LewDan's Comments (635)

“Its generally illegal for government procurement officers to award contracts based on whether or nor the vendor is willing to do them a favor. That comes under the headings of bribery and extortion.

But if your view is the government can do whatever it wants because its the government--all I can say is that thankfully that's not always true. We have laws and a constitution specifically to prevent that--and sometimes they even work.”

“Why not?

The federal government wasn't paying colleges to allow recruiters on campus. They were awarding research grants to pay for government research projects. The schools weren't failing to honor some government contract; the court simply allowed the government to get away with using unrelated contracts to extort compliance from colleges in an area that had nothing to do with their government contracts.

The two cases are exactly the same excepting LCS has no way to extort compliance in spite of the the law and colleges' rights, unlike the U.S. government.”

“Nonsense.

Judges have discretion. They are constitutionally mandated precisely because the founders recognized the impossibility of codifying a larger body of law suitable for all occasions.

There is nothing in the constitution requiring judges to obey a law. As our current Justices amply illustrate it can't be done. Judges have to have discretion or they're useless.

What the constitution does do is to give judges no means of enforcement or funding. "Trust but verify" you might say.

The court is one of three branches of government. Only Congress can write the law but the courts are not subject to the will of Congress. The founders set up a system in which they knew that the courts, the congress, and the presidency would do whatever they felt like.

They simply attempted to divide power in such a way that if one branch's actions were totally egregious the other two would have a chance to try and reign it in and hope that that would mostly forestall the need in the first place.”

“Where we differ is that if the decision is to stand you want a better precedent.

My position is that the abuse and over reliance on precedent is poisoning our whole legal system. We don't expect precedents to be 100% on point but we'll act as if they were. And the error induced by slightly off-point precedents to slightly off-point precedents leads routinely leads to decisions in direct opposition to the intent of laws, but in line with "precedent."

That's acceptable to lawyers but not to me. I expect more from judges than managing trials and following precedent, I expect them to dispense justice, to judge. Precedents are guidelines not the law. We don't elect representatives to vote out precedents.

Your concerned with a smoothly administered legal system. I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't interfere with dispensing justice. Where lawyers and I part company is in the belief that a smoothly functioning legal system is more important than dispensing justice.”

“CLS sought recognition, and assistance from a college funded, not by CLS supporters but even those they discriminate against. Forcing the college to accommodate CLS would force the discriminated to finance their own discrimination. That's exactly what the first amendment sought to prohibit.

Our laws and legal system are a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves.

The founders and the constitution attempted to create a justice system based on the rule of law. Deciding the outcome of a case based on the facts at had, even if that requires "tacking it on to the existing law" is what we have judges for, and how you arrive at justice. There is no "obligation to create rules that fit the larger body of law."

The Citizen United decision was legally "justified" by expanding on the "precedent" of Corporate "constitutional rights" even though the "precedent" is widely acknowledged as a clerical error. Insisting on adherence to the letter of the law is a bad joke, nothing is more arbitrary, amorphous, inconsistent, and irrational than our larger body of law.

If your not interested in the purposes underlying laws, the principles underlying our constitution, or the desire for justice underlying our legal system don't bother trying to sell the Ponzi scheme that's our "larger body of law."

That "larger body of law" got its authority from people exercising their "inalienable rights" to discard the "larger body of law" when it became unfair, unresponsive and unjust in 1776.”

“Your "analysis" is nonsensical.

The First Amendment guarantees the government won't interfere in your exercise or free speech. It does not guarantee government will provide you with the platform or venue of your choice or in any other way assist you in your speech.

In particular it does not force those you choose to discriminate against to help finance your speech which is exactly what you propose.

Just as the government is barred from any activity which may be seen as promoting any one religion because doing so would have an undeniable chilling affect on other religions regardless of intentions. The government promoting or assisting, in any way, organizations promoting discrimination or hate would mean the government promoting discrimination.

Disingenuous rationalizations attempting to equate constitutional prohibitions on governmental interference with nonexistent constitutional rights to government assistance don't just attempt to negate the law, they attempt to invert it.

The court is quite right in asserting that the Internet is available for any speech you choose. The fact that you'd prefer prime-time network coverage, the south lawn of the White House, or your campus student center is not the government's concern. The fact that no-one may hear your message otherwise is not the government's concern.

The first amendment exists to prevent minority disenfranchisement through abuse of governmental powers not to require government assistance in attempted minority disenfranchisements.”

“"Our economics now dictate our cultural values?"

Our economics have only dictated our cultural values in America since there was an America.

Slavery didn't exist because white American philanthropy compelled them to send all the way to Africa in order to finance employment opportunities for black people. Slavery existed because white Americans wanted the cheapest source of labor they could get.

And the constitution did not define blacks as three-fifths a person because they believed in freedom for all "persons" and genuinely thought blacks slaves were really some kind of humanoid animal and not actually people. They sacrificed their ideals and reshaped American culture because of economics, to ensure slave-owners their valuable "property" would not be jeopardized.

You may be impressed by your astounding discovery that the street you live on isn't really flat. I, however, would've been unable to find it impressive even had you finally figured out that the world isn't flat.”

“Of course employers have a right to hire "at will." They are the ones who want something done and are willing to pay someone else to do it. Do you really advocate the government dictating when and how people can spend their money? Now that's socialism. Why not just eliminate money altogether? Let the government decide who gets what and when who works where and when? Its known as communism.

We, however, happen to believe that individuals should have the personal freedom do do as the will as long as their actions don't overly impinge upon the freedoms of their fellows. The civil rights act was only passed after a century of concerted and systemic conspiracies among white citizens to block black citizens from exercising their rights.

Having a right doesn't mean that no matter how you abuse it you may never lose it. And taking away everyone's rights, all rights, and bestowing them on government does not automatically mean its "fair."

Uniformity does not necessarily equate to fairness. Until you understand the difference I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself commenting on civil rights.”

“Is your thesaurus from the 1700's? You need to learn a little American history. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about keeping religion out of government when they wrote the constitution They were worried about people persecuting others for their religious beliefs.

People like you.

Believe what you want, but you've no right to disparage others who believe differently. The constitution's "shall make no law respecting any religion" means you can't use the law to promote your belief system and interfere with others practicing theirs. It doesn't mean that there can't be any laws based on religion or involving religion, it means there can't be any laws promoting any religion because promoting one inhibits the others.

The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about.”

“The constitution says no such thing.

It says that the government cannot promote one religion over another and that no one can be barred from government office because of their religion (which is what you suggest.)

The purpose is to ensure that everyone can practice the religion of their choice without government interference not to keep religion out of government.”

“Actually the mentally ill aren't restricted because they're "predisposed to a deadly act" its because they cannot be trusted to make rational decisions by virtue of mental defect.

Whether they have predispositions is much more subjective and much less accurately predictive, much like no-fly lists.

Whether they have mental defects that compromise rational behavior is far more objective and accurately predictive, much like actually being caught doing something illegal.

We let people with dangerous, antisocial, even violent predispositions act without restriction all the time if there's no mental defect.”

“The founders knew that the government would have to detain people, arrest them, seize their property, even imprison them, which is why the constitution specifically states that in order to do so grand juries and due process, among other things, are required.”

“However, under the constitution the only way to "give the government more power" is through constitutional amendment.

The government, however, keeps giving itself more power by simply taking it.”

“If you can afford the Nimitz you've a right to buy one.

We don't deny anything to people with that much money.”

“I an not a gun person. I am simply not a hypocrite. Not so self-centered and selfish that I'm all for persecuting others if there's any chance at all that it might benefit me. Supporting the arrest and imprisonment of others for breaking the law while demanding that we have the right to ignore the law and punish people without charges or trial if it makes us feel safer. That we (I) have rights. Others (they) have no rights. If we need to throw them under the bus to potentially save our own skins then they're dead meat.

We have laws because it has never, ever, in the history of the world worked to simply give officials discretion to decide who is good and who is bad without firmly established objective criteria, mandatory predefined agreed upon causes and courses of action. Never. Abuse, persecution and virtual or actual enslavement have always resulted.

Aside from being hypocritical conservatives are nothing if not that trying the same strategy that's never worked before will work this time, to paraphrase Einstein's definition of insanity.

You're scared and willing to put your trust in Santa Claus to keep you safe, you don't care if he attacks those around you, I get it.

Suggestion: Why don't you just close your eyes so the bad guys can't see you and hide under the bed instead? So you're safe but not a danger to the rest of us any more.”

“If you have to get license you don't have a right. Licenses apply to privileges not rights. The definition of a right is not needing government permission.

Which is one reason there's so much resistance to gun control. Advocates want to turn a right into a privilege and are amazed at the resistance because they apparently don't know the difference.

If you turn gun ownership into a privilege then you have taken away the right to own a gun. Which, by the way, can only be done constitutionally by constitutional amendment.”

“Tactical nukes aka "backpack bombs" are individual weapons one man can carry on his person.

Not that blackjac's logic isn't flawed still. The fact that only two nukes out of tens of thousands manufactured have ever caused injury and death doesn't mean that they're not usually dangerous.”

“Wrong. The right to freedom of movement is constitutionally protected. Its what stops government from just locking up anyone they please anytime they want. And the no-fly list clearly punishes people by restricting their freedom of movement without due process. Not to mention libeling people and conspiring with others against them which violates the equal protection clause.”

“Correct. When convicted of terrorism they immediately lose that right.

People who are not terrorists, who have never even been accused of terrorism much less charged and convicted of terrorism or anything else do have a right to buy guns.

Give the government discretion, allow them to bend the constitution and punish people who've committed no offense by restricting their freedom of movement and suddenly, predictably, government thinks it has the right to shred the constitution arbitrarily stripping citizens of any rights it chooses with no need for criminal charges, trials, appeals, notification or explanation. Based on a secret list from secret "evidence."

Over a million of them so far―and counting.

After all if we can't trust them to fly how can we trust them with gun? And if we can't trust them to fly and with guns how can we trust them to choose our government officials? And if we can't trust them to fly, own guns or vote why do we let them freely walk the streets?

All very logical. And all very unconstitutional. Suddenly there's no such thing as "rights."

I've another question, how can we allow government to ignore the constitution when given any license they ignore it more and more?

Instead of removing someone's right to own a gun we should remove the right to officially blacklist and libel innocent people in secret without trial and without having committed any crime..”

“Your position certainly seems to be the prevalent legal thinking. Its also why the law is losing the respect of non-lawyers. We believe that the justice system should be about attempting to achieve justice, striving for that "right" decision not the (legally) "correct" one.

From a process standpoint I can certainly understand why the legal profession would embrace correct decisions even at the expense of right ones. Makes their job a whole lot easier. But the justice system was established to dispense justice not comfort lawyers

Granted it should be rare indeed when a right decision can be identifiable distinguished from the correct one, but if it happens, if a justice thinks it happened, rendering the correct decision instead of the right one betrays the intent of the constitution and the law

If there is to be justice we must judge whether the correct decision is the right decision. Which is why we have judges. The law is a means to justice not the end result being sought. Lawyers don't seem to get that, or care.”

“The problem is that as an equal branch of government the court has every right to weigh in on issues and be activist, but if it wants to be the final arbiter of all things constitutional it cannot.

As an equal branch it can offer its opinions to be accepted or overruled by the other two branches. I cannot, however, be allowed to merely dictate the law and be the de facto government. The court's role as arbiter of constitutional issues has served us well but it is not a constitutional mandate. It relies on the other two branches accepting its decisions, believing in its integrity and objectivity, trusting in its lack of ideology and bias.

I want activist judges―who judge. There is, however, no place for justices who believe they can legislate from the bench in spite of what congress and the president may decree. We have three equal branches of government, each of whom is charged with upholding the constitution. Any two in agreement should decide the law, including constitutionality, not SCOTUS alone or the other two with the consent of SCOTUS..

We have a Supreme Court not a supreme theocracy. God does not whisper in our justices' ear. There are no constitutional truths, divine or otherwise, known only to SCOTUS. If the president in concert with congress disagree with the court's opinion, the court's opinion must not stand.

Activist judges are just fine. Autocratic ones are unacceptable.”

“So the congress-people who are "waiting for the president to introduce legislation," "who support the president's legislative agenda," and who are "disheartened by the president not pushing" this bill or that harder are failing in their responsibility to advise and consent?

Big surprise considering they're all waiting for the president's advice and consent instead of giving it. Considering all the media wants to talk about 24/7/365 is the president's legislative agenda, legislative successes and legislative failures--totally ignoring the fact that the president is not a legislator. That only congress has the authority to legislate and that legislating is not the president's job!

So, after decades of every media outlet consistently and deliberately misleading people, the country, including congress, seems ill-informed as to the duties and responsibilities of congress and the president?

...Shocking!”

“Demanding a citizen provide proof of citizenship.

Supporters keep shouting illegal alien as if no one else could possibly be affected. But if you know someone is illegal you wouldn't need to ask for proof of citizenship and if you now someone is a legal alien you'd have every right to ask for papers but no need to ask for proof of citizenship.

So, obviously, you only ask for proof if you don't know if they're citizens, if they are they're not required to have papers or prove citizenship and police have no right to demand proof that they are citizens under federal law.

But under SB1070 citizens either provide proof or get arrested. And can be denied lawyers and deported as illegal aliens, none of which is legal or constitutional for citizens and none of which is of any concern to the bill's supporters.”

“And of those legal Hispanics how many are citizens who have no legal obligation to carry or provide proof of citizenship and who have a constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? And how many other people of color who may look Hispanic and are legal, even citizens will be affected?

So statistically about 14 of every 15 stops by police will likely be unlawful and unconstitutional? Lets be generous, say 1 in 15 are illegal aliens and 4 in 15 are legal aliens, then only 10 out of 15 stops are likely to be unlawful and unconstitutional. We're OK with that? That's Arizona's idea of upholding the law?

And 10 of 10 illegal detentions being Hispanic while 0 of 10 illegal detentions are Caucasian isn't racist?”

“Funny how treating people as innocent until proven guilty is always so important, if they're white, and of no importance at all if they're Hispanic or black.”