response 75 of 101:

Nov 20 06:25 UTC 2003

Certainly, I am not a "constitutional scholar", so I will defer to Justice
Blackmun to speak for me: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

You believe, I presume, that Jutice Blackmun was also speaking out of
his ass - which would clearly make him your spokesperson.

response 77 of 101:

Nov 20 23:56 UTC 2003

> Certainly, I am not a "constitutional scholar", so I will defer to Justice
> Blackmun to speak for me: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

  Before you delegate Justice Blackmun to speak for you, hadn't you better
  read what he's written?  The idea of penumbrae that you expressed
  skepticism about in #64 can be found explicitly in his majority opinion
  in Roe v. Wade.  It makes *no* sense to dismiss the idea of penumbrae
  and then appeal to Roe v. Wade as your authority.

> You believe, I presume, that Jutice Blackmun was also speaking out of
> his ass - which would clearly make him your spokesperson.

  I'm not wild about the reasoning that underlies the Roe v. Wade decision
  but better legal minds than mine have discussed it for years and not yet
  found consensus, so I'll not presume to inflict my uninformed opinion on
  the rest of you.

  But being uninformed on a subject has never stopped Rane.  Having mastered
  one esoteric discipline, he seems to presume himself to be a master of all
  of them.  When I accuse him of "speaking out of his ass" it's because he
  expresses skepticism about "penumbras" in #64:

> The Constitution has been amended a few times, mostly to enlarge upon
> the principles upon which it was founded. Would you care to enumerate
> what you call "umbras and penumbras" that you think distort these
> principles? I don't know of any...

  and then when challenged by klg insists that Roe v. Wade was properly
  decided on the basis of rights guaranteed in the Constitution (and by
  implication, not by "penumbra"-style extrapolations of those rights)

> I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual rights
> guaranteed in the Constitution. 

  and then, to support his argument, appeals to Justice Blackmun's 
  majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, which he clearly cannot have read
  ahead of time or he'd be aware of Blackmun's writing about penumbrae
  in the very item he chooses to support his anti-penumbra position.
  We've seen it before, including recently when he presumed to "correct"
  Sindi Keesan about Slavic languages, a field about which Rane knows
  almost nothing and which Sindi makes her livelihood.  His ego simply
  won't seem to allow him to admit it publicly when he's wrong.

response 79 of 101:

Nov 21 00:25 UTC 2003

Sounds perfectly logical to me.

response 81 of 101:

Nov 21 03:01 UTC 2003

In _Gone With the Wind_ (the book, not the movie), there is a mention of an
Atlanta newspaper advertising, among other things, abortifacients.

response 83 of 101:

Nov 21 07:05 UTC 2003

Why? England abolished slavery considerably before we did. Twenty one foreign
countries had women's suffrage before we did.  I suppose that if you
had lived then, you would have opposed both?

response 85 of 101:

Nov 21 15:38 UTC 2003

Is that the gospel according to saint klg?

response 87 of 101:

Nov 21 17:08 UTC 2003

Mr. tweenex-
Inasmuch as prices determined by the market are the only method of 
efficiently allocating resources tp their best uses, this would not 
be "unfortunate."

response 89 of 101:

Nov 21 18:07 UTC 2003

I don't know the full details, but it looks as if their
health and pension schemes are going to be vastly reduced,
OR there'll be much more involvement from privatre
businesses.

response 91 of 101:

Nov 22 10:32 UTC 2003

Gosh, you think a ponzi scheme of receiving more than you paid in will
ever work in the long run?

response 93 of 101:

Nov 25 16:07 UTC 2003

Re #76:  From
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Brown%20Report%20FINAL.p
df:
"In a 1999 speech, Brown disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to
incorporate the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, which made
it applicable to the states.  Early in the nation's history, the Supreme
Court held that the protections embodied in the Bill of Rights did not
apply to the states.  Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, the Supreme
Court decided that sections of the Bill of Rights necessary to maintain
a "scheme of ordered liberty" applied to states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Brown disagreed with these decisions and wrote:  'The argument on the
other side is pretty overwhelming that [the Bill of Rights is] probably
not incorporated.'  Therefore, in her interpretation, the Constitution
does not protect freedom of speech, religion and the press, the right of
an accused to counsel, freedom from unwanted searches and seizures,
prohibitions against double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment from
abridgement by the states.  Brown's views that the federal courts should
not protect these rights against state abuses is yet another example of
the threat her confirmation would pose to the courts' long-understood
role as protector of the basic rights in the Constitution."

The footnote cites the source as "Janice Rodgers Brown, 'Beyond the
Abyss: Restoring Religion to the Public Square,' Speech to the
Pepperdine Bible Lectureship(1999).

So, do you agree with the above position?

response 95 of 101:

Nov 25 17:17 UTC 2003

How is one (except for Mr. rcurl, we suppose) able to determine Justice 
Brown's position from a single sentence quoted (without context) by a 
far-left organization??  (Note:  We checked the membership listing on 
the "Independent Judiciary" website.  Very revealing.)  Perhaps you can 
obtain the full text of her remarks to attempt to substantiate your 
position.

response 97 of 101:

Nov 25 18:08 UTC 2003

Re #95: What do you expect to see in context?  "Just kidding!" as the
next sentence?  At any rate, I'm not aware of anywhere the speech is
available online.  If you find it, feel free to post it and show us what
Justice Brown *really* meant by saying the Bill of Rights is "probably
not incorporated."

response 99 of 101:

Nov 25 22:04 UTC 2003

I'm not going to play the "your source isn't good enough" game with you,
thanks.