The only silver lining in this tornado called John Roberts is that the Supreme Court is a powerful institution that profoundly affects its members (with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas, whose opinions, by and large, defy common sense, common decency, and...rats, can't think of a third "common." Basically, Neanderthals find change painful.)

The best example may be Earl Warren,a conservative Republican CA governor. Eisenhauer once called him the worst appointment he'd ever made. Thanks Ike!

One can only hope that Roberts, once he realizes the full impact of his new role, grows into the job.

And that doesn't mean grows liberal or conservative--but understands that the Constitution & Bill of Rights are the two most important documents ever written (with apologies to those who'd vote for the Bible or Koran or Kama Sutra) and must be treated with the utmost care and reverence.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not posting much these days because I've figured out why Intelligent Design will never fly as a theory. No intelligent designer would ever create a human being.

Wherever one looks around the world at this species, atrocities so outweigh small moments of grace that we're not worth the effort.

In Jamesons Veritas

As I believe a Roberts Court is inevitable (a prospect that I am not against, and in many cases support), it is important to examine the extent to which liberty will play in the upcoming Court.

Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) 41 SW 3d 349, designed a very rough frame for what may be a deep national debate, soon to be played out in our nation's courts.

Removing the instant issue of consensual, adult, homosexual conduct within one's home1, the crucial issue in Lawrence worth study are what is "certain conduct"? Liberty interests and "certain conduct" may open an entirely new trial that, like a ski run, will branch into new and different pathways leading to unknown places, while you're skiing. And to take the metaphor to its conclusion, one doesn't always end up on the run they originally planned at the outset.

Students of criminal procedure will recall that an officer's ability to use a tech device to invade privacy depends greatly on the ability of the common citizen to obtain the same device. Will a liberty interest rise to block police use of such equipment in a warrantless investigation, even where everyone can obtain the device?

Does a liberty interest allow one to do what he/she wishes with their money, regardless to the societal interest?

I do not believe that the left or the right has a monopoly in being happy or upset over Lawrence.

Any other comments along these lines would be welcome.


Sandor Jay Sonnen


1 Not to stray too much from the point of this comment, but on this issue of, "within the home", one could nearly drop that descriptor, as future applications of Lawrence will probably allow that whatever is publicly allowed between two consenting hetrosexual adults would be equally allowed in public between two consenting homosexual adults.

Roberts will be confirmed as chief justice as the Democrats are dragged kicking and screaming as usual. Then Bush will nominate a conservative woman and the Dems will get the character assisantion machine rolling again. They'll probably have TEddy K., the hero of Chappaquiddack up front lecturing the country on the morality of the new nomineee while Naral, NOW, and MOveon.org run ads that are bold faced lies attacking the nominee.

But in the end Bush will get who he wants and all the America hating socialists/commie dirtbags and the man hating, bulldike, baby killing, feminazis will be left to bitch and moan like they usually do until the end of thier pathetic useless existences at which time the will retire to hell to burn for eternity with Bill and Hillary, Teddy K., Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and John Kerry.

It would have been wonderful if the Founding Fathers could have spent a bit more time fleshing out the Supreme Court and "such inferior courts" and more importantly the nomination to the SC. However, they would have had to go back further and delve deep, DEEP into Natural Law, specifically Plato's concept of it, instead of fussing over natural rights, which Plato himself sneered at - in the sense that men "always and will forever argue over the 'newest right discovered'". (I am paraphrasing him there in LAWS.)

What we have instead, and what some of the Founding Fathers feared most, is two political parties. The outcome, with regard to the courts is that they are FAR more interested in PACKING the courts than in seeing judges that STRIVE to discover the flow of Natural Law and how it moves through the Constitution.

Now we have fools like Scalia who, true to that definition of American genius (someone who can hold two diametrically opposing views at the same time and stand up for both) who is the antithesis of what Plato (and again some of the Founders). Roberts, at least from what I've heard of his early opinions, came dangerously close to - GOD HELP US - Bork.

The only consulation in all this is that we do live in something resembling a democracy. So there is a chance to repair the damage of "earnest men".

alethinos

As I believe a Roberts Court is inevitable (a prospect that I am not against, and in many cases support), it is important to examine the extent to which liberty will play in the upcoming Court.

Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) 41 SW 3d 349, designed a very rough frame for what may be a deep national debate, soon to be played out in our nation's courts.

Removing the instant issue of consensual, adult, homosexual conduct within one's home1, the crucial issue in Lawrence worth study are what is "certain conduct"? Liberty interests and "certain conduct" may open an entirely new trial that, like a ski run, will branch into new and different pathways leading to unknown places, while you're skiing. And to take the metaphor to its conclusion, one doesn't always end up on the run they originally planned at the outset.

Students of criminal procedure will recall that an officer's ability to use a tech device to invade privacy depends greatly on the ability of the common citizen to obtain the same device. Will a liberty interest rise to block police use of such equipment in a warrantless investigation, even where everyone can obtain the device?

Does a liberty interest allow one to do what he/she wishes with their money, regardless to the societal interest?

I do not believe that the left or the right has a monopoly in being happy or upset over Lawrence.

Any other comments along these lines would be welcome.


Sandor Jay Sonnen


1 Not to stray too much from the point of this comment, but on this issue of, "within the home", one could nearly drop that descriptor, as future applications of Lawrence will probably allow that whatever is publicly allowed between two consenting hetrosexual adults would be equally allowed in public between two consenting homosexual adults.

now that Roberts is in with relative ease, will the administration stay moderate or go way right?

I hate to hear that Justice O'Connor is leaving the Supreme Court. But perhaps it's just as well. Sinead really should concentrate on her musical career. It's what she does best.

Replacing O'Connor, I predict WAY out there. Janice Rogers Brown, that would rock some worlds. For starters, would Robert Byrd DARE oppose her?

Dear God:

I wish my prime minister, Mr. Paul Martin, had the balls to suggest to the hood ornament of that old roman hate-mongering, aggression-mothering whore from hell that the future will only be better if she would just go to hell. Can't he just publicly say, "Go ahead and excommunicate me"?

Oh, my lord, I fear this can never be. Paul's enduring lack of response [ie. soft-wood-fuck-NAFTA-disagreement], as he very well knows, accommodates the political agenda of those cowards that he ignorantly fears. The pope says, "Be off with his kind". Small Martin says "".

Let the cranky old Vatican cunts live another thousand years - not that we would think by now that there must be a better way. Let not a fourth reich emerge with the same Germanic roots of the preceding three. Let us not notice that the discordant are of the same genetic cesspool as Benedict the sick stink. Not that I'm knock'n Germans or Moslems or any other profile - not at all, my lord.

Let the could-be messianic stars continue forfeiting the opportunity to shine upon unsuitable kings in exchange for riches and plastic surgery. Let the Ozzys of this world keep holding up the middle finger in salutation to censorship.

May we all go to hell? Most have been living there - why can't the rich have a taste? Amen.



P.S. If you plan to bring me back into this fucked up world, please don't let my life be any less painful. Bring me back as a paraplegic black lesbian dwarf rabbi who gets stuck watching AIDS-ridden children cry to the heavens for mercy, while your divinely ordained and biblically authorized government officials fuck the world up the ass with more corruption and greed.


Amen, my sweet lord. Amen.

Oops. I just realized that I posted on the wrong forum.

I've lost track of my multiple browers.

Any-hoo, I hope something within is relative to controversy.

That's okay, Richard, it's understandable when you back into a conversation that you might miss what's being said...

.

I am sincerely ashamed of my nonsensical behavior here.

A cowardly excuse was not the order of the day. I should have expressed a much more constructive emotion in the first place.

The URL link will explain more.