# Scalia dead



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

He had his obvious detractors, but there is little doubt even from them that he was one of the keenest legal minds this country has produced. Plus, anyone who can work the phrase jiggery pokery into the USSC record deserves some major props. 

RIP


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Goodnight, sweet prince. America lost a great patriot today. Our future is precarious.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I began to form my political opinions and outlook in the early to mid 80's. The two people that had the greatest influence on the formation of those opinions, an influence that has continued to inform my outlook, were Ronald Reagan and Antonin Scalia. 

I'm not an attorney and have no training in law, but when he spoke about the law and the Constitution, it just made sense to me. 

He will be missed by me personally but also there is a large whole in the conservative movement.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I found him to be odious, but there's no doubting his intellect. He was a heavyweight, no pun intended.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ...
> 
> He will be missed by me personally but also there is a large hole in the conservative movement.


Yes indeed.

He would be the first to regret that his death will allow Obama to nominate another idiot to the SC.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> I found him to be odious, but there's no doubting his intellect. He was a heavyweight, no pun intended.


Did you find him "odious" because he (imperfectly) adhered to the ideology of "originalism," or for some other reason?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Did you find him "odious" because he (imperfectly) adhered to the ideology of "originalism," or for some other reason?


I'm curious as to that as well. Odious implies some personal knowledge or relationship with him.

There are many pols I don't agree with, including our current POTUS. Yet to find him odious?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

RIP, Nino. Motion to rest granted.

An interesting aside is how his passing will affect Ruth's longevity. She has major health problems of her own and, off the bench, was very very close to Scalia.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

There are very few Scalia dissents that you can read without laughing out loud at least once. 

Justice Scalia said that whenever it was his turn to write the opinion of the Court, he pretty much played it straight and deliberately kept his sarcastic wit in check. However, in drafting his dissents, he felt at liberty to liberally sprinkle into his writing blunt, colorful examples of his humor because his dissent, after all, was just that--a dissent rather than the Court's official decision. In dissenting, the real Scalia could come out and play because he was representing himself rather than the Court's majority.

The Interchange is a sub-forum of a clothing forum, so, finally, I'll throw this in: Around the spring of 2014 (I think), Justice Scalia issued a dissent--maybe involving a telecommunications matter--but I'm not sure. Anyway, in his dissent, in order to explain why he disagreed with the opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia used an analogy involving clothing darts. 

Clothing darts.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Justice Scalia was one of that increasingly rare breed, a real red, white and blue American...one who could and routinely did set party politics aside and consistently acted in the true best interest(s) of the Republic. For that and so many other reasons, he will be sorely missed. May he rest in, well deserved, peace!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm a little surprised that this thread didn't have legs. I suspect there will be more discussion once Obama nominates someone.

Let us recall that Obama filibustered one of Bush's picks:



Keep it in mind once the debate becomes heated.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

It's a shame that he's basically to blame for giving us the Bush regime, because he seemed otherwise decent. Now can we discuss the pillow over the head?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Tempest said:


> It's a shame that he's basically to blame for giving us the Bush regime, because he seemed otherwise decent. Now can we discuss the pillow over the head?


The rancher/owner who found him clarified his remarks. Apparently the pillow was between the head and backboard, not on top of the head. Sounds like simple cardiac arrest.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> I'm a little surprised that this thread didn't have legs. I suspect there will be more discussion once Obama nominates someone.
> 
> Let us recall that Obama filibustered one of Bush's picks:
> 
> Keep it in mind once the debate becomes heated.


I'm giving our lefty friends the benefit of the doubt here. Presumably they have nothing good to say about Scalia, and perhaps think this is a moment for restraint and manners rather than heated debate. If so, I thank and congratulate them, and warn them that they will never make it in academia with that attitude.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

For the lefties among us, I'll humbly allow the fine writers at The New Yorker to express our sentiments. Respectfully submitted, of course: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> For the lefties among us, I'll humbly allow the fine writers at The New Yorker to express our sentiments. Respectfully submitted, of course: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward


Yes! Quiet courageous of the New Yorker to go after someone after they have died and cannot refute such crap.

It reminds me of the neighbor who sat by while the person next door was digging holes in the back yard in the middle of the night and didn't raise any concerns.

When bodies were discovered in the holes, he pipes up and says "I always knew there was something odd about that guy".

Fortunately for many of us, the New Yorker is an irrelevant rag.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

And yet... whether revealed before or after the fact, there was indeed something odd about that guy.

I'm also fairly certain The New Yorker "went after" him and his ilk many times before he died. Of course, many of you wouldn't know that, as the magazine is an irrelevant rag for you and such.

A politician's death does not elevate him to some status he never deserved. The New Yorker is merely calling his record for what it was, as nimbly summed up in the article's first couple of sentences.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

No. The New Yorker is taking advantage of someone's passing, someone with whom they had editorial differences with, to go after him. 

By the way, the late Justice was not a politician. He was a judge. He was appointed and never ran for the office. 

I hardly think a posthumous hit piece qualifies as calling someone out for their record. Please find other articles in the New Yorker that specifically call out the Justice. 

They didn't agree with him. Period! And for that he is responsible for trying to make the country a worse place. 

And yes, the New Yorker is an irrelevant rag. I wonder if New Yorkers even read it. It's one of those magazines that pseudo intellectuals put on the coffee table along with the Economist and The Atlantic for show when having friends over to discuss the latest TED talk.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

We're all entitled to our views, of course. You sound a little angry, and I thought this was a gentlemen's discourse. If I may be allowed to say so, I think you are a little off in calling it a hit piece, although, if I were on the other side, that might be my emotional response. 

In any case, I think the press's freedom extends to the critique of a career and its impacts, whether the person is alive or a-mouldering in the grave, especially in the case of a politician, er, judge, who had attempted, at least, to shape our country's direction. I think a critique by a magazine writer, a scholar, or a historian, or even the man or woman off the street is certainly allowable--if it is not, then burn all the history books, my friend (or at least the ones you don't agree with? you know, the ones that are not for true intellectuals as yourself).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Just another opinion, but "The New Yorker" certainly fits my perception of what constitutes a literary rag and if the article in question doesn't qualify as a hit piece, based more on the writer's opinion than actual fact, I can't see how you would categorize anything as a "hit piece!"


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Literary rag. Hit piece. Aren't these subjective terms? Certainly, they're emotionally loaded terms, terms that reflect a bias, so I'm sorry, but that kind of argument doesn't mean much to me, really. 

If I agreed with you, though, that the magazine were a rag and the article were a hit list, I'd still have to defend the right of the rag to publish its hit list. Good grief, look at all the trash Buckley and his kind published in The National Review.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I will rely on Justice Ginsberg's opinion of Scalia, thanks.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

RobertM said:


> Literary rag. Hit piece. Aren't these subjective terms? Certainly, they're emotionally loaded terms, terms that reflect a bias, so I'm sorry, but that kind of argument doesn't mean much to me, really.
> 
> If I agreed with you, though, that the magazine were a rag and the article were a hit list, I'd still have to defend the right of the rag to publish its hit list. Good grief, look at all the trash Buckley and his kind published in The National Review.


Who has questioned their right to publish the article? The only criticisms that I have seen are on the contents of the article.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Wow. Hard to be a liberal around these parts, ain't it. LOL. Ah, well. Is it beer thirty yet?


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I wasn't saying anybody did question that right, actually.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Actually, I shouldn't categorize myself as such. I am not a knee-jerk liberal of the kind that I know only too well. I like to think that I consider all viewpoints. At least that's what I like to tell myself.



RobertM said:


> Wow. Hard to be a liberal around these parts, ain't it. LOL. Ah, well. Is it beer thirty yet?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ it's a hit piece in that it goes after a deadman whose body has just been lain to rest. 

It doesn't say that there was editorial disagreement. No, it goes on to say that he "dedicated his life to making the country less fair" and then goes on to offer their dime store version of psycho analysis in that he had a "sheltered boyhood." 

It would be one thing if they went on to say this whilst he was alive, but to wait until he's past and cannot respond is low and cowardly. Of course, the late justice would have probably been dismissive as he was with other critics, so perhaps I'm not as good a man as he was. 

The New Yorker is a useless magazine. And I will again assert, it is reportage light for throngs of pseudo intellectuals whose intellectual vanity is propped up by a checklist of periodicals, the New Yorker being at the top of the list.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Well, I will say you have a rather strong and slightly strange opinion about when we should and should not talk of the dead.  Your opinion of The New Yorker... I can see your point. It's not as good as it used to be, certainly.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ it's a hit piece in that it goes after a deadman *whose body has just been lain to rest*.
> ...





RobertM said:


> Well, I will say you have a rather strong and slightly strange opinion about *when we should and should not talk of the dead*. ...


Different points entirely.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Guess Mr. Toobin lacks a celebrity trial to cover for which he can sell the movie rights to his book? I am not bothered in the least by his views. I am bothered by him passing himself off as some sort of legal expert and I am not impressed by where he went to law school. The fella is nothing more than a talking head and as such his contribution to American jurisprudence comes up short to Scalia's irrespective of whether you liked or disliked him. I dont think Toobin will be teaching ConLaw any where soon except for the attendees of Blizter's "Situation Room". Fine writer perhaps, legal mind? Not so much.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RobertM said:


> For the lefties among us, I'll humbly allow the fine writers at The New Yorker to express our sentiments. Respectfully submitted, of course: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward


Thanks for sharing Toobin's article. It's constitutional "analysis" is laughable, and I needed the chuckle.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks for sharing Toobin's article. It's constitutional "analysis" is laughable, and I needed the chuckle.


Mike, until you posted I did not follow this link. But, good Lord, SG's comments sound fully now. I'm glad you can chuckle; seeing a great American traduced in this way leaves my bile rising! What contemptible rubbish.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Ha ha. Contemptible rubbish. I love it.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Aside from the absurdity of that idea, all he had to to do was pick up the phone or use the Web to get in touch with the Innocence Project or other organizations.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Edwin Ek said:


> Scalia was so laughably an intellectual fraud. On the death penalty, he said that there was never one case in which the defendant was wrongfully executed. Not one.
> 
> Aside from the absurdity of that idea, all he had to to do was pick up the phone or use the Web to get in touch with the Innocence Project or other organizations.
> 
> How fitting that he died of a heart attack at a fat-cat hunting lodge. Such a smart guy who didn't know how to protect his own health.


Ladies and gentleman! The voice of he who cares!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Edwin Ek said:


> Scalia was so laughably an intellectual fraud. On the death penalty, he said that there was never one case in which the defendant was wrongfully executed. Not one.
> 
> Aside from the absurdity of that idea, all he had to to do was pick up the phone or use the Web to get in touch with the Innocence Project or other organizations.


Two points and an editorial:

First, the actually quote is:

"It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby."

He makes two statements here: The first is wholly unremarkable and plainly correct. You can verify it by simply reading the dissent. The second, is trickier in that some have asserted, quite publicly, that Carlos DeLuna was wrongly executed by the State of Texas in 1989. The problem here is the word "clear." While there is considerable doubt as to DeLuna's guilt, his innocence is far from clear.

Second, Innocence Project groups have indeed discovered death penalty convictions of men whose innocence was "clear". Fortunately, none had been "executed," which means their existence does not impeach Scalia's assertion, at least technically. Obviously, such discoveries do at least somewhat impeach the presumed rationale behind Scalia's statement, but only somewhat insomuch as appeals continue until the moment of execution.

In the end, these statements are dicta anyway. Scalia's view is chiefly grounded in his constitutional jurisprudence, which of course is not dependent on perfect outcomes. Basically his position is that the death penalty is "not cruel and unusual" given the Framers' intentions, which is made rather plain by the Fifth Amendment's inconvenient reference to "capital" crimes.

Now don't get me wrong. While I think Scalia's constitutional reasoning is correct, I oppose the death penalty as a prudential matter. In other words states should not resort to the death penalty (except perhaps in exceptional cases such as murders committed in prison) precisely because our justice system is far too imperfect.

Finally, while I agree with Scalia's constitutional reasoning, I acknowledge that reasoned arguments can be presented to the contrary. Unlike some people, I don't dismiss those who disagree with me as "intellectual frauds." Scalia was indeed an intellect, and not remotely a fraudulent one.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Two points and an editorial:
> 
> First, the actually quote is:
> 
> ...


A tremendous post - insightful, expository, and lucid. Thank you!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Edwin Ek said:


> Scalia was so laughably an intellectual fraud.


Maybe would should look at some of the enlightened pronouncements uttered by William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, among many others. I'm sure that there won't be one that we'd find risible, because none of these esteemed judges are "intellectual frauds." Such terms, as bandied about by "progressives," are only reserved for Scalia and others with a modicum of respect for the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe it's Edwin Ek and the progressive wing of the Court over the past century that are the actual frauds...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tiger said:


> A tremendous post - insightful, expository, and lucid. Thank you!


Thank you, Tiger.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> Two points and an editorial:
> 
> First, the actually quote is:
> 
> ...


Please, don't bring facts and insight into this. It spoils the illusion.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Tiger, Mike Petrik, and SG, your foolishness dazzles.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Edwin Ek said:


> Tiger, Mike Petrik, and SG, your foolishness dazzles.


If I were a betting man (I am not, but for the sake of argument) I would have staked a year's salary that I would never observe these three distinguished members described as foolish - and in the same sentence no less!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> If I were a betting man (I am not, but for the sake of argument) I would have staked a year's salary that I would never observe these three distinguished members described as foolish - and in the same sentence no less!


Indeed.



Edwin Ek said:


> Scalia was so laughably an intellectual fraud. On the death penalty, he said that there was never one case in which the defendant was wrongfully executed. Not one.
> 
> Aside from the absurdity of that idea, all he had to to do was pick up the phone or use the Web to get in touch with the Innocence Project or other organizations.
> 
> How fitting that he died of a heart attack at a fat-cat hunting lodge. Such a smart guy who didn't know how to protect his own health.


I think the final paragraph of this speaks volumes about the poster. As SG observes, responding with argument and insight as Mike Petrik did is an exercise in futility as regards the poster but fortunately not as regards others.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Edwin Ek said:


> Tiger, Mike Petrik, and SG, your foolishness dazzles.


Rule #1 in the dysfunctional debate handbook: When you're out of ideas, resort to name calling.

I can see your copy has not collected dust.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Edwin Ek said:


> Tiger, Mike Petrik, and SG, your foolishness dazzles.


Thank you, Shaver and Balfour, for your very kind and supportive sentiments!

Thank you too, Edwin, for your flattery - if I must be foolish, I'm honored that it is of the "dazzling" variety. Perhaps you can elaborate as to why Mike, SG, and I are so foolish. In my case, perhaps it is my expressed fidelity to the U.S. Constitution? Maybe you can explain why the distorters and hijackers of the Constitution, i.e., unprincipled progressives, are the truly enlightened ones. While you're at it, are there any other texts, laws, contracts, et al. whose meaning we can summarily dismiss in favor of your particular political ideology?

Hope my meaning here is clear - I wouldn't want to dazzle you again, especially since it appears that you are quite susceptible to it...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

People who live in the US and want to change it, because they don't like it, why do they live in the US? Are they not grown up enough to move to a country, closer to their liking? Why do they want to ruin a good country that has a great Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. So far the progressives have so many strings tied to there rot it is disgusting. Strings mean less freedom. Strings are a method of slavery. I like Honest Freedom. And certainly not the rotten lies the progressives demand and push. They have proven they don't know how to clean up gun violence, get people off welfare (as they only add more to that slavery), murder through abortion (which they defend with the lie of political correctness), and the list goes on and on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> People who live in the US and want to change it, because they don't like it, why do they live in the US? Are they not grown up enough to move to a country, closer to their liking? Why do they want to ruin a good country that has a great Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. So far the progressives have so many strings tied to there rot it is disgusting. Strings mean less freedom. Strings are a method of slavery. I like Honest Freedom. And certainly not the rotten lies the progressives demand and push. They have proven they don't know how to clean up gun violence, get people off welfare (as they only add more to that slavery), murder through abortion (which they defend with the lie of political correctness), and the list goes on and on.


It truly is the "Fatal Conceit".

There really is nothing quite like the tyranny of the left in this country. The ability to shut down discussion and debate by merely labeling one's intellectual opponent as a racist or homophobe is truly jaw dropping.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

How many cases of likely wrongful execution would you like me to list? The Web is a powerful thing.

And I say likely, because after someone is killed, there usually isn't much impetus to continue investigating- to confirm innocence.

How many cases would you like me to list of the people on death row who have been exonerated?

How many cases would you like me to list of the people wrongfully jailed and then freed?

Is one enough to show the shortcomings of Scalia? I happen to think one will do it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Edwin Ek said:


> How many cases of likely wrongful execution would you like me to list? The Web is a powerful thing.
> 
> And I say likely, because after someone is killed, there usually isn't much impetus to continue investigating- to confirm innocence.
> 
> ...


Edwin, thanks for taking the time to address my earlier post. The meticulous reasoning displayed in your response is extraordinarily date-appropriate, and for this I congratulate you.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Edwin, thanks for taking the time to address my earlier post. The meticulous reasoning displayed in your response is extraordinarily date-appropriate, and for this I congratulate you.


Date-appropriate? Mike, what does that mean?

I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it seems you are agreeing with the guts of what I have said, no? In your paragraph that begins "Now don't get me wrong."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Edwin, 

Capital Punishment is war. It is always sad when good people lose. During ww2, were we not supposed to fight? How many innocent people died in that war? The Nazis were terrible criminals who hijacked a country no different than organize crime who keep on killing innocent people by the tens of thousands every year. The only thing that will stop these monsters is Capital Punishment. I've been around this rot and I know what I'm talking about. No doubt not every law is right about Capital Punishment. But that does not make it wrong. Nor take the need away. What other people choose to do should be their problem. There are thousands of young women kidnapped, raped, beaten and murdered who would make great moms, wives and grandmothers. The few monsters, why do you want them around, instead? Your reasoning lacks a lot of serious details, and hurting a lot of decent people. These criminals never quite until they are dead. In their life time they have participated in tens of thousands of deaths. Killing just one, by Capital Punishment, saves thousands of better people. Which side are you on?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Edwin Ek said:


> Date-appropriate? Mike, what does that mean?
> 
> I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it seems you are agreeing with the guts of what I have said, no? In your paragraph that begins "Now don't get me wrong."


"Date-appropriate' referred to the April 1 date of your post.

As for your next question, it depends on what you mean by "guts." Although your criticism of Justice Scalia was risible, I do generally share your disagreement with the death penalty.

You seem to confuse the role of judges with the role of legislators. If you disagree with the death penalty, as I do, your remedy is to elect legislators who share this view, since as law makers it is they who prescribe the sentences available for various crimes. In contrast, the task of judges is to apply such legislation faithfully, not ignore it or twist it so that it conforms to their own personal policy preferences. I believe Justice Scalia fulfilled his constitutional role with uncommon fidelity.

There is an argument that capital punishment is somehow no longer constitutional, even though it certainly once was, because of our society's changing mores (i.e., what was once acceptable is now cruel and unusual). Like Justice Scalia, I find this argument very unconvincing. If a society's mores have indeed changed, then those changes should be reflected in the laws enacted by those members of society who are elected for this precise purpose. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of each citizen to influence society's mores in the manner he believes best and to vote for legislators who share his beliefs.

Finally, while social mores are always changing, those changes are the result of inevitable debate and discomfort. There are almost always varying views held in good faith and within the bounds of reason, as WA's post above demonstrates. While you and I might join in opposing the death penalty, WA's concerns are hardly unreasonable, and, like most things, the optimal answer is a function of careful balancing of competing considerations.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> "Date-appropriate' referred to the April 1 date of your post.
> 
> As for your next question, it depends on what you mean by "guts." Although your criticism of Justice Scalia was risable, I do generally share your disagreement with the death penalty.
> 
> ...


Mike Petric,
Thank you for a wonderfully put expression of views with which I am in complete agreement, and which I could not express as clearly nor succinctly as you did. You illustrate how civilized people of varying political persuasions can reach common ground when dealing with contentious issues.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Mike Petric,
> Thank you for a wonderfully put expression of views with which I am in complete agreement, and which I could not express as clearly nor succinctly as you did. You illustrate how civilized people of varying political persuasions can reach common ground when dealing with contentious issues.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I wholeheartedly agree.

If a learned constitutional scholar is to be traduced as an intellectual fraud it would be as well for those making that charge to be aware of the distinction between whether or not something is constitutional (and therefore a lawful legislative choice) and whether or not something should be selected as a legislative choice within the range of what is constitutional.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Mike, he who slings mud loses ground. Perhaps you know that the word is "risible", or perhaps you just need a good editor.

Your ideas about how change should (only?) come about are misguided. For example, how would segregation have been defeated? It was legal for nearly 100 years, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (which was of course after Lincoln freed slaves).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Edwin Ek said:


> Tiger, Mike Petrik, and SG, your foolishness dazzles.





Edwin Ek said:


> Mike, he who slings mud loses ground. ...


Hmmmm.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Balfour said:


> Hmmmm.


I figured someone would highlight that. Want to include "laughably an intellectual fraud" too? I guess mud is in the eye of the beholder, eh?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Edwin Ek said:


> Mike, he who slings mud loses ground. Perhaps you know that the word is "risible", or perhaps you just need a good editor. Your ideas about how change should (only?) come about are misguided. For example, how would segregation have been defeated? It was legal for nearly 100 years, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (which was of course after Lincoln freed slaves).


Someone so exacting as to harp on the misspelling of one word should take care to note that slavery legally ended with the ratification of the Thirteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - an event for which Mr. Lincoln wasn't around to witness, as he died eight months earlier.

Of course, if you are referring to something else, please explain!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Edwin Ek said:


> I figured someone would highlight that. Want to include "laughably an intellectual fraud" too? I guess mud is in the eye of the beholder, eh?


Perhaps, but hypocrisy is usually obvious to all...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Edwin Ek said:


> Mike, he who slings mud loses ground. Perhaps you know that the word is "risible", or perhaps you just need a good editor.
> 
> Your ideas about how change should (only?) come about are misguided. For example, how would segregation have been defeated? It was legal for nearly 100 years, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (which was of course after Lincoln freed slaves).


Yep, spelling was never my strong suit.
Courts should overturn cases that were wrongly decided under the law, which is what the Brown Court did re Plessy. Courts should not overturn cases that are correctly decided under the law just because the the Court happens to think the law is mistaken or even odious. That is true even when I agree that the law is mistaken or odious.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm no lawyer and so I won't pretend to know the intricacies of the role of the courts, but it seems often that people, meaning the public at large, look to the court to change something they don't like as an easy out after having abdicated their responsibility to hold their elected representatives accountable.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm no lawyer and so I won't pretend to know the intricacies of the role of the courts, but it seems often that people, meaning the public at large, look to the court to change something they don't like as an easy out after having abdicated their responsibility to hold their elected representatives accountable.


There is certainly some truth to that. But I think the judicial abuses that most frustrated Justice Scalia stemmed from the willingness of all too many judges to substitute their policy preferences for those of a political majority. Judges are very powerful, and the constitutional checks on their misbehavior are clumsy and limited. If the majority of a state's citizenry believes that X should be illegal, and that belief is therefore embodied in the law (your point that laws can fail to reflect true societal sentiment due to voter apathy is duly noted), a judge's job is to apply that law unless the law is constitutionally invalid. So if a judge doesn't agree with the law and therefore doesn't want to enforce it, he is tempted to contrive a rationale for its unconstitutionality. Succumbing to such a temptation is an abuse of power.

The two most famous such abuses were Dred Scott and Roe v Wade. The former is now widely acknowledged as having been wrongly decided, with Chief Justice Taney torturing the Constitution's P & I and due process clauses to ensure his favored outcome. The latter decision was equally outrageous, with Justice Blackmun similarly molesting the due process clause, this time by fabricating mysterious penumbras within the alleged ambit of the clause's protection. Of course in both cases supporters of the policies blessed by the Court celebrated the decisions. Few scholars have ever tried to actually defend these decisions from a purely legal perspective. Even Justice Ginsburg, the Court's most liberal jurist, has acknowledged Roe's disturbingly inadequate legal reasoning, though she will stand by it, of course, on grounds of stare decisis.

Justice Scalia despised these types of abuses, which he asserted were products of judicial arrogance -- i.e., judges believing that because they're more sophisticated than the voters or their representatives they sometimes must fabricate constitutional warrants sufficient to allow them to protect voters from their own silly democratic mistakes.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Isn't one of the reasons why the Senate needs 60% of the vote is because the public can be to hasty? If that is so, then judges can do a lot of damage, if allowed rights they shouldn't have. The declaration of independence makes it clear about not having unruly power, or there wouldn't be a declaration of independence.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> Isn't one of the reasons why the Senate needs 60% of the vote is because the public can be to hasty? If that is so, then judges can do a lot of damage, if allowed rights they shouldn't have. The declaration of independence makes it clear about not having unruly power, or there wouldn't be a declaration of independence.


One would think so, but I'm not so sure. The 60 vote rule is not a constitutional rule but an internal Senate rule. Basically, Senate rules allow any one Senator to hold the floor as long as he wishes (i.e., filibuster), unless at least 60 Senators vote for cloture to stop him. This rule appears to be grounded more in Senatorial rights than the importance of deliberation itself.

On the other hand the chief reason the Framers preferred a representative rather than direct democracy along with a bicameral legislature is to depress mob instincts.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> On the other hand the chief reason the Framers preferred a representative rather than direct democracy along with a bicameral legislature is to depress mob instincts.


Unfortunately, now that senators are elected even this quaint notion has given way to appeasing the mob.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Unfortunately, now that senators are elected even this quaint notion has given way to appeasing the mob.


Agreed, the direct election of Senators certainly weakened the protection, though the fact that laws are still passed by elected representatives, rather than directly by citizens, and must run the gauntlet of two houses is important. Whether returning the selection of Senators to state legislatures would represent a desirable additional protection is a fair question, and certainly reasonable folks can disagree. My guess is that the answer you and I might prefer would place us in a rather small minority, SG.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

"selection of Senators to state legislatures"

The problem with this is that wrong people get in there to do the selecting. Some think something similar for judges. And, I'm thinking organize crime will get the positions to select the judges.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*You are close.*



WA said:


> "selection of Senators to state legislatures"
> 
> The problem with this is that wrong people get in there to do the selecting. Some think something similar for judges. And, I'm thinking organize crime will get the positions to select the judges.


Instead, things are in the hands of the organized wealthy.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ When at most 50% of the electorate vote in a given presidential election, we get what we deserve.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ When at most 50% of the electorate vote in a given presidential election, we get what we deserve.


You are blaming the victims. Generally, neither party fields candidates who seem worth serious consideration. From my perspective as a democratic socialist, there is little difference between the Democratic and Republican positions on most things, particularly economics and foreign policy.

I realize that the Clintons elicit animosity from members of both parties. But in terms of their pro-business hawkishness they seem to align pretty well with the establishment and the views of the 1%. IMHO, Bill Clinton was our best Republican president since the end of WW II. Hillary seems to me to be a very competent example of a candidate the Republicans would like to have.

I have been voting for 50 years. It requires real effort for me to go to the polls. This is the first election in which someone whom I actually support is a credible candidate. Objectively Sanders is a long shot for the general election,but that he got this far is remarkable. Or, maybe not considering the others in contention.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Bill Clinton was no Republican. He probably learned that some of the Democrat beliefs were feather brained (didn't work) while being governor. If he was a Republican he wouldn't have vetoed so much of what the Republicans wanted. His heart and soul was, and still is, Democrat.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> ... Objectively Sanders is a long shot for the general election,but that he got this far is remarkable. Or, maybe not considering the others in contention.
> ...


While we're worlds apart politically, I agree entirely with this. As someone mentioned upthread,* the fact that a centrist Democrat cannot see off a candidate like Sanders decisively is a remarkable indictment of the Clinton campaign.

There's no candidate left in the race on either side who comes remotely close to being credible in my view. It's truly bizarre.

EDIT: *mentioned in the Donald Trump thread, sorry.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

John Podesta discussed Justice Scalia's replacement with Soros Open Society just one day after he was found dead.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788359280881651712


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

My two cents, even if nobody asked. In the American system the true tragedy is life without parole. You take away not only freedom but also hope. If the system considers somebody to be so noxious as to throw away the key, then capital punishment should be the preferable choice (not that I think it should exist). I would rate the dissolution of life without parole a higher priority than the abolition of the death penalty. 

There is only one way that life without parole works: when somebody is wrongly sentenced, it can be reverted. Even so, I consider it a much more inhumane treatment than capital punishment (I would like for it to be abolished as well, as I think it fails the efficiency test more than the moral one).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I would somewhat agree bernoulli, but the proble with most people in jail for life without is that the vast majority of them have proven pretty conclusively that they just cannot live by societal norms. So, unless we can establish a penal colony, we don't have a lot of options.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't have a solution. I just know that life without parole is inhumane. Yours is a good argument for the death penalty, but not for life without parole. I am against both, but don't know what should replace it. I would rather have a society that perpetrates capital punishment than life without parole. There is a chance that the first can be justifiable, but never the second.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

bernoulli said:


> My two cents, even if nobody asked. In the American system the true tragedy is life without parole. You take away not only freedom but also hope. If the system considers somebody to be so noxious as to throw away the key, then capital punishment should be the preferable choice (not that I think it should exist). I would rate the dissolution of life without parole a higher priority than the abolition of the death penalty.
> 
> *There is only one way that life without parole works: when somebody is wrongly sentenced, it can be reverted.* Even so, I consider it a much more inhumane treatment than capital punishment (I would like for it to be abolished as well, as I think it fails the efficiency test more than the moral one).


This is the crucial bit, and sort of acts two-fold as the reason (i) I strongly oppose capital punishment and (ii) support leife sans parole for cases where someone simply (based on current evidence) is deemed to dangerous to ever mingle with society.

Lately, mostly as backlogs of DNA evidence are processes (and as prosecutorial malfeasance is uncovered), quite a few folks have been exonerated (mostly from rape convictions); sadly, a number of executions have been proven unjust (innocent men) as well. Indeed, with the current estimate of wrongful executions currently standing at 4.1%, I can't imagine any sane person supporting capital punishment; that's about 300 state-sanctioned murders of innocent men (mostly) since the 1976 Federal reinstatement of the death penalty - that's a pretty bad terrorist attack or a plane crash, looking at it by the numbers.

There are rogue people, people who, for whatever reason (mental illness, psychopathy, evil) are simply innately harmful (subject to argument, of course; my subjective, but informed, opinion), and they need to be kept from the general population forever... but it's also possible that a bad call by a jury, some kind of prosecutorial or juridical error (or deliberate action), and so on might brand an innocent man as such... and it needs to be reversible.

Perhaps life sentences without parole need to replace parole hearings with reaffirmations of guilt, some kind of review using any updates in testimony, evidence (or science), to act as a better screen to "catch" bad convictions - certainly, if death penalty convictions, with their higher bar for proof, result in 4.1% wrongful conviction, then one can assume that non-capital convictions have an even higher failure rate; with the USA's vast prison population, there could be a sizable number of innocent folks behind bars (practically their own demographic).

DH


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Sorry, I can't support life without parole. In your rationale, there has to be a chance that people redeem themselves. If society fails at judging capital punishments, why is that different on life without parole? They are morally equivalent. If you are against a death penalty YOU MUST be against life without parole. They are the same, a death sentence with no hope. Sorry, I cannot condone either and your argument of injustice bears to mind how many people died without parole for the same reasons! Yet, they don't make for splashy headlines, as they died without the electric buzz. Give me a good reason why they are not equivalent? In both the State sentences you to death. Simple as that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

They are not equivalent. If it is determined that guilt was wrongly assessed, you can let someone out of prison; you cannot bring a wrongly executed person back to life.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> Sorry, I can't support life without parole. In your rationale, there has to be a chance that people redeem themselves. If society fails at judging capital punishments, why is that different on life without parole? They are morally equivalent. If you are against a death penalty YOU MUST be against life without parole. They are the same, a death sentence with no hope. Sorry, I cannot condone either and your argument of injustice bears to mind how many people died without parole for the same reasons! Yet, they don't make for splashy headlines, as they died without the electric buzz. Give me a good reason why they are not equivalent? In both the State sentences you to death. Simple as that.


Well, to start with, the state does bot sentence someone in life without parole to death. We all have a death sentence. Only the location and circumstances are optional. As you like to say those are the facts.

Second, I would say it is not inconsequential that mistakes made in a sentence of life without parole are correctable. Especially if you are, you know, the one who's supposed to be dead and stuff.

Third, it really is not easy to get life without parole. You have to have worked your way up to that or started really high up the heinous scale.

Finally, it has happened that folks who never again saw the light of day have used their time to make amends, better themselves, serve as examples to other, and otherwise improve themselves or others.

I am against the death penalty, fwiw.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> Sorry, I can't support life without parole. In your rationale, there has to be a chance that people redeem themselves. If society fails at judging capital punishments, why is that different on life without parole? They are morally equivalent. If you are against a death penalty YOU MUST be against life without parole. They are the same, a death sentence with no hope. Sorry, I cannot condone either and your argument of injustice bears to mind how many people died without parole for the same reasons! Yet, they don't make for splashy headlines, as they died without the electric buzz. Give me a good reason why they are not equivalent? In both the State sentences you to death. Simple as that.


Just because two things have something in common, does not render them the same. Elementary logic. 
But your heroic support for returning into society serial predators who sexually molest, torture and murder children is noted.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with that. 

In America, we put way too many people in jail, especially over minor drug crimes, etc. However, there are people who earn the life without parole thing. I don't like the death penalty because our justice tends to not always be there for people who don't have a large legal budget and I hate to see people getting the death penalty from a system that can't guarantee 100% accuracy.

I have no problem with life without parole for those who earn it with heinous crimes.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

That is the worst straw man argument I ever saw. Kudos for that. And yes, A = B unless the state makes a mistake.

And for the other argument: if people truly make amends and better themselves they should not be in jail.



Mike Petrik said:


> Just because two things have something in common, does not render them the same. Elementary logic.
> But your heroic support for returning into society serial predators who sexually molest, torture and murder children is noted.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> That is the worst straw man argument I ever saw. Kudos for that. And yes, A = B unless the state makes a mistake.
> 
> And for the other argument: if people truly make amends and better themselves they should not be in jail.


The fact that both a death sentence and a life sentence result in death while in state custody does not mean they are the same. The latter involves a natural death as well as a great chance for the correction of error as pointed out by forsbergacct2000.

And the fact that my post discomforted you, does not make it a straw man. Just answer this question: Should the serial murderer so described be released from prison if a panel of "experts" concludes he is sorry?


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Would rather that they get the death penalty before life without parole. And, again, if you believe in redemption, life without parole is wrong.



Mike Petrik said:


> The fact that both a death sentence and a life sentence result in death while in state custody does not mean they are the same. The latter involves a natural death as well as a great chance for the correction of error as pointed out by forsbergacct2000.
> 
> And the fact that my post discomforted you, does not make it a straw man. Just answer this question: Should the serial murderer so described be released from prison if a panel of "experts" concludes he is sorry?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> Would rather that they get the death penalty before life without parole. And, again, if you believe in redemption, life without parole is wrong.


Redemption is not dependent upon a release, just as forgiveness does not vitiate the need for penance. The bottom line is society has a duty to protect innocents from predators. In some cases that means depriving a man of society for the rest of his natural life. In other more extreme cases it might require truncating that natural life.

Your assertion that the latter is more humane than the former is belied by the fact that death penalty convicts routinely spend millions of taxpayer dollars trying to convince courts to reduce the latter to the former.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

bernoulli said:


> Would rather that they get the death penalty before life without parole. And, again, if you believe in redemption, life without parole is wrong.


Well if I were accused, tried, and convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I (for one) would much prefer a life sentence to a death sentence; given the former, I have a chance.

There have been exonerations of men after serving 40 years of a life term; even at the glacial pace of executing death sentences, those folks would have been long dead. Fortunate (in some bitter meaaure) that they got life!

DH


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> Well if I were accused, tried, and convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I (for one) would much prefer a life sentence to a death sentence; given the former, I have a chance.
> 
> There have been exonerations of men after serving 40 years of a life term; even at the glacial pace of executing death sentences, those folks would have been long dead. Fortunate (in some bitter meaaure) that they got life!
> 
> DH


Agreed. 
Also, cutting short a man's life necessarily shortens his opportunity for repentance. There may be times when executions are necessary to protect innocent lives (in the US alone we have quite a few murders committed in or ordered from prisons each year), but they should IMO be a last resort.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hmm. A very tricky issue. Should sentences be punishment or deterrent? Justice or vengeance? Is criminality a mental or moral disorder? Should men who steal ten dollars by force be more severely dealt with than those who steal thousands by charm? Should Mark Chapman remain imprisoned? Should Charles Manson? Personally, even if wrongly convicted, I would rather lethal injection than prolonged dehumanisation.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Hmm. A very tricky issue. Should sentences be punishment or deterrent? Justice or vengeance? Is criminality a mental or moral disorder? Should men who steal ten dollars by force be more severely dealt with than those who steal thousands by charm? Should Mark Chapman remain imprisoned? Should Charles Manson? Personally, even if wrongly convicted, I would rather lethal injection than prolonged dehumanisation.


Just a few somewhat random responses: While deterrence is a proper objective of criminal sentencing, I think punishment is too, and I don't think that punishment, properly understood, is the same as vengeance. Some crimes are certainly committed by people who are incapable of understanding right versus wrong, but that is unlikely to describe most crimes. The law tries, imperfectly of course, to distinguish the culpable from the nonculpable, and does treat them differently. And while the intuitive answer to your force versus charm question would seem to be no, I'm not so sure. Bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm is a consideration at least as important as money or property. Finally, not sure about Chapman, but absolutely as to Manson.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Hmm. A very tricky issue. Should sentences be punishment or deterrent? Justice or vengeance? Is criminality a mental or moral disorder? Should men who steal ten dollars by force be more severely dealt with than those who steal thousands by charm? Should Mark Chapman remain imprisoned? Should Charles Manson? Personally, even if wrongly convicted, I would rather lethal injection than prolonged dehumanisation.


Charles Manson seems to thoroughly enjoy his incarceration, though obviously he's a special case.

My view is that incarceration is a matter of practicality; ultimately, no man can fully judge another, because he can never know the mind or circumstances of another man in subjective detail; he has only objective understanding and observation to work with.

So the sole function of incarceration should be to house those unable to safely inhabit free society.

This means (in my view) that incarceration should only be used to prevent injury to person or property: murderers, thieves and the like. Drug offenders, for example, should only be incarcerated in the rarest circumstance (their drug use is so madcap as to present authentic danger to others), and folks who've accumulated fines or missed court events should never wend their way into the prison system.

There is another interesting concept of some interest to philosophy which is relevant here: "moral luck". If a poor mother steals a $5 loaf of bread, how does that compare, in terms of criminality, with someone who can perfectly afford the bread stealing it? I happen to be a proponent of the notion of moral luck (there is a categorical difference between the two cases), but the "practical" school of criminal justice (which mandates sentencing guidelines, a common thing in the USA) certainly sees it differently: the "blind justice" which is so often hailed as fair, but actually isn't.

DH


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> There is another interesting concept of some interest to philosophy which is relevant here: "moral luck". If a poor mother steals a $5 loaf of bread, how does that compare, in terms of criminality, with someone who can perfectly afford the bread stealing it? I happen to be a proponent of the notion of moral luck (there is a categorical difference between the two cases), but the "practical" school of criminal justice (which mandates sentencing guidelines, a common thing in the USA) certainly sees it differently: the "blind justice" which is so often hailed as fair, but actually isn't.
> 
> DH


First, sentencing guidelines are generally only that -- guidelines. Second, they apply only to a fairly small number of crimes. Finally, judges rightly dislike these guidelines and routinely find ways around them. I agree that the two cases cited are equally criminal, but I do not agree that they typically result in identical punishments. Indeed, most cops would not even arrest someone stealing bread if that really was their only way to survive (not likely in the US, but...), unless they were pressed to, and most prosecutors would not prosecute such an arrest.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Then need ameliorates activity? Self-serving and unethical altruism is morally and/or economically justified? Darwinian evolutionary models would allow for it, indeed such actions maximise the potential overall gain of a group, a minority of untrustworthy elements is beneficial statistically*.

"A long memory and a capacity for individual recognition are well developed in man. We might therefore expect reciprocal altruism to have played an important part in human evolution. Trivers [Robert] goes so far as to suggest that many of our psychological characteristics- envy, guilt, gratitude, sympathy etc. -have been shaped by natural selection for improved ability to cheat, to detect cheats, and to avoid being thought to be a cheat. Of particular interest are 'subtle cheats' who appear to be reciprocating, but who consistently pay back slightly less than they receive. It is even possible that man's swollen brain, and his predisposition to reason mathematically, evolved as a mechanism of ever more devious cheating, and ever more penetrating detection of cheating in others. Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism."

- The Selfish Gene, R. Dawkins,

*

.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> I don't have a solution. I just know that life without parole is inhumane. Yours is a good argument for the death penalty, but not for life without parole. I am against both, but don't know what should replace it. I would rather have a society that perpetrates capital punishment than life without parole. There is a chance that the first can be justifiable, but never the second.


Wait. What?

You are _against_ the death penalty?

Why, I could have sworn I read a post of yours recently where you spoke in favour of a death sentence - and one without a trial at that.

:devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Then need ameliorates activity? Self-serving and unethical altruism is morally and/or economically justified? Darwinian evolutionary models would allow for it, indeed such actions maximise the potential overall gain of a group, a minority of untrustworthy elements is beneficial statistically*.
> 
> "A long memory and a capacity for individual recognition are well developed in man. We might therefore expect reciprocal altruism to have played an important part in human evolution. Trivers [Robert] goes so far as to suggest that many of our psychological characteristics- envy, guilt, gratitude, sympathy etc. -have been shaped by natural selection for improved ability to cheat, to detect cheats, and to avoid being thought to be a cheat. Of particular interest are 'subtle cheats' who appear to be reciprocating, but who consistently pay back slightly less than they receive. It is even possible that man's swollen brain, and his predisposition to reason mathematically, evolved as a mechanism of ever more devious cheating, and ever more penetrating detection of cheating in others. Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism."
> 
> ...


Ah, finally this is explained:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...de-blast-Afghanistan-receive-Medal-Honor.html


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> And for the other argument: if people truly make amends and better themselves they should not be in jail.


Who makes this judgment?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

There is also the question of offences which in one country can incur a death sentence but which are relatively tolerated in others. For instance:

"Thirty-two countries, plus Gaza, impose the death penalty for drug smuggling, according to Harm Reduction International (HRI), a drug-focused NGO. All but four (America, Cuba, Sudan and South Sudan) are in Asia or the Middle East. But in most of these countries executions are extremely rare. Fourteen, including America and Cuba, have the death penalty on the books for drug traffickers but do not apply it in practice. Only in six countries—China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore—are drug offenders known to be routinely executed, according to HRI’s most recent analysis. (Indonesia will soon join this list, following its recent executions.) In Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, South Sudan and Syria the data are murky."
The Economist


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Ah, finally this is explained:
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...de-blast-Afghanistan-receive-Medal-Honor.html


I had hoped that I was exploring options vis-a-vis the broader implications of Criminal Justice and social control as it might relate to an innate and immutable human nature.

No one, I trust, is denying the extraordinary courage and loyalty displayed by this fellow.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

culverwood said:


> There is also the question of offences which in one country can incur a death sentence but which are relatively tolerated in others. For instance:
> 
> "Thirty-two countries, plus Gaza, impose the death penalty for drug smuggling, according to Harm Reduction International (HRI), a drug-focused NGO. All but four (America, Cuba, Sudan and South Sudan) are in Asia or the Middle East. But in most of these countries executions are extremely rare. Fourteen, including America and Cuba, have the death penalty on the books for drug traffickers but do not apply it in practice. Only in six countries-China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore-are drug offenders known to be routinely executed, according to HRI's most recent analysis. (Indonesia will soon join this list, following its recent executions.) In Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, South Sudan and Syria the data are murky."
> The Economist


I would like to see the death penalty statute for drug smuggling in the US. I am not aware of that being the case.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Nor am I.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I would like to see the death penalty statute for drug smuggling in the US. I am not aware of that being the case.


Might I enquire as to why you feel this to be a reasonable ambition?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

From Wikipedia

Methods vary by state, federal, and military policy, but include lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, the electric chair, and the gas chamber. Federal law provides the death penalty for many homicide-related crimes, espionage, treason, terrorism, murder, robbery, and drug trafficking. 31 of the 50 states currently have the death penalty. Of the non-state territories, American Samoa still has capital punishment as a local statute, and the others have abolished it. 

The Supreme Court has severely limited the crimes that the death penalty can be a punishment for, the only two being murder and treason. It has also abolished the death penalty for crimes committed by a person under the age of 18.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There certainly seem to be quite a few restrictions and exclusions and not a blanket allowance. 

Even so, I find it very hard to get worked up about the death of a drug trafficker.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Whereas I find it appalling that somebody goes to jail at all. I would emulate Portugal and get rid of the horrendous War on Drugs that cost the lives of tens of thousands and the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands.



vpkozel said:


> I would like to see the death penalty statute for drug smuggling in the US. I am not aware of that being the case.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Might I enquire as to why you feel this to be a reasonable ambition?


Asking someone to show their work, as it were? I always feel that is reasonable in any discussion.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> Whereas I find it appalling that somebody goes to jail at all. I would emulate Portugal and get rid of the horrendous War on Drugs that cost the lives of tens of thousands and the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands.


Wait, so now jail is appalling, period?!?

Should we start handing out milk and cookies to felons.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Asking someone to show their work, as it were? I always feel that is reasonable in any discussion.


Never let it be said that VP is not a reliable chap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Wait, so now jail is appalling, period?!?
> 
> Should we start handing out milk and cookies to felons.


Alternatively, and if you will permit me, more sensibly, perhaps we could examine what makes an act a felony and why.

From Sears & Roebuck to Hamilton Wright- what changed?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Alternatively, and if you will permit me, more sensibly, perhaps we could examine what makes an act a felony and why.
> 
> From Sears & Roebuck to Hamilton Wright- what changed?


Why stop there? Why not include misdemeanors as well. And why there?

At some point society decides what it will and will not allow.

In general though, if an act harms another physically or in property in a grave or heinous manner (and no self defense is involved) it is going to be considered a serious crime.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Never let it be said that VP is not a reliable chap.


Why do I get the feeling that there is an underlying criticism in there?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Why stop there? Why not include misdemeanors as well. And why there?
> 
> At some point society decides what it will and will not allow.
> 
> In general though, if an act harms another physically or in property in a grave or heinous manner (and no self defense is involved) it is going to be considered a serious crime.


Society decides, eh? It would appear that American society has decided it likes to enjoy drugs. Are the laws due to be repealed?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

"At some point society decides what it will and will not allow. "

The supreme court doesn't agree.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Then need ameliorates activity? Self-serving and unethical altruism is morally and/or economically justified? Darwinian evolutionary models would allow for it, indeed such actions maximise the potential overall gain of a group, a minority of untrustworthy elements is beneficial statistically*.
> 
> "A long memory and a capacity for individual recognition are well developed in man. We might therefore expect reciprocal altruism to have played an important part in human evolution. Trivers [Robert] goes so far as to suggest that many of our psychological characteristics- envy, guilt, gratitude, sympathy etc. -have been shaped by natural selection for improved ability to cheat, to detect cheats, and to avoid being thought to be a cheat. Of particular interest are 'subtle cheats' who appear to be reciprocating, but who consistently pay back slightly less than they receive. It is even possible that man's swollen brain, and his predisposition to reason mathematically, evolved as a mechanism of ever more devious cheating, and ever more penetrating detection of cheating in others. Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism."
> 
> ...


One of the Dumbest believeths this side of Hell.
Darwin and his evolution has to much failure in it to believe. I guess the multiple lies in the subject overwhelms so many people minds. And then the attitude of, "Oh, you gotta belong, or your an outcast!", so emotionally people cave in. Even their own books have so much evidence against it. One books I was reading the author wanted so much to believe in it that he didn't realize that he was proving that it can't exist, while he was trying to prove that it does. When you stand back and think about everything these people say, instead of gullibly hanging on to every word they say or write, you realize macro evolution is a huge lie. It is very shallow.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The death penalty? Some people need to be gotten rid of. It really isn't or shouldn't be about punishment, revenge, etc. And it can never be given from speculation. 

Organized crime murders thousands of good people every year. They never quit. They have manipulated Americas thinking that the death penalty is bad, while they go on killing and killing and killing, with no end ever going to be in sight. Why has so many Americans been deceived that they can murder, but we can't kill them? A little mind trickery, that's why.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Society decides, eh? It would appear that American society has decided it likes to enjoy drugs. Are the laws due to be repealed?


If society had indeed decided that, then the laws would be repealed.

See, Bition, Prohi.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Society decides, eh? It would appear that American society has decided it likes to enjoy drugs. Are the laws due to be repealed?


Sometimes I wonder if that would be the best thing for awhile. Maybe one generation, or two, needs to die with their drugs. It might be enough revelation that the next see the damage, and walk away. Alcohol is a drug, and it hasn't worked with that. And, look! Cigarettes are back!

Think alcohol and marijuana are about the same. The other drugs should be illegal. The men and women behind the drug pushers should get the death penalty. The foolish drug users, a day or five in prison and booted out.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> One of the Dumbest believeths this side of Hell.
> Darwin and his evolution has to much failure in it to believe. I guess the multiple lies in the subject overwhelms so many people minds. And then the attitude of, "Oh, you gotta belong, or your an outcast!", so emotionally people cave in. Even their own books have so much evidence against it. One books I was reading the author wanted so much to believe in it that he didn't realize that he was proving that it can't exist, while he was trying to prove that it does. When you stand back and think about everything these people say, instead of gullibly hanging on to every word they say or write, you realize macro evolution is a huge lie. It is very shallow.


Perhaps you might care to illuminate us: what is the fallacy? Further: what is your preferred theory, how might you explain our marvellously interdependent diversity?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Sometimes I wonder if that would be the best thing for awhile. Maybe one generation, or two, needs to die with their drugs. It might be enough revelation that the next see the damage, and walk away. Alcohol is a drug, and it hasn't worked with that. And, look! Cigarettes are back!
> 
> Think alcohol and marijuana are about the same. The other drugs should be illegal. The men and women behind the drug pushers should get the death penalty. The foolish drug users, a day or five in prison and booted out.


If you will forgive me, usage of the fantasy title 'drug pusher' is ever a telling sign of an utter ignorance of the subject.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Perhaps you might care to illuminate us: what is the fallacy? Further: what is your preferred theory, how might you explain our marvellously interdependent diversity?


Shouldn't this be its own thread?

But since we are here, how do you explain the irreconcilable existence of our current thories on creation of the universe with law of gravity?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> If society had indeed decided that, then the laws would be repealed.
> 
> See, Bition, Prohi.


America consumes 99% of the world production of vicodin. Prescription drugs (even if they are opioids) don't count? Ok then, more than 24 million Americans admitted to taking illegal drugs in 2013.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Shouldn't this be its own thread?
> 
> But since we are here, how do you explain the irreconcilable existence of our current thories on creation of the universe with law of gravity?


In what manner are the laws of gravity irreconcilable with evolution?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> America consumes 99% of the world production of vicodin. Prescription drugs (even if they are opioids) don't count? Ok then, more than 24 million Americans admitted to taking illegal drugs in 2013.


Did I miss the part where prescription drugs are illegal?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Did I miss the part where prescription drugs are illegal?


You do appear to have struggled with the assertion that American society has decided it likes to take drugs.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> In what manner are the laws of gravity irreconcilable with evolution?


You did not specify evolution.

But I am assuming that you are not trying to argue that evolution could have occured without the universe are you?

As I said though, this should probably be its own thread.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> You do appear to have struggled with the assertion that American society has decided it likes to take drugs.


Why would you think that?

But you seem to be grasping at straws. Or strawmen, as it were.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Why would you think that?
> 
> But you seem to be grasping at straws. Or strawmen, as it were.


Please explain how.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> You did not specify evolution.
> 
> But I am assuming that you are not trying to argue that evolution could have occured without the universe are you?
> 
> As I said though, this should probably be its own thread.


As you were responding to a comment on evolution then I am certain that even you will be able to appreciate that was the subject.

Don't ever change VP, we need you just the way you are.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Please explain how.


Why don't you respond with what your specifc thoughts on the matter are?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Why don't you respond with what your specifc thoughts on the matter are?


No, no, please you go first my friend. I insist.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> As you were responding to a comment on evolution then I am certain that even you will be able to appreciate that was the subject.
> 
> Don't ever change VP, we need you just the way you are.


I was not referring only to evolution but to life, which, if you believe in spontaneous creation of life, you must be hard pressed to rule out elsewhere in the universe, correct?

So, if you want to stick specifically and only to evolution on Earth and leaving aside any potential for life to have been external, then I would say that the gaping hole in evolution is that we cannot adequately prove when and how life began. Another minor problem is that we have not been able to recreate evolution from one species to another in controlled environments.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I think many people distinguish between the unlawful use of prescription drugs due to addiction or self-medication and the unlawful use of prescription or illegal drugs for recreational reasons.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> No, no, please you go first my friend. I insist.


I already have. On multiple topics.

So, you're up old chap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I was not referring only to evolution but to life, which, if you believe in spontaneous creation of life, you must be hard pressed to rule out elsewhere in the universe, correct?
> 
> So, if you want to stick specifically and only to evolution on Earth and leaving aside any potential for life to have been external, then I would say that the gaping hole in evolution is that we cannot adequately prove when and how life began. Another minor problem is that we have not been able to recreate evolution from one species to another in controlled environments.


Eh? A theory which describes process need not describe first principle. You would dismiss any theory which does not work back to creation itself?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> I already have. On multiple topics.
> 
> So, you're up old chap.


Saying you have done something is not the same as having done it. It is still your turn.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Eh? A theory which describes process need not describe first principle. You would dismiss any theory which does not work back to creation itself?


At what point have I said that I rejected any theories?

What other theories do you propse that we accept without concerning ourselves with the beginning?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Saying you have done something is not the same as having done it. It is still your turn.


I can't read the thread for you. You are going to have to do a little work for yourself.

The posts are there for all to see.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> At what point have I said that I rejected any theories?
> 
> What other theories do you propse that we accept without concerning ourselves with the beginning?


Well I propse (sic) that as we have no satisfactory description of the beginning then all theories must be considered (not accepted) despite this.

At any rate until you provide a reasonable explanation of your earlier straw man accusation, then I shall refrain from engaging with you further.

A little work for myself indeed. It is just such spiel that we may recognize you by.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I think many people distinguish between the unlawful use of prescription drugs due to addiction or self-medication and the unlawful use of prescription or illegal drugs for recreational reasons.


Perhaps so Mike, and the discussion as to where self medication may meet recreation aside, I trust that these distinctions do not undermine the notion that if sufficient quantities of the population indulge in an activity then at what point might it be considered normal behaviour, its criminalisation redundant?


----------



## Hockey Tom (Aug 10, 2016)

Shaver said:


> Perhaps so Mike, and the discussion as to where self medication may meet recreation aside, I trust that these distinctions do not undermine the notion that if sufficient quantities of the population indulge in an activity then at what point might it be considered normal behaviour, its criminalisation redundant?


What do we consider sufficient quantities, and more importantly, who should decide it? Does this quantity vary depending on the reasons for criminalisation?

One activity that I believe would fall into the category of normal behavior is driving above the speed limit. In this case, the reasons for keeping artificially low speed limits is for the generation of revenue to local and state governments. I personally cannot support any laws created with the intention of being broken for the sake of collecting revenue.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Perhaps you might care to illuminate us: what is the fallacy? Further: what is your preferred theory, how might you explain our marvellously interdependent diversity?


From a geological view point if the earth is billions of years old the delta from the rivers that now flow into the Mediterranean Sea would be way out in the Atlantic Ocean. Even if the earth was one million years old the Mediterranean Sea would have been filled with silt, gravel, logs, etc. to a, farmers delight, flat plain. The deltas that are now are so tiny the earth is certainly very new. Time and nature have an effect upon this planet. Tiny deltas can only mean a very short time.

A million years. A billion years. The bigger the lie doesn't add more truth to it, does it? Real science doesn't divert real thinking. The people who hijacked science defend it with religious fervor. If not, why do those who hijacked science refuse to let evidence with a different theory have equal say? The scoffing, mocking, etc. is childish behavior (something for shrinks to study). They even use this behavior to convince weak minded people that macro evolution is true. Which means they stepped away from the science they are talking about to convince. Some "scientists" are not very nice. Not saying all evolutionist scientists are rotten, but some are.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> If you will forgive me, usage of the fantasy title 'drug pusher' is ever a telling sign of an utter ignorance of the subject.


Have you ever been around organized crime?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

WA said:


> From a geological view point if the earth is billions of years old the delta from the rivers that now flow into the Mediterranean Sea would be way out in the Atlantic Ocean. Even if the earth was one million years old the Mediterranean Sea would have been filled with silt, gravel, logs, etc. to a, farmers delight, flat plain. The deltas that are now are so tiny the earth is certainly very new. Time and nature have an effect upon this planet. Tiny deltas can only mean a very short time.
> 
> A million years. A billion years. The bigger the lie doesn't add more truth to it, does it? Real science doesn't divert real thinking. The people who hijacked science defend it with religious fervor. If not, why do those who hijacked science refuse to let evidence with a different theory have equal say? The scoffing, mocking, etc. is childish behavior (something for shrinks to study). They even use this behavior to convince weak minded people that macro evolution is true. Which means they stepped away from the science they are talking about to convince. Some "scientists" are not very nice. Not saying all evolutionist scientists are rotten, but some are.


Woah...in your opinion, how old is the earth?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> Woah...in your opinion, how old is the earth?


Assuming that WA is referencing Stuart Nevins' "sediment influx" argument for the youth of the Earth, the answer will probably be "30 million years". I probably don't have to mention that Nevins' analysis is complete nonsense... well, like all Creation "Science".

(Did you know that Creation "scientists" actually mirror real-life specialities? Stuart Nevins is a Creation "geologist"; you just can't make this stuff up! Well, they do, obviously.)

I am frankly impressed that a thread on Scalia's death managed to devolve (heh) into a Creationist screed in only six pages; even for the Internet, that's pretty quick!

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Woah...in your opinion, how old is the earth?


5,000 to 6,000 years.

If you are going to believe in God, then why believe in something else?

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Only two people ever saw snakes with legs. Thousands of years later scientists figured out snakes had legs. And yet it is written thousands of years that snakes had legs.

Around here the hijackers of science scoffed, mocked, ridiculed, etc. those who believed Genesis 3:14. The professors attacked their Bible believing students. Taught other students to attack Bible believers. Instructed these students to teach their children to attack children who believe the Bible. I know what it is like to be scoffed, mocked, ridiculed, etc. as a child by these children who were taught to go out of their way to attack. A few years later the hijackers had to eat their words about snakes never having legs. The scorn included other parts of the Bible, too. Men with this behavior have no right to be in the position as educators.

Ever been around livestock farming? When an animal is no longer profitable it is gone. Dead. Organized crime likes macro evolution, because, it says human life has no value. Prostitutes are like livestock. Not profitable, anymore. Dead. Macro evolution says they have the right to kill people. Communist, Hitler, abortionists agree.

Macro evolution is nothing but empty words.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> 5,000 to 6,000 years.
> 
> If you are going to believe in God, then why believe in something else?
> 
> ...


Creationism = Satanism.

Lucifer is the Prince of Lies, lies thrive on ignorance. To dispute the wonders of God's Creation, not the least of which is the marvel of Evolution, is to perpetrate a lie. This lie whether generated knowingly or via ignorance, either way it is against God. Time and again religious zealots have disputed the advances of Science, time and again they are proven to have been in error.

Biblical Literalism = Satanism.

To make mockery of the word of God, to ridicule the Torah by stubbornly insisting that God is lacking of sufficient aptitude to transmit a message that will remain relevant eternally, is to denigrate the divinity of the Creator. Biblical Literalism ultimately provides us with apocalyptical death cults and snake handling kooks. Or do we genuinely believe that the World sits upon pillars? cf 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6

Hail Satan, eh WA?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Have you ever been around organized crime?


I'll take the 5th on this one, if it is all the same to you. :rolleyes2:


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

For drug users and drug traffickers? I am in favor of changing laws to allow recreational use of drugs, yes.



vpkozel said:


> Wait, so now jail is appalling, period?!?
> 
> Should we start handing out milk and cookies to felons.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> For drug users and drug traffickers? I am in favor of changing laws to allow recreational use of drugs, yes.


That is great and certainly has some merit, but it isn't relevant.

We are talking about current laws and what happens if you break them. It should also be noted that no one is charged with a felony for recreational use, much less sentenced to death.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Well I propse (sic) that as we have no satisfactory description of the beginning then all theories must be considered (not accepted) despite this.
> 
> At any rate until you provide a reasonable explanation of your earlier straw man accusation, then I shall refrain from engaging with you further.
> 
> A little work for myself indeed. It is just such spiel that we may recognize you by.


Ooooh, a spelling error made on a phone. I feel so ashamed!

I believe that I answered all of your questions, thank you.

But if you want to flap your hair and stomp away, that is fine.

Have a nice day.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Dhaller said:


> I am frankly impressed that a thread on Scalia's death managed to devolve (heh) into a Creationist screed in only six pages; even for the Internet, that's pretty quick!
> 
> DH


I agree. Pretty impressive meandering.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

It is notable how rapidly certain members are compelled to degenerate from their (albeit limited) engagement with discussion to increasingly desperate, not to mention feeble, attempts at provocation.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It is notable how rapidly certain members are compelled to degenerate from their (albeit limited) engagement with discussion to increasingly desperate, not to mention feeble, attempts at provocation.


Yes, you should stop that.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Please don't tell the American system that! https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?_r=0

Seriously, the idea of, in the current system, putting away somebody for life because of drug trafficking is wrong, IMHO. No, I do not propose letting drug traffickers go free, but I am also completely against long sentences for it. And I am a strong advocate for changes regarding such laws.



vpkozel said:


> That is great and certainly has some merit, but it isn't relevant.
> 
> We are talking about current laws and what happens if you break them. It should also be noted that no one is charged with a felony for recreational use, much less sentenced to death.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

So you are strongly against the methods currently used in the Philippines.

Wow WA, I know now to read your posts with a pinch of salt or do you honestly believe the world is only 5000 years old?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> Please don't tell the American system that! https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?_r=0
> 
> Seriously, the idea of, in the current system, putting away somebody for life because of drug trafficking is wrong, IMHO. No, I do not propose letting drug traffickers go free, but I am also completely against long sentences for it. And I am a strong advocate for changes regarding such laws.


Did you read the article that had the details of the case?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The reason vices have historically been criminalized or regulated has little to do with religion as such. Instead, these societal decisions are grounded in the understanding that such behaviors have significant and disturbing social costs, many of which are necessarily, even if not always very effectively, socialized through taxation. It is true that criminalization can itself introduce significant and disturbing social costs, and therefore it is appropriate for society to carefully weigh these competing considerations. My charity work through the United Way and Salvation Army has led me to believe that criminalization of recreational drug use is sensible, but I also think penalties have to be appropriately calibrated. Such calibrations are essentially prudential in nature and do not lend themselves to easy formulaic or binary answers.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I'll take the 5th on this one, if it is all the same to you. :rolleyes2:


Playing it safe with them.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Creationism = Satanism.
> 
> Lucifer is the Prince of Lies, lies thrive on ignorance. To dispute the wonders of God's Creation, not the least of which is the marvel of Evolution, is to perpetrate a lie. This lie whether generated knowingly or via ignorance, either way it is against God. Time and again religious zealots have disputed the advances of Science, time and again they are proven to have been in error.
> 
> ...


Theories are science? Tens of thousands of macro evolution theories, or A+ thesis, have been swept under the carpet. They always hop on a new horse. Another dead one. I don't see anything there to brag about. Science is facts. Not pretending theories are facts.

Is it the ten commandments chapter that explains the 24 hour day for six days of creation? Why would you want to believe in a God that can't?

Your really goofed up. Everyone knows Atlas holds the earth up. And! He stands on an elephant.

Are you saying that nothing is literal in the Bible? If that's so. Then it mean nothing. And the pillars? How about Spiritual Pillars?

Don't care for snake handlers. But, the ones that drink poison I respect, though I don't believe in their reasoning for doing so. You should try it sometime to prove it is not poison.

You mention the Torah. I'm not at war with the Jews, if that is what you are. Some "Christian" groups have been a problem to Jews. Reading the Bible I don't see them living what the Bible teaches. Them Ramming it down people's throats, when the Bible says to shake the dust off their feet and move on. Your free to believe whatever you want. You brought up macro evolution, so I threw some other wit back at you. After all, this is a place of debate. Even if we get bent out of shape, now and then, we can still be friends.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Theories are ever refined - therein lays their power. However the basic principle of evolution remains unchanged since the 19th Century cf. Lamark's transmutation theory (1809) and Chamber's Vestiges (1844). Science is decidedly not facts. Facts are proven. Science is the process by which we hypothesise, investigate, experiment and make predictions to explain the Universe.

Whether God created the Universe in six days or not, I really could not care less. Wouldn't it be even more impressive if he did it in the Planck time, though?

Presumably your Atlas comment is a witticism? Without giving offence, it is often hard to tell from your writing.

Are you aware of the dichotomy that is presented by your selective interpretation of that which is literal and that which is not? Seven days is literal but the pillars are an allegory?

You don't care for snake handlers? I am very pleased to hear that. How about Apocalyptic Death Cults though?

Your last paragraph defies my best efforts at deciphering except to note that the Torah is the source of your most central beliefs, it is unusual that my mentioning this would lead you to allude towards anti-Semitism in your response.

,

.
.

.
.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WA said:


> Theories are science? Tens of thousands of macro evolution theories, or A+ thesis, have been swept under the carpet. They always hop on a new horse. Another dead one. I don't see anything there to brag about. Science is facts. Not pretending theories are facts.


I'm just going to interject a bit about science here ( to clarify something commonly misunderstood by non-scientists).

First, science is not "facts"; science is a process of examination. That is, it's an action, not a "thing". Very basically, the process of science is intended to clarify what is observed: Something grabs my attention, I make a guess about it's nature or what might be happening (hypothesis), I then devise some tests of my idea (experimentation), and if my idea holds up under many tests (and the tests of others), I declare my guess to be pretty darn good (theory).

So a theory is a guess which has proved itself under testing. It's not any kind of absolute truth, and any scientist will concede that his theory might be found invalid or replaced, as cleverer and cleverer tests are devised, or an better guesses are made.

Now, when we have a pretty good theory, they also serve as models which we can "test" - in physics, for example, we have mathematical structures in our theories that we can use to "predict" things which might happen. It's important to understand that these are NOT experiments, but sophisticated ways to generate more guesses; for example, we can examine the Standard Model of quantum electrodynamics to see what kinds of particles it predicts (hypothesis), so we can then tune our colliders to generate them (experiment), hopefully yielding results which will strengthen (or weaken) current theory.

(And the Standard Model is pretty good, but we know it needs work; it predicts the wrong neutrino output for the Sun, for example... a rich vein of interesting work!)

So science is not about "facts" or "truths", but about models which work... while always being mindful that we're using models. There's a common reminder in science: "the map is not the territory"; as in travel, maps are great tools, but it's the actual place which is of interest. Science knows it dances around truth, and it wants to get ever-closer, but there's always more to do. At its core, science is a humble endeavor, even if sometimes scientists are not humble (which is often the case).

Now, there ARE statements of "truth" in science, either because theories have held up so well under testing that they've been elevated to laws (like the Law of Gravity, or the Laws of Thermodynamics), or because they form a framework for a family of strong theories (like the symmetries of fundamental theory, such at CP/T Invariance in elementary particle physics, which describes the direction of time, or the Higgs field.)

Even mathematical theory is hardly "absolute"; mathematical (and logical) theories are founded on axioms, which are themselves unprovable - they are matters of faith (or what in logic are termed "reasonable premises"). The key effort in mathematics (and to a lesser degree, science) is to minimize the axiomatic bedrock as much as possible, so theory is mostly based on sentential argument. To me, this is the key difference between scientific and religious thought: the attitude toward faith. Both groups develop arguments based on elements of faith; scientists seek to minimize this, and religious thinkers embrace it.

DH


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^^^

Working on the theory that you didn't just lift that from Wikipedia, not that that here's anything wrong with that, but that you scribbled that out from a head full o' knowledge, then thank you greatly. A truly wondrous post.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> I'm just going to interject a bit about science here ( to clarify something commonly misunderstood by non-scientists).
> 
> First, science is not "facts"; science is a process of examination. That is, it's an action, not a "thing". Very basically, the process of science is intended to clarify what is observed: Something grabs my attention, I make a guess about it's nature or what might be happening (hypothesis), I then devise some tests of my idea (experimentation), and if my idea holds up under many tests (and the tests of others), I declare my guess to be pretty darn good (theory).
> 
> ...


More simply stated, the standard for evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs have two features that don't exist in science....they are final, and they are binary (like pregnancy...they are or they aren't; there's no in-between). Proofs exist in mathematics and logic, but not in science. Everything in science is just a theory...it's not proven. No such thing as something being "scientifically proven". However, some scientific theories have stronger evidence to support them than others.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Notwithstanding that reality is much more intriguing than tawdry proofs. Heisenberg et al. Whilst, of course, acknowledging that theories are intrinsically scale dependant, still, all of this said: the ramifications of M theory are jolly exciting.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

More important than any attempt by Man to describe reality is imagination.

If everything were ever to be known we'd all be totally XXXXXX.

Forsbergacct2000 posting here.

(Sorry, please don't use that word in our forum.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Sorry. I was quite surprised the auto censor allowed it. I seem to recall **** (as in **** sapiens) was once prohibited by the automatic thingumajig.

Edit- well upon my soul! The 'f' word gets through but **** does not. How curious.

I wonder (but promise to refrain from testing) what other rude words may slip through this net?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Sorry. I was quite surprised the auto censor allowed it. I seem to recall **** (as in **** sapiens) was once prohibited by the automatic thingumajig.
> 
> Edit- well upon my soul! The 'f' word gets through but **** does not. How curious.
> 
> I wonder (but promise to refrain from testing) what other rude words may slip through this net?


You know, it's funny, when I first read your post (pre-censor) it didn't even dawn on me that a naughty word had slipped through. I never gave it a second thought. Maybe because there is no other word that more precisely conveys your sentiment. It just fit.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

FLMike said:


> You know, it's funny, when I first read your post (pre-censor) it didn't even dawn on me that a naughty word had slipped through. I never gave it a second thought. Maybe because there is no other word that more precisely conveys your sentiment. It just fit.


Back in the days when I worked with a bunch of engineers, they always used the word "hosed" as a censor-friendly stand-in for the pithier alternative. That was almost thirty years ago (!!!), so it may have fallen from use, but said with emphasis, it was almost as good.

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wrote out a response to this twice, and lost them both.



Shaver said:


> Theories are ever refined - therein lays their power. However the basic principle of evolution remains unchanged since the 19th Century cf. Lamark's transmutation theory (1809) and Chamber's Vestiges (1844). Science is decidedly not facts. Facts are proven. Science is the process by which we hypothesise, investigate, experiment and make predictions to explain the Universe.
> 
> Whether God created the Universe in six days or not, I really could not care less. Wouldn't it be even more impressive if he did it in the Planck time, though?
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Wrote out a response to this twice, and lost them both.


If I am composing a lengthy, or thoughtful, response then I tend towards doing so in a Word document and then copy/paste. This approach may be worth your considering?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Shaver said:


> If I am composing a lengthy, or thoughtful, response then I tend towards doing so in a Word document and then copy/paste. This approach may be worth your considering?


Unfortunately, I learned of the need for this (more than once, sigh) the hard way!


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Which case are you referring to? The NYTimes article I cited is about large numbers, not a single case. Let me quote part of the article and why I am in favor of major law reform regarding drug use (Mike Petrik, the quote also refers to your post): "nor does it mean anything to the vast majority of these inmates who have no history of violence (about nine in 10, according to a 2006 study). And as with arrests, the racial disparity is vast: Blacks are more than 10 times as likely as whites to go to prison for drug offenses." Dear MP, as for your point on calibration, I could not agree more. We differ on our views and that is fine. Just please do not use straw man arguments anymore and I am sure we can have a civil discourse in which we do not simply disparage each other's point of view.



vpkozel said:


> Did you read the article that had the details of the case?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> Just please do not use straw man arguments anymore and I am sure we can have a civil discourse in which we do not simply disparage each other's point of view.


You do not seem to understand what a straw man argument is. Testing your proposition with an example that satisfies that proposition is not a straw man argument just because your proposition is embarrassed by that example and you find it unappealing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Theories are ever refined - therein lays their power. However the basic principle of evolution remains unchanged since the 19th Century cf. Lamark's transmutation theory (1809) and Chamber's Vestiges (1844). Science is decidedly not facts. Facts are proven. Science is the process by which we hypothesise, investigate, experiment and make predictions to explain the Universe.


How many scientists have walked away from Marco Evolution? When they saw science that was hidden from them they could no longer believe in macro evolution.



> Whether God created the Universe in six days or not, I really could not care less. Wouldn't it be even more impressive if he did it in the Planck time, though?


Yes. He could have done it any number of ways, and all of them would be impressive, including the way he has done it.



> Presumably your Atlas comment is a witticism? Without giving offence, it is often hard to tell from your writing.


Just a break.



> Are you aware of the dichotomy that is presented by your selective interpretation of that which is literal and that which is not? Seven days is literal but the pillars are an allegory?


Like Solomons mention of a couple of bunches of grapes?



> You don't care for snake handlers? I am very pleased to hear that. How about Apocalyptic Death Cults though?


Not interested in wasting my time thinking about Apocalyptic Death Cults and other nonsense.



> Your last paragraph defies my best efforts at deciphering except to note that the Torah is the source of your most central beliefs, it is unusual that my mentioning this would lead you to allude towards anti-Semitism in your response.


 Well, you threw all that Satan stuff at me and mentioned the Torah. Some of the things I've read about church/christian history isn't in the New Testament. How they treated the Jews and other Christians and other religions sounds like thugs hiding behind the name without being it at all. New Testament is rather clear, Who so ever will may come. This is the opposite of forcing.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Language generates thought. The more sophisticated one's command of words the more subtle one's ideas.

John 1:1.

Out of curiosity- are fossils the remains of creatures Noah did not take on the Ark or did God insert them into the Earth to test the faithful?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Anyone attempting to take literal interpretation of the Bible is engaging in a fool's errand. 

The Bible is too arcane. It's been re-written numerous times and has been translated over the past 1000 years. The Greek used then is completely different and the way people processed thought and imagery is also different. 

I would urge those who think that the book of Genesis should be take literally really should read Saint Augustine.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The Koine that much of the Bible, especially the New Testaments, only had a vocabulary of about 1000 words. Consequently it is very easy to interpret much of what was written in one own's way.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Language generates thought. The more sophisticated one's command of words the more subtle one's ideas.
> 
> John 1:1.
> 
> Out of curiosity- are fossils the remains of creatures Noah did not take on the Ark or did God insert them into the Earth to test the faithful?


Does it matter? No doubt some would be from the flood. How do you explain miners finding man made objects in veins of coal? How long does it take to make a fossil?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Anyone attempting to take literal interpretation of the Bible is engaging in a fool's errand.
> 
> The Bible is too arcane. It's been re-written numerous times and has been translated over the past 1000 years. The Greek used then is completely different and the way people processed thought and imagery is also different.
> 
> I would urge those who think that the book of Genesis should be take literally really should read Saint Augustine.


So your view point is that there is no God to watch over His Word. You actually think the Jews would be sloppy with the Torah? Have you ever been around Greeks? And those who have Phs in these subjects are utter fool's? No doubt there are a number of different translations out there. Not to mention translating from one language to another. But, the way you write is as though the whole book should be thrown out and you should put your faith into cherry picked science. Well, remove the cherry picking from science and you won't have a belief in macro evolution.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Chouan said:


> The Koine that much of the Bible, especially the New Testaments, only had a vocabulary of about 1000 words. Consequently it is very easy to interpret much of what was written in one own's way.


Not really. Most people don't think. They are told what to believe. You think science is any different?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> So your view point is that there is no God to watch over His Word. You actually think the Jews would be sloppy with the Torah? Have you ever been around Greeks? And those who have Phs in these subjects are utter fool's? No doubt there are a number of different translations out there. Not to mention translating from one language to another. But, the way you write is as though the whole book should be thrown out and you should put your faith into cherry picked science. Well, remove the cherry picking from science and you won't have a belief in macro evolution.


Not saying anything of that at all. I'm simply inviting you to read Saint Augustine's "On Genesis".


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Does it matter? No doubt some would be from the flood. How do you explain miners finding man made objects in veins of coal? How long does it take to make a fossil?


I would imagine that it does matter to Creationists, being as quibbling about the fossil record is a tactic upon which the ludicrous false dichotomy known as the argument from Intelligent Design relies.

OOPArts, eh? These are traditionally associated with the God Was An Astronaut brigade, please reassure us that you do not subscribe to these beliefs. At any rate, pseudoarchaeology will ever attract the nutty, the deluded, the hoaxers and the downright fraudulent. The veracity of radiocarbon dating and the billions of fossils (not least of which those of the trilobite clearly illustrating evolutionary process) are not exploded by forgeries, misinterpretations and questionable interpretations - amusing as these may sometimes be. If you do enjoy puzzles however, here is a genuine one for you: the 'Death Pose' a phenomenon for which there is no satisfactory explanation and affects a significant proportion of those animal fossils discovered (more or less) complete.

How long does it take to make a fossil? The process of fossilisation is dependent upon the composition and size of the organism in combination with the environmental conditions acting upon the biological material - some fossils are merely impressions others casts. It is difficult to reproduce the conditions in a laboratory simply because, well, it takes millions and millions of years: the Universe was not created at 3.30 in the afternoon of October 23[SUP]rd[/SUP] 4004 years BCE.

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I always thought BCE to be the PC version of BC and if anything more demeaning to other religions as it assumes BC to be the norm.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Well we wouldn't want to offend anybody, would we? What do you recommend?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Pray tell what does this have to do with the passing of Justice Scalia? We seem to have drifted way off subject, unless of course someone wishes to argue the honorable justice may have in some way represented the second coming. Perhaps this thread should be allowed to return to it's intended/original path of travel and someone should start a new thread on creationism, if that is what all you swells wish to talk about! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Pray tell what does this have to do with the passing of Justice Scalia? We seem to have drifted way off subject, unless of course someone wishes to argue the honorable justice may have in some way represented the second coming. Perhaps this thread should be allowed to return to it's intended/original path of travel and someone should start a new thread on creationism, if that is what all you swells wish to talk about! :icon_scratch:


That's evolution for you - unpredictable. :great:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL.

Indeed!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> That's evolution for you - unpredictable. :great:





eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> 
> Indeed!


I believe mutation is the more appropriate term.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Say a couple of things before departing macro evolution. 

The Bible is not God's Word. The Bible is some guesses of God's Word. For example, what books belong in it. 

Found out long time ago people in Church and science are not believable for a lot of different reasons. Shaver, you put a tremendous amount of faith in certain scientists that I have found, from a science view point, not to be honest. They're unbelievable. 

Radiocarbon dating is a theory. Someone may come along with a more believable formula, and then all those dates will have to be changed, again . I don't know if this had to do with radiocarbon dating, was it in the seventies? Where they had to knock off a zero? 400,000 years to 40,000 years. That was a tremendous error. They were pushing hard, for how many decades before? Anyone who wouldn't agree was scoffed, mocked, ridiculed, etc. as though mocking made fact. The scoffers had to knock a zero off. And 40,000 years is not fact, either. Scoundrels have dishonorable techniques. Scripture says to be as wise as a serpent. No doubt there are honest scientists. But, are they on a wild goose chase? 

Shaver, I'm not going to go read a bunch to continue the debate. So, don't want to start another thread. But, I would like to read your last argument, if you have one. So you can have the last word, if you wish. And then the thread back to Scalia.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Glacken, Clarence J. Traces on the Rhodian Shore, Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Just to address radiocarbon dating...

... it's not a theory, it's just a measurement technique. 

Now, it's a form of radioactive decay, and the exact mechanism of radioactive decay has a theoretical framework (the "Standard Model" of particle physics) which explains it, but decay processes themselves are directly observable.

(By analogy, light is described by theory (electromagnetism), but we wouldn't say "light is just a theory": it's an observable phenomenon.)

So carbon-14 atoms decay (like clockwork, in fact - again, why they do this is a subject of theory, but the fact of it is simply observable), and offhand I think the half life is 5688 years (which means if you put a scoop of carbon-14 in a jar for safekeeping, and check on it again in 5688 years, half of it will be gone!)

As a dating technique, it's limited to around 75,000 years or so (and generally is considered only statistically meaningful within 50,000), and like anything, results can vary by about +/- 10%, so if we date a sample at 2000 years old, we're really saying that we're 68% confident that it's 1800-2200 years old (we add in +/- one standard deviation).

A result which is off by a magnitude (a factor of 10) is going to be a measurement error, not a "failure of theory" or some such. I can say from long experience that radioisotopes are slippery things to work with, and a lot of errors arise less from radiochemistry than from solvent handling; typically, working with radioisotope solutions requires anhydrous conditions and very controlled solvent temperatures. Most of the big radiochemistry problems I've seen arise from failure to maintain anhydrous conditions - talk to some old Oak Ridge guys about anhydrous MIBK extractions, and you'll get some stories!

Then there are sample considerations themselves - the whole idea of radiocarbon dating is based on the idea that stuff has a certain mix of carbon atoms in it, but it's not always that simple. The ancient world is filled with examples of repurposed materials, for example - palimpsests, reused logs and planks, patched fabrics, and so on - and these can all throw off a measure. That said, carbon-14 dating gives some great ballpark dates, and is very useful in conjunction with other modes of archeological analysis, like sediment chemistry, relationship to other layers in a dig site, and so on.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Say a couple of things before departing macro evolution.
> 
> The Bible is not God's Word. The Bible is some guesses of God's Word. For example, what books belong in it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Glacken, Clarence J. Traces on the Rhodian Shore, Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967.


Thanks Gurdon - added to my wishlist.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> View attachment 16685


Weren't you the one whining about being asked to do some work on your own?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

WA you have not come clean yet as to whether you really believe the world was created 5000 years ago. You seem to have been having fun winding up a few or our fellow posters with your argument for it but what do you really believe?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

culverwood said:


> WA you have not come clean yet as to whether you really believe the world was created 5000 years ago. You seem to have been having fun winding up a few or our fellow posters with your argument for it but what do you really believe?


Yes, something like that, 5000 years. Do I have all the answers? No. Neither do scientists.

Dhaller, nice write up. Before I got to the age of twenty I've seen a number of changes, that well presented knowledge, seemed like proof, and pushed as truth, fall to the wayside. Why? Nobody knows what is coming around those future bends. New technology will show up and people will try to figure out how to use it. Maybe there will be no changes in radiocarbon dating. But new technology might put it in a different framework. Reasoning doesn't stay the same, either. Scientists, and cons, talk today as though they know it. Scientists in the past did the same. But the future brought change. History has a way of repeating itself. You also can't forget the science of psychology. How would you like your science teacher, that you are supposed to trust, pull out a theory, that has been proven false, and present it as highly legitimate? Not supposed to be such a good student where you leave your wits behind. I told you of one scandal here. But I have read plenty of other ones. And then there are the scientists who knew nothing but macro evolution, and absolutely believed in it, but eventually walked away from macro evolution, because other legitimate science made it impossible for them to believe in macro evolution. If you don't know the other side of the argument? How can you evaluate what the truth is?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

You don't have to believe that the Earth is only 5000 years old to believe that God created life. Nor do you have to wholly dispute evolution. 

Just wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Weren't you the one whining about being asked to do some work on your own?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Those look like shark tails. Are you indicating that you are a shark?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Wikileaks reveals George Soros Open Society foundation were plotting about a Scalia successor on the day he was found dead.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794895133607161857


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Odradek said:


> Wikileaks reveals George Soros Open Society foundation were plotting about a Scalia successor on the day he was found dead.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794895133607161857


Plotting? Honestly, I am no Clinton fan at all, but if they are not having these discussion then they would be derelict in their duries.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Those look like shark tails. Are you indicating that you are a shark?


FWIW- sharks are among the oldest lifeforms - 400 million years and still going strong.

Being able to swim the Flood probably didn't affect them much.

:devil:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

*wa*



Shaver said:


> FWIW- sharks are among the oldest lifeforms - 400 million years and still going strong.
> 
> Being able to swim the Flood probably didn't affect them much.
> 
> :devil:


Yes, they had it pretty easy. Lunch served to them by God himself. All those people bumping against them drowning. Every type of meat available. Quite a buffet, minus the porcupines.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What I liked about Scalia is he believed in America.
The liberals want to change America into something else.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. 
Well said and succinctly put. I couldn't agree with you more!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It is like the liberals don't understand the Declaration of Independence, constitution nor Bill of Rights. 

I believe in some socialism. But, when has it gone to far? And when is there to much power walking over the people to receive it? The liberals do walk over people.

Hillary is going to put in liberal judges.
And, is she for a for world government making our government obsolete?

These three (Declaration of Independence, constitution nor Bill of Rights) are very important. And not to be lost.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

What makes you think that the "liberals", whoever they are, in the US don't consider these to be important? What makes you imagine that these same "liberals" want to change America into something else? Like what?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Anyone want to bet on Ted Cruz getting a SCOTUS nomination? He certainly has the legal background and acumen. I think it rather likely. He is very young, only 46, I think, which could result in 30 years of conservative jurisprudence. I think the only reason he wouldn't accept a nomination would be to run in 2020 or 2024 for president. But a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

He wouldn't run in 2020 anyway and he's too much an ideologue to run in 2024. If this election proved anything, it's that those divisive social issues don't matter as much to most Americans as do jobs. I doubt Cruz could have carried Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

Whether he'll be nominated for the court is another issue. He certainly has the legal chops.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Whether he'll be nominated for the court is another issue. He certainly has the legal chops.


Democrats would kill that for sure. He is not what I would call humble. Maybe he would make a good judge. I don't think so. He reminds me of my older brothers who railroaded over me, how many times? When they were wrong. Something about absolute power that absolutely corrupts.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

HRC's potential appointments to the Court would have been horrifying. The President-elect's will remain to be seen, but will probably be better, so long as he doesn't nominate Ivanka ...


----------

