And this is not an isolated case. In the U
> of M racial discrimination case, Ginsburg and Breyer cited the
> International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
> Discrimination (to support discrimination!) in their vote to allow
> racial preferences. And Bryer has said he found "useful" court
> decisions from India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe for cases about legal
> delays of exceution.
Other human beings, and their governments, are at times in
possession of moral reasoning and logic? Shocking!
> It is astounding that this nation, the result of a rebelion against
> the tyrany of another nation, would be put in a position of blindly
> accepting the authority of other nations, especially a nation with
> such a reputation of "freedom" as Zimbabwe has. I have to agree with
> Scalia's dissent, it is not the court's job to "impose foreigh moods,
> fads or fashions on Americans."
There's a world of difference between taking into consideration
other countries' laws and legal rationales, and "blindly accepting
their authority" or "imposing foreign moods, fads or fashions."
You presume that Americans are always more in the right, more
moral, more rational, than any other nation.
> While it is valuable to look at and learn from what other countries
> are doing, that should be done with judgement.
Which is what I gather the majority were doing.
> We should selectively
> determine if we can benefit from that information. It is stupid to
> blindly follow their example just to go with the flow. Such foreign
> practices should be adopted, if at all, legislatively, not judicially.
Well now, here you speak a little more sense. Unfortunately,
there are too many weasels in the Congress and state
legislatures to have made sensible forward progress possible
in these and other areas, at this time. Sometimes they can
use a shove.
David Loftus
dloft59@no-spam (David J. Loftus) wrote in message news:<62894d4c.0307291525.2d7aaf85@no-spam>...
> Well, you have passion going for you, if not a lot
> of sense.
I think you have that shoe on the wrong foot. Look in the mirror when
you say it.
> hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite) wrote in message news:<ccf77bfa.0307290913.5a9810e7@no-spam>...
> > That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex.
> > While I think the law was stupid I hardly think it unconstitutional.
> > IMHO, this is one more example of the courts finding rights which are
> > not there. The courts should not assume a dictatorial role.
> Ehm . . . I think it was the local law that was dictatorial;
> the Supreme Court merely said it had gone too far, according
> to the broad rights enjoyed by American citizens under the
> Constitution.
Try a good dictionary. "Dictatorial" means that one or a few people
impose it over the will of the majority. I strongly suspect the
majority of Texans either supported that law or were neutral about it.
Five supremes overruled that.
You can claim it was an over invasive law, and a stupid one and I
would agree. However there is nothing in the constitution to prohibit
stupid laws. In fact I said much that same thing in my original post
but you either failed to read that part or decided to ignore it in
order to present a twisted version of what I said. Neither does you
credit.
> > What is really frightening about this case is Kennedy's reasoning. He
> > claims that we must bring ourselves into line with modern western
> > thought! Say what? We are to allow other countries to tell us what
> > our constitution means!
> No: We may consult the sense and wisdom of other nations.
> Your reasoning might well have prevented us from considering
> the moral rectitude of doing away with slavery in the 1860s,
> just because European nations had the temerity to think there
> might be something wrong with it.
Are you totally incapable of reading and understanding? I
specifically said we should consider the wisdom we might find in other
nations. That is not the issue. The issue is if the supremes can
impose that on us under the guise of "the constitution requires us to
follow what other countries do."
> > And this is not an isolated case. In the U
> > of M racial discrimination case, Ginsburg and Breyer cited the
> > International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
> > Discrimination (to support discrimination!) in their vote to allow
> > racial preferences. And Bryer has said he found "useful" court
> > decisions from India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe for cases about legal
> > delays of exceution.
> Other human beings, and their governments, are at times in
> possession of moral reasoning and logic? Shocking!
And of course other governments do stupid things just as ours does.
To blindly follow the leader, and that without a vote of elected
representatives, is the royal road to ruin. If the blind follow the
blind both will fall in the ditch.
> > It is astounding that this nation, the result of a rebelion against
> > the tyrany of another nation, would be put in a position of blindly
> > accepting the authority of other nations, especially a nation with
> > such a reputation of "freedom" as Zimbabwe has. I have to agree with
> > Scalia's dissent, it is not the court's job to "impose foreigh moods,
> > fads or fashions on Americans."
> There's a world of difference between taking into consideration
> other countries' laws and legal rationales, and "blindly accepting
> their authority" or "imposing foreign moods, fads or fashions."
> You presume that Americans are always more in the right, more
> moral, more rational, than any other nation.
Again you demonstrate your apparent total lack of reading
comprehension, either that or abismal disregard for truth in your
desire to say bad things about me. I rather specifically said we can
and should learn from others. What I object to is the court saying we
have to do something because other countries are doing it. Some of
the supremes said we should do just that.
> > While it is valuable to look at and learn from what other countries
> > are doing, that should be done with judgement.
> Which is what I gather the majority were doing.
Where do the supremes get the right to legislate? That is reserved to
congress in case you've forgotten US Government 101.
> > We should selectively
> > determine if we can benefit from that information. It is stupid to
> > blindly follow their example just to go with the flow. Such foreign
> > practices should be adopted, if at all, legislatively, not judicially.
> Well now, here you speak a little more sense. Unfortunately,
> there are too many weasels in the Congress and state
> legislatures to have made sensible forward progress possible
> in these and other areas, at this time. Sometimes they can
> use a shove.
So you think that if congress doesn't do what you want, we should
appoint 5 people, lifetime appointment with no reasonable way to
remove them, and give them power to make laws?
Yes, sometimes congress needs a shove (line once a day, all day long).
However that shove should come from the voters. I, for one, do not
want to live under the rule of a 5 person junta.
hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite) wrote in message news:<ccf77bfa.0307300741.22955d37@no-spam>...
> dloft59@no-spam (David J. Loftus) wrote in message news:<62894d4c.0307291525.2d7aaf85@no-spam>...
>
> > Well, you have passion going for you, if not a lot
> > of sense.
>
> I think you have that shoe on the wrong foot. Look in the mirror when
> you say it.
I'm amused that you think you read any passion out
of my remarks. I doubt anyone else did.
> > hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite) wrote in message news:<ccf77bfa.0307290913.5a9810e7@no-spam>...
>
> > > That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex.
> > > While I think the law was stupid I hardly think it unconstitutional.
> > > IMHO, this is one more example of the courts finding rights which are
> > > not there. The courts should not assume a dictatorial role.
>
> > Ehm . . . I think it was the local law that was dictatorial;
> > the Supreme Court merely said it had gone too far, according
> > to the broad rights enjoyed by American citizens under the
> > Constitution.
>
> Try a good dictionary. "Dictatorial" means that one or a few people
> impose it over the will of the majority.
Legislatures may be dictatorial as well, I would argue.
They still constitute small numbers.
> I strongly suspect the
> majority of Texans either supported that law or were neutral about it.
As did a majority of Texans with regard to slavery in the
1860s. Didn't make it right. Or Constitutional.
> Five supremes overruled that.
>
> You can claim it was an over invasive law, and a stupid one and I
> would agree. However there is nothing in the constitution to prohibit
> stupid laws. In fact I said much that same thing in my original post
> but you either failed to read that part or decided to ignore it in
> order to present a twisted version of what I said. Neither does you
> credit.
Perhaps you could point out where I either misunderstood
anything you said or twisted it. Mainly, I was offering
my own opinions on the matter, not deconstructing yours.
> > > What is really frightening about this case is Kennedy's reasoning. He
> > > claims that we must bring ourselves into line with modern western
> > > thought! Say what? We are to allow other countries to tell us what
> > > our constitution means!
>
> > No: We may consult the sense and wisdom of other nations.
> > Your reasoning might well have prevented us from considering
> > the moral rectitude of doing away with slavery in the 1860s,
> > just because European nations had the temerity to think there
> > might be something wrong with it.
>
> Are you totally incapable of reading and understanding?
Obviously I am, if you say so.
> I specifically said we should consider the wisdom we might find in other
> nations.
Erm, what you wrote above suggested you were speaking, ironically,
on behalf of Justice Kennedy -- meaning, that you disagreed.
> That is not the issue. The issue is if the supremes can
> impose that on us under the guise of "the constitution requires us to
> follow what other countries do."
And did Kennedy say this? Or was he merely examining
the practice and laws of other nations as ancillary,
supporting precedent, rather than as the basis for
his constitutional interpretation?
> > > And this is not an isolated case. In the U
> > > of M racial discrimination case, Ginsburg and Breyer cited the
> > > International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
> > > Discrimination (to support discrimination!) in their vote to allow
> > > racial preferences. And Bryer has said he found "useful" court
> > > decisions from India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe for cases about legal
> > > delays of exceution.
>
> > Other human beings, and their governments, are at times in
> > possession of moral reasoning and logic? Shocking!
>
> And of course other governments do stupid things just as ours does.
> To blindly follow the leader, and that without a vote of elected
> representatives, is the royal road to ruin. If the blind follow the
> blind both will fall in the ditch.
Who's the "leader"? Sounds to me as if the justices were
consulting other nations as if they were relatively equal
and roughly rational actors on the international stage,
not leaders.
> > > It is astounding that this nation, the result of a rebelion against
> > > the tyrany of another nation, would be put in a position of blindly
> > > accepting the authority of other nations, especially a nation with
> > > such a reputation of "freedom" as Zimbabwe has. I have to agree with
> > > Scalia's dissent, it is not the court's job to "impose foreigh moods,
> > > fads or fashions on Americans."
>
> > There's a world of difference between taking into consideration
> > other countries' laws and legal rationales, and "blindly accepting
> > their authority" or "imposing foreign moods, fads or fashions."
> > You presume that Americans are always more in the right, more
> > moral, more rational, than any other nation.
>
> Again you demonstrate your apparent total lack of reading
> comprehension, either that or abismal disregard for truth in your
> desire to say bad things about me.
You wield terrific rhetorical flourishes, but, as I said
before, sense rather lags behind.
> I rather specifically said we can and should learn from others.
How you managed to decide the majority of Supremes
"blindly accepted the authority of other nations"
rather than "learned from others," you never quite
made clear. You only offered a bald declaration.
> What I object to is the court saying we
> have to do something because other countries are doing it. Some of
> the supremes said we should do just that.
Show us where.
> > > While it is valuable to look at and learn from what other countries
> > > are doing, that should be done with judgement.
>
> > Which is what I gather the majority were doing.
>
> Where do the supremes get the right to legislate?
You did not say "legislate." I did not say "legislate."
You plucked it out of a hat this moment, as if I had
said as much. But I didn't. Once again, the court was
striking down legislation, which is its role, and
what it did in so many other memorable decisions from
the past.
> That is reserved to
> congress in case you've forgotten US Government 101.
Again, nice rhetorical swoops. Try to stick to the
argument, however, if you please.
> > > We should selectively
> > > determine if we can benefit from that information. It is stupid to
> > > blindly follow their example just to go with the flow. Such foreign
> > > practices should be adopted, if at all, legislatively, not judicially.
>
> > Well now, here you speak a little more sense. Unfortunately,
> > there are too many weasels in the Congress and state
> > legislatures to have made sensible forward progress possible
> > in these and other areas, at this time. Sometimes they can
> > use a shove.
>
> So you think that if congress doesn't do what you want, we should
> appoint 5 people, lifetime appointment with no reasonable way to
> remove them, and give them power to make laws?
No. The Supreme Court has made no laws in this instance.
It has merely destroyed bad ones. It remains to the Congress
and legislatures to pick up the pieces and make workable,
equitable laws.
> Yes, sometimes congress needs a shove (line once a day, all day long).
> However that shove should come from the voters. I, for one, do not
> want to live under the rule of a 5 person junta.
I doubt you were howling when the 5-person vote went
your way in the past.
David Loftus