Supreme Court Justice Scalia Rocks, or 2 Out of 3 Ain’t Bad. (1296 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.15 on 76 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Jack McCallum (View user info) at 2008-06-26 18:43:52 EDT
(Lots of reading here. Lots to think about and discuss. Don't want to read? Don't want to think or offer an opinion? Then fuck off.)
The short versions;
(1) 5-4 Supreme Court ruling strikes down DC's handgun ban. HA! "An individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted, Justice Antonin Scalia said, writing for the majority. San Francisco could be next. Hilarious.
(2) Justice Scalia says Al Gore to blame for 2000 US election mess. HA! Take that you Gorey Global-Warming Chicken-Littles who ignore science and swallow bullshit and still haven't gotten over that election. Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph. "I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr. Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr. Gore."
(3) 5-4 Supreme Court majority bans death penalty for child rape. WHAT? Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy says a death penalty for child rape would be excessive, violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Considering the nation's ''evolving standards of decency,'' he said most states allowing capital punishment do not permit it for the crime of rape. He said that no one in America had been executed for child rape since 1964. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Writing for the dissenters, Alito said the court's decision conflicts with basic Eighth Amendment principles and essentially ignores the moral depravity of child rape and ''grievous injury'' it inflicts on victims and society in general.
The details;
(1) Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 26, 2008 (06-26) 11:12 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZOi0QxIZk7wY8br0MHhsEz-wL-wD91HVCB83
Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
--
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting. The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
--
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court. "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
--
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
(2) Justice Antonin Scalia: Al Gore to blame for 2000 US election mess
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last updated: 6:35 PM BST 26/06/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2200495/Justice-Antonin-Scalia-Al-Gore-to-blame-for-2000-US-election-mess.html
The 2000 presidential election debacle was the fault of Al Gore, who should have followed Richard Nixon's 1960 example and conceded without legal action, according to the Supreme Court's leading conservative judge.
"Richard Nixon, when he lost to [John F.] Kennedy thought that the election had been stolen in Chicago, which was very likely true with the system at the time," Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph. "But he did not even think about bringing a court challenge. That was his prerogative. So you know if you don't like it, don't blame it on me. I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore." Justice Scalia insisted that his controversial decision, along with four other justices, to stop votes being recounted in Florida because the method was unconstitutional and it was too late to consider other options was "absolutely right".
--
A strict "textualist", he rejects the notion of a "living constitution", arguing instead that the original intentions of its framers should be closely adhered to. Once a voice in the wilderness, Justice Scalia now often finds himself in a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, such as in a landmark gun control case in which he wrote for the 5-4 majority that the framers of the constitution believed in individual gun rights.
In December 2000, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices ruled that the recount method was unfair but only five, including Justice Scalia, decided that another recount was impractical and George W. Bush should therefore become president. The 2000 election, in which Mr Bush eventually prevailed in pivotal Florida by just 537 votes, remains a potent source of discontent for Democrats. Last month, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that the election had been stolen by "five intellectually bankrupt judges".
In 1960, Mr Kennedy won Illinois by just 8,858 votes and there were also allegations of voter fraud in Texas, where he won by 46,257 votes. If Mr Nixon had won both states he would have reached the White House eight years before he beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Mr Kennedy's Illinois victory came from Chicago's Cook County, where he won by a stunning 450,000 votes. There have long been allegations that Mayor Richard Daley, a Kennedy ally, and his Chicago Democratic "machine" engaged in large-scale electoral fraud. Mr. Nixon conceded the election to Mr Kennedy rather than going to the courts.
Justice Scalia, a conservative justice who was appointed to America's highest court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, said he and the other justices had no option but to intervene once Mr Gore sought to overcome Mr Bush via the lower courts.
He said that he "of course" regretted that the Supreme Court had become involved. "But I don't know how we could have avoided it. Could we have declined to accept the case on the basis that it wasn't important enough?
"And you know bear in mind that the issue wasn't whether or not the election was going to be decided by a court or not. It was whether it was going to be decided by the Florida court or by the United States Supreme Court, for a federal election.
"So I have no regrets about taking the case and I think our decision in the case was absolutely right. But if you ask me 'Am I sorry it all happened?' Of course I am sorry it happened there was no way that we were going to come out of it smelling like a rose. "I mean, one side or the other was going to feel that was a politicised decision but that goes with the territory."
He flatly denied there was any "partisan prejudice" involved in the 5-4 ruling, adding that "if you want to look for partisan decisions" then they could be found in the Florida Supreme Court's rulings.
--
(3) Supreme Court bans death penalty for child rape — Anthony Kennedy is key vote in 5-4 tally
June 25, 2008 By JOAN BISKUPIC | USA TODAY/Gannett News Service
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1024072,rape062508.article
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared by a 5-4 vote Wednesday that the crime of child rape does not warrant the death penalty. The decision overturns a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that would have allowed the execution of a man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that death penalty for child rape would be excessive, violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Considering the nation's ''evolving standards of decency,'' he noted that the vast majority of states that allow capital punishment do not permit its imposition for the crime of rape. He said that no one in America had been executed for child rape since 1964.
The decision expands on a 1977 ruling, Coker v. Georgia, that barred the death penalty for the rape of an adult. It also marks the third time since 2002 that the court has narrowed the death penalty's reach. It earlier struck it down for mentally retarded defendants and for defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crimes.
As Kennedy read his opinion from the bench Wednesday, he stressed the importance of ''caution'' in what crimes are covered by the death penalty and ''decency'' in the use of the ultimate punishment. ''In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense,'' Kennedy wrote in his opinion. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Writing for the dissenters, Alito said the court's decision conflicts with basic Eighth Amendment principles and essentially ignores the moral depravity of child rape and ''grievous injury'' it inflicts on victims and society in general.
The dispute was closely followed by social workers, defense lawyers, and state prosecutors nationwide. It marked the first time since 1977 that the justices considered whether the crime of rape could be punished by death. In the case three decades ago, involving an adult woman, the justices said no.
Currently, five states, including Louisiana, have laws on the books that permit the death penalty for child rape. Several other states, including Missouri, had signaled that if the court allowed the death penalty for child rape, they might try to enact such statutes.
Today's dispute traces to 1998, when Patrick Kennedy called police to report that his stepdaughter had been sexually assaulted. The girl, who was eight at the time, initially told police that two neighborhood boys had raped her after dragging her from her garage into a side yard.
Police, however, found evidence of blood in her bedroom that Kennedy apparently had tried to clean up. (Kennedy had called a cleaning service early on the morning of the incident to request urgent cleaning to remove blood stains, according to later trial testimony. The cleaning service arrived later in the morning after police were already on the scene.) The stepdaughter eventually told her mother that Kennedy had raped her and that he had told her to relate a false account.
A jury in 2003 convicted Kennedy under a statute that permits the death penalty for anyone found guilty of the rape of a child 12 or under. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Kennedy's appeal that his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
In Kennedy's petition to the justices, his lawyer stressed that since the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the high court had not allowed capital punishment for any crime that was not ''person-on-person violence that does not involve killing or at least reckless disregard for human life.''
Louisiana officials countered that several states and the federal government have authorized the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, such as treason and espionage. The state also pointed to the recent widespread enactment of ''Megan's Laws'' requiring sex offenders to register in their communities. Louisiana officials said that reflected the nation's concern about child sexual assault and reflects a trend toward the death penalty for child rape.
Such arguable trends in either direction mattered because the high court traditionally looks to evidence of a national consensus when deciding whether a punishment violates notions of decency embodied in the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
In recent death penalty cases, the court noted state trends in exempting the mentally retarded and teenagers from the ultimate punishment. In 2002, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005, it invalidated it for defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crimes.
The states that have statutes on the books that would allow the death penalty for child rape are Louisiana, Texas, Montana, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Some of those states and others signed a brief to the high court supporting Louisiana.
''The violent rape of an 8-year-old inevitably causes permanent, irreparable harm to the heart, mind, and soul of that innocent child,'' said the brief signed by officials in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington.
Among the groups siding with Kennedy were the American Civil Liberties Union, which emphasized the South's history of executing blacks for rape more than whites, and the National Association of Social Workers. The latter group says, ''The imposition of the death penalty for child rape affirmatively harms the very children whom it is intended to help.''
Earlier this term, in a separate closely watched death penalty case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally of lethal injections for executions.
User Reviews
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-08-25 21:08:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-08-25 21:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Just to further my point:
RACISTS/DISCRIMINATORY/ANTI-OBAMA(goes back to racist)ETC... POSTS BY JACK:
1. http://www.ubersite.com/m/118305
2. http://www.ubersite.com/m/118112
3. http://www.ubersite.com/m/118090
4. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117913
5. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117808
6. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117641
7. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117614
8. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117591
9. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117554
10. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117505
11. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117364 (the very fact that you LIKE scalia)
12. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117316
13. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117303
14. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117258
15. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117174
16. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117136
17. http://www.ubersite.com/m/117084
17 OUT OF YOUR LAST 40 POSTS.
you have issues.
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-06-30 10:50:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Canadian judges don't use gavels, the idea here being that if you need a wooden hammer to control your court-room you're doing a piss-poor job.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-29 23:13:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, Circe, I like the cut of you jib, too.
As for how the recession is working out us "fags" (coincidentally, the Pride Parade was today in San Fran, but I did not go), you will be disappointed to hear I have a relatively recession-resistant job, so I will be able to continue to blow money on over-priced lap dances at the Lusty Lady with my hairy-back, knuckle-dragging friends.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2008-06-29 21:59:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Pew! Pew! Pew!
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2008-06-29 11:51:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How's that recession working out for all you fags down in retardland?
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2008-06-29 01:37:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FilledWithHate = object of my latest Ubercrush.
-holds my thumb and little finger to my ear and mouth respectively, mouthing "Call me"-
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-29 00:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just stirrin' the shit, Bubba. I really have no idea.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-06-28 19:12:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:51:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png
Here ya go, doodles. I haven't looked into the source for this, but I've overlayed solar intensity charts (NASA data) with temperature data charts (NOAA data) myself, and am convinced of the relationship.
What's nice, I think, is that we are not (I believe...of course, I could be wrong) responsible at all for global warming. So I recommend having a few beers to celebrate. Right now.
==========================
Lungfish always ends with the most significant part: Beer.
I know those sites I listed were mostly hogwash, thus my comments under each one. I don't type fast enough to write a thesis here, so suffice to say I don't believe man is responsible for warming. It's the result of natural cycles. Cleaner air benefits everyone. My wife has COPD, so I want cleaner air. But not at the price of the Kyoto bullshit, which will simply put more of my money in some assholes pocket.
Lunger, you seems to be edjumicated in this here stuff. . .
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 02:11:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:22:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Warning: OISM might just be a bunch of freaks.
------
Yep. They're freaks. Big time.
Anyway...check out the NOAA and NASA websites. The raw (or transformed) data from many studies are presented.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:44:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Doodles,
I would have to look something up to provide evidence, but I am pretty sure the nuclear testing of the 1940s to 1960s, while impressive, could not have had enough thermal impact to warm the earth or could have projected enough dust in the atmosphere to cool the earth. That said, volcanoes of Mount St Helens type power can launch enough dust up to cool the earth slightly for a year or two. Some have suggested we try to cool the earth by deliberately trying to "dirty" the atmosphere, but it most think that could potentially have some significant unintended consequences.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:30:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Out of my own curiosity, I don't suppose nuclear activity or radiation has any relation to the temperature. I only ask because lung's graph showed a decrease in 1940-60s which, I think, was the prime of nuclear testing.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:26:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Of course CO2 correlates with temperature. This is what I said. And no...I'm not talking about primordial earth. The earth had a much higher core temperature once upon a time. It's been gradually cooling since.
Anyway...I've got to get to the liquor store.
Sorry I called you a bastard, Jack. That wasn't nice. Just joking. Scalia is definitely a bastard, however.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:22:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Warning: OISM might just be a bunch of freaks.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here you go Lungfish:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html
I think we can do a lot better than going back to 1880--this a correlation dating for 420 million years that global temperature averages correlate with CO2. The source is the scientific article itself.
The sun is a fusion reaction, and the intensity has been growing more or less continuously over the last 420 million years, so this cannot explain the warm temperatures of primordial earth. The intensity will continue to gradually grow until the sun reaches supernova ~6 billion years from now.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:18:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I still stand by what i said about the polar ice caps not melting every ten thousand years.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:17:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can safely say that made next to no sense to me. However I can see the corrolation in the grapah, and I understand the sunspot/magnetic field relationship.
Either way it is interesting.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:11:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
This is interesting, and actually has some references. And I'm done. Sorry. Just a special interest of mine. And now...beer.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 01:01:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That being said, it's been hotter than fuck, here.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:51:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png
Here ya go, doodles. I haven't looked into the source for this, but I've overlayed solar intensity charts (NASA data) with temperature data charts (NOAA data) myself, and am convinced of the relationship.
What's nice, I think, is that we are not (I believe...of course, I could be wrong) responsible at all for global warming. So I recommend having a few beers to celebrate. Right now.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:40:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I just have the history/ discovery channel version. While i understand the gist of whatyou said lungy, I don't really understand how the the sun could intensify it as I understood the sun operated on... fusion, mayber fission i'm not sure-- and that it in laymans terms the energy realeased in the form of light comes from two lower elements fusing i guess, into an element that is higher. like hydrogen into helium etc until you start getting to element like iron and lead where the cycle can no longer support itself and the star collapses.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:40:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In fact, the only good thing Bush did for the American people is not signing the Kyoto Protocol. That and provide fodder for the late night comedians. Because he's an idiot.
Score 1 (and only 1) for you, Jack. You bastard.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:31:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They do no such thing, Doodles. Ice core anlayses (both isotopic and trace gas analysis) are merely proxy measures for climatic variables. Also, there are a number of post-emplacement factors that are expected to affect the results of analyses. Also the temporal resolution of the data is gross and must be averaged over rather broad periods, thus making direct comparison to the last 50 years (which, I think is just anomaly) inappropriate.
What the ice core data are suggesting, however, is that temperature increases tend to pre-date atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, implying a causative relationship. That is, an increase in temperature results in an increase in carbon dioxide. This is to be expected, as the amount of carbon dioxide that water (think, oceans) can retain in solution is inversely related to the temperature of the water. Hotter temperature, more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Duh. You can check this out in your lab.
I believe that recent increases in temperature are directly the result of solar intensity. You can look it up. It's a no-brainer, in my opinion. Well, I've yet to consider fully the methodological problems that my be inherent in measures of past solar activity reconstructions, which are also based on proxy measures.
Embarrassingly simple, really, but there are a lot of egos and careers on the line, and no one wants to look like an idiot.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:22:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ownage below
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-28 00:13:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sweet Jesus Monkey Balls Christ, how do some people find so much time to post during the work day, especially with such a load of shite?!? Let me start with this worthless crap:
Information about naturally occurring climate changes:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2008/06/11/opinion/oped01.txt
(Based on popular opinion)
This is pure opinion and has no scientific data.,
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/clue-sunspots-and-global-cooling/
(Interesting info about sunspots)
This one is really whacked. It discusses a sunspot theory of climate change that was largely disproved as significant 15-20 years ago. It claims to list a number of facts, and has a link on the bottom for SOURCE of "numerous, relevant, links". This leads to the "Leader-Telegram" (Serving Eau Claire, WI and the Chippewa Valley Since 1881!) which did have a number of hyperlinks, none of which linked to anything but an advertisement for Bloomberg. Nice reference.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
(warming/cooling in the media)
Again, no scientific data, just an analysis of popular media content. This has not a thing to do with whether the data is real or not. There are 10,000's of refereed, scientific articles on global warming and humanity's role in this, but that is not the subject of this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
(The role of the sea in global warming)
If you read this carefully, you would see it does not even support your point.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041
(A British perspective, discounting the role of CO2 in warming/cooling)
Again, pure opinion, no references, no way to check these claims, no science here.
Some more crap:
"It's amazing how you people miss the point.
UberGoons: People are bad and are wrecking the planet!
Jack: We don't know the whole history of this world. We could be dealing with cycles beyond our understanding.
YES, bad things will happen if the temperatures change, but these changes are very likely cycles that occur naturally."
WRONG! Nice, retarded paraphrase you made up, but we actual scientists do not claim people are bad and therefore wrecking the planet. Intent has nothing to do with this, but releasing all this CO2 (1 of 6 greenhouse gases known by their ability to reflect terrestrial radiated infrared light created when shorter wavelength light hits the earth and loses some energy on reflection) will increase global temperatures. Truly there has been global warming before naturally, but in most if not all cases, these are the product of increased greenhouse gases, usually caused by high levels of volcanic activity. For instance, in the age of the dinosaurs, there were periods of time where the average ocean temperature may have reached 107 degrees F (error +/- 2 degrees, source Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute). But oh wait, no one was there to hold a thermometer you say! Well you can measure it by taking fossil seashells' isotopic and trace element chemistry, which changes along with temperature changes in the surface waters where they lived. This a validated method that can be shown with overlap methods, where temperature measured by different methods can be correlated with this method. In addition, we also know that there was no polar ice at this time and most of the world had the appearance of the tropics. Also with such high levels of CO2 (2000 to 4000 ppm vs today of 385 ppm and 280 ppm before the industrial revolution) you got very large leafy plants and high levels of O2 which supported very large animals including but not limited to dinosaurs. Because insects have a diffusional based respiratory system, their size is limited by O2 concentration, so their was an exciting assortment of insects and bugs 2 feet or more in length or wingspan. But all this abundant flora and fauna led to a great deal of biomass being buried, such as vegetation in massive fresh water swamps, or animal life in the sea, or biomass buried with anaerobic bacteria, leading over millions of years to coal, oil, and natural gas that was eventually found leading to the industrial revolution.
It is not because people are bad, but our progress is causing us to liberate the buried carbon from 100-200 million years and thus returning our atmosphere to a time when dinosaurs walked a warm earth and the seas were "naturally" the temperature of a hot tub. And we can look forward to 2 foot cockroaches.
That said there are a lot of reasons for change. Whether polar bears are going extinct is actually debatable I admit. We debate it because the Bush administration has blocked an actual scientific survey of this question, and I don't think "asking the Inuits" is a good scientific method. But we do know that we are undergoing the largest general mass extinction in 10's of millions of years. It probably has a variety of causes but they are likely all man-made. Not because of badness, but because of our success. All these problems have relationships--we burn oil and it is bad for the environment, we try to drill our way out of it, but with ANWAR, gulf coast, and all, we will likely only raise our oil production from 5 to 5.2 million barrels/day in 10 years vs a decline to 4.5 million barrels/day. We use 20 million bpd now! So we import the rest, the trade gap worsens, dollar declines, people overseas get a pile of money, some of which certainly goes to terrorists or their supporters. We dig up more coal or try oil shale, but these are getting harder to get to as well. Dig deeper, costs go up more, and more. This is hopeless.
So whether you believe in global warming or not, we would be better off breaking a sweat looking for a better way.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 23:17:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Core samples prove DEFINITIVELY that while the temepture does change this is the highest peek in modern history. And I don't mean modern as in past 2000 I mean modern as in pre homos.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2008-06-27 22:05:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-06-27 17:37:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Information about naturally occurring climate changes:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2008/06/11/opinion/oped01.txt
(Based on popular opinion)
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/clue-sunspots-and-global-cooling/
(Interesting info about sunspots)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
(warming/cooling in the media)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
(The role of the sea in global warming)
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041
(A British perspective, discounting the role of CO2 in warming/cooling)
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-27 17:35:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:42:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
--------------------------
We're not saying that the Earth will implode if we don't do something about global warming, but look at the consequences:
melted ice caps = more water = more rain and violent storms because the addition of extra water into the atmosphere upsets the atmosphere
tens, hundreds of thousands of deaths from extreme heatstroke and dehydration because of increased temperatures. People say that 1 or 2 degrees doesn't matter, but if you have ever taken a First Aid course you will know that hypothermia sets in at 1 degree below body temperature and people start to suffer symptoms of heatstroke only 2 degrees above. In many, many places the temperature is already above body temp (78-ish degrees).
Also, the Inuit are more than willing to tell anyone that the polar bears are dying out. just because they're "all over the fucking place" doesn't mean they can't or won't die out - think of the carrier pigeon, another casualty of humans. With melting icecaps, there are no sheets of ice or large floes for the polar bears to travel on, which means they starve. That is why they are "all over the fucking place", they are coming into towns looking for food they can't find in the wild.
--
It's amazing how you people miss the point.
UberGoons: People are bad and are wrecking the planet!
Jack: We don't know the whole history of this world. We could be dealing with cycles beyond our understanding.
YES, bad things will happen if the temperatures change, but these changes are very likely cycles that occur naturally. Temperatures changes, polar bears die, people die... it's tragic, but on a geological scale it means nothing. It's life on Earth in a nutshell - adapt or die.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:42:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
--------------------------
We're not saying that the Earth will implode if we don't do something about global warming, but look at the consequences:
melted ice caps = more water = more rain and violent storms because the addition of extra water into the atmosphere upsets the atmosphere
tens, hundreds of thousands of deaths from extreme heatstroke and dehydration because of increased temperatures. People say that 1 or 2 degrees doesn't matter, but if you have ever taken a First Aid course you will know that hypothermia sets in at 1 degree below body temperature and people start to suffer symptoms of heatstroke only 2 degrees above. In many, many places the temperature is already above body temp (78-ish degrees).
Also, the Inuit are more than willing to tell anyone that the polar bears are dying out. just because they're "all over the fucking place" doesn't mean they can't or won't die out - think of the carrier pigeon, another casualty of humans. With melting icecaps, there are no sheets of ice or large floes for the polar bears to travel on, which means they starve. That is why they are "all over the fucking place", they are coming into towns looking for food they can't find in the wild.
Jack, even someone who has closed his ears entirely can't possibly NOT admit that there's at least some truth to what I have said - scientific study, weather reports, and huge amounts of raw data all going MY way. Fundamentalists are taken seriously using evidence whole orders of magnitude smaller and less reliable than this to try and prove the existence of Yahweh.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And you just like Scalia because he is a right-wing nutjob like yourself, Jack.
The death penalty, religion interfering with government, and people in positions of power ignoring previously-outlined laws are ridiculous and should be left in the Middle Ages where they belong.
I think myself and at least 90% of uber-users would like to say two words:
Fuck.
You.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:21:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
(2) Justice Scalia says Al Gore to blame for 2000 US election mess. HA! Take that you Gorey Global-Warming Chicken-Littles who ignore science and swallow bullshit and still haven't gotten over that election. Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph. "I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr. Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr. Gore."
------------------
Fuck you.
(3) 5-4 Supreme Court majority bans death penalty for child rape. WHAT? Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy says a death penalty for child rape would be excessive, violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Considering the nation's ''evolving standards of decency,'' he said most states allowing capital punishment do not permit it for the crime of rape. He said that no one in America had been executed for child rape since 1964. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Writing for the dissenters, Alito said the court's decision conflicts with basic Eighth Amendment principles and essentially ignores the moral depravity of child rape and ''grievous injury'' it inflicts on victims and society in general.
----------------------------
Morals are relative. For instance, slave-owners were allowed to kill their slaves in Rome. Was it moral then? Yes. Is it moral now? No. No one can say what absolute morality is.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:14:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
#1) i don't have a huge problem with. i am all for nice and tight controls on who can own guns, and close monitoring of that, though. strict controls and actual enforcemnet of those controls is the way to go .
#2) oh for fucks sake you have to be kidding me. the repubs took it to the SC. al gore took it to the Florida courts and when it started getting a little hairy, in stepped the people who have in the eight years since ruined the economy and fed thousands of people unnecessarily into a meatgrinder to make sure shit went their way. scalia probably went home and raped his hand particularly hard after writing this one.
#3) i have mixed emotions on. hadley was pretty right on looking at it from just the factual standpoint.
#4) you're a fucking piece of shit, and so is your girlfriend bubba.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2008-06-27 16:03:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't look at this link:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/117138#2734578
Submitted by MackTuesday (user info) at 2008-06-27 14:51:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant to say that in Rogers v. Tennessee, he voted that the prosecution was unconstitutional. I got the twat part right, though.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-27 13:36:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack McCallum (View user info) at 2008-06-26 22:43:52
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
---
Seriously Jack? That is fucking retarded. I don't know much about global warming or weather history, but even I know we have scientific tables based on the amount of (Co2 I think) from ice core samples gather from- guess where? the polar ice caps. Once again i'm not sure how far back we date them but I know they exceed 500,000 years.
--
Yes, we have cores of all kinds of stuff, and there are different interpretations of what that data means. I was talking about actual records recorded by human observation at the time. We have lots of info going way back, but only so much of it is reliable.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-27 13:25:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack McCallum (View user info) at 2008-06-26 22:43:52
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
---
Seriously Jack? That is fucking retarded. I don't know much about global warming or weather history, but even I know we have scientific tables based on the amount of (Co2 I think) from ice core samples gather from- guess where? the polar ice caps. Once again i'm not sure how far back we date them but I know they exceed 500,000 years.
--
Just as there have been ice ages there have been periods when it was WARMER than it is now... before there was any industry. And guess what? The planet bounced back.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2008-06-27 13:07:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Scalia is the worst thing to ever happen to the Supreme Court much like GW Bush was the worst thing to ever happen to the Presidency.
I hope you die due to gun violence.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack McCallum (View user info) at 2008-06-26 22:43:52
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
---
Seriously Jack? That is fucking retarded. I don't know much about global warming or weather history, but even I know we have scientific tables based on the amount of (Co2 I think) from ice core samples gather from- guess where? the polar ice caps. Once again i'm not sure how far back we date them but I know they exceed 500,000 years.
To be honest that registered with ets' the government did 9'11 theories on the oh-my-god-i-didn't-think-you-could-be-that-retarded-and-still-work-the-internet
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:12:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Scalia sucks ass even though I don't necessarily disagree with ruling #1 because that is what the 2nd Amendment says after all. But #2 is absolute bullshit, the ruling of an evil empire trying to justify itself. The fact is EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, would be better if the legitimate President Gore had taken office in the election he had in fact won in 2000. And as an actual scientist, not a pretend one like the amateur internet "scientists" that post on this moronic board, I am offended by the denialism, the scientific illiteracy, the pretend expertise that are just regurgitations from flat earth web sites. WTF do you do for a career all day, anyway, besides play in the internet? I thought you worked in some hotel. My hairy ass, I "ignore science"; science is all I fracking do every day.
--
Please don't tell me you are going to TRY and offer scientific proof about global warming?
Age of reliable historical weather data (recorded by humans): 500 years MAX.
Age of planet Earth: 4 billion years. We've had relatively stable oceans and atmosphere for a billion years.
That's a lot of changes and upheavals. Now I don't deny that reducing pollution of all kinds is a good thing, for the environment and our own health because we are really starting to fuck ourselves over, but to say that we are having dramatic impacts on global weather is ridiculous.
THE POLAR BEARS ARE DYING!
No they aren't. Ask the Inuit. They say there are polar bears all over the fucking place. And IF the polar ice cap melts and the only polar bears left are in zoos... how do we klnow that isn't the way of things, that our polar cap melts every few tens of thousands of years?
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-06-27 12:12:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Scalia sucks ass even though I don't necessarily disagree with ruling #1 because that is what the 2nd Amendment says after all. But #2 is absolute bullshit, the ruling of an evil empire trying to justify itself. The fact is EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, would be better if the legitimate President Gore had taken office in the election he had in fact won in 2000. And as an actual scientist, not a pretend one like the amateur internet "scientists" that post on this moronic board, I am offended by the denialism, the scientific illiteracy, the pretend expertise that are just regurgitations from flat earth web sites. WTF do you do for a career all day, anyway, besides play in the internet? I thought you worked in some hotel. My hairy ass, I "ignore science"; science is all I fracking do every day.
>
(2) Justice Scalia says Al Gore to blame for 2000 US election mess. HA! Take that you Gorey Global-Warming Chicken-Littles who ignore science and swallow bullshit and still haven't gotten over that election. Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph. "I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr. Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr. Gore."
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-06-27 11:48:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Since we can have handguns, we can take care of the child rapists ourselves!!!
Please?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2008-06-27 09:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-06-27 09:45:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Global warming is part of a naturally occurring cycle the Earth goes through periodically.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-06-27 09:25:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(1) I have no problem with this one.
(2) Gore, who, yes, is an idiot, merely asked for manual recounts -- something he was entitled to do under Florida election law. (Now...his mistake was requesting that only four counties be counted...what an idiot.) The Florida Supreme Court got involved when it was clear there were problems with the system (and after several related court rulings), ordering a statewide manual recount, as it was clear there were lots of problems with the system. Where's the problem with a statewide manual recount? (Of course there were lots of problems, so please don't answer.) We want to know the real winner, right? (Oh...no...sorry, I forgot to whom I was writing.) But it was the Republicans, those proud defenders of States' rights, that brought in the Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Supreme Court. It was Bush v. Gore. Not Gore v. Bush. Still, having Bush as president was the best thing that could have ever happened to the Democratic party, not that I like those fuckers either. Well, I liked Paul Wellstone, but Cheney had him killed.
Carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming.
(3) We should not allow the government to kill someone who raped a child. This is clearly the responsibility of the victim's father.
Scalia is a creepy, anachronistic, Opus Dei freak. I wouldn't let him pet-sit my daughters guinea pig.
Submitted by codeMunkee (user info) at 2008-06-27 08:52:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
A couple things.
First, are you saying that people who claim climate change is happening due to human factors are ignoring science? Because that's pretty funny to me.
Second, why do people think a lifetime in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison isn't sufficient for child molesters? Clearly it's a much more fitting punishment to spend the rest of your days getting raped and beaten by a group of large men who all know what you are. Killing them is almost letting them off too easy.
And the last thing D.C. needs is more guns, but I guess it's good that SOMEONE is acknowledging the Constitution still exists. (Remember that old thing? What garbage, right?)
Submitted by LittleMonster (user info) at 2008-06-27 07:27:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Your laws and whatnots are all a tad wibbled for my liking.
The 1+ is for an interesting read. I think I would find it more relatable obviously if I were American.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-06-27 07:23:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by tloshjohnson (user info) at 2008-06-27 03:41:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get how you people get all bent out of shape over something that was written in 1791 (or whenever).
Times change yet you pick apart the actual wording of the constitution to try and understand (and in most cases justify your actions) its meaning and relevance to your modern day lives.
YET...
You say things like... 'Longstanding exclusions for the mentally ill or criminals count of course (for the ownership of guns)'
I don't see where, in this statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." it says you can't own a gun if you are a bit mental.
Now I know you are all going to say 'well it's bloody obvious that you can't be having mental people running about the place with guns'... but my point stands... you want the wording to apply EXACTLEY when it suits you, yet are prepared to ignore it WHEN it suits you.
------
What the ruling says is that basic gun ownership is a right and cannot be taken from law abiding citizens, but the law did not strip the states of the ability to require some standards as to who can or cannot own a gun.
Examples:
Convicted felonscannot vote or own a firearm of any kind.
In Colorado, if you have been in a mental institution you may not own a firearm
Some states had laws that prevented anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-06-27 07:23:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The other two issues in this post aside, it is worth noting that the Court's decision on the DC handgun ban reaffirms the right of every able US Citizen to own a gun. "Right", that is, not "priveledge". Your Driver License; that's a priveledge. *Important Distiction Alert* Your Concealed Weapon permit is also a priveledge. The right to own a gun is not the same thing as the priveledge to carry it with you in a ready state. Those who have had the safety classes and training and have the Concealed Weapon permit know this. Others may see the ruling as an excuse to pull the old revolver out of the closet and stick it in their pocket. Do not do so - it's still illegal.
*steps off soapbox*
Submitted by zoobie2000 (user info) at 2008-06-27 05:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OMG WTF I'm not reading all that. THIS IS FUCKING SHIT.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-06-27 04:00:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish I could read all that :(
Submitted by tloshjohnson (user info) at 2008-06-27 03:41:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get how you people get all bent out of shape over something that was written in 1791 (or whenever).
Times change yet you pick apart the actual wording of the constitution to try and understand (and in most cases justify your actions) its meaning and relevance to your modern day lives.
YET...
You say things like... 'Longstanding exclusions for the mentally ill or criminals count of course (for the ownership of guns)'
I don't see where, in this statement "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." it says you can't own a gun if you are a bit mental.
Now I know you are all going to say 'well it's bloody obvious that you can't be having mental people running about the place with guns'... but my point stands... you want the wording to apply EXACTLEY when it suits you, yet are prepared to ignore it WHEN it suits you.
Submitted by morello (user info) at 2008-06-27 03:11:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm becoming more and more convinced that it IS you Jack McCallum Author.
Submitted by devildog (user info) at 2008-06-27 03:09:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Please email the ghey porn to ardhow2004.at.yahoo.com
It's OK folks because me email 'is on the net already'
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 00:52:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2008-06-27 00:42:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the proof is jack gets two extra hits on this post for every time you click on those two links thinking, "wtf? maybe if i click these again i'll understand."
it's a hitwhore trick, i'm surprised you don't know it, doodles.
---
All my hitwhoring comes from google pedos. It is the only CLASSY way of doing it.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-06-27 00:49:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Scalia is rotten scum and should be shot in the fucking face.
btw
TL;DR
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2008-06-27 00:42:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the proof is jack gets two extra hits on this post for every time you click on those two links thinking, "wtf? maybe if i click these again i'll understand."
it's a hitwhore trick, i'm surprised you don't know it, doodles.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-06-27 00:30:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:49:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Final proof that the Charlton Heston alter is no longer mine. Apollo has nothing left to write so he just dicks with me all day.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/117364#2734008
http://www.ubersite.com/m/117364#2734007
---
I don't get the 'proof'
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2008-06-26 22:30:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i watched him, two nights ago, on the charlie rose (i'm a shill) show
reminds me of a local judge to whom i brought quite a few dirt-bags to face
me likie
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-06-26 21:25:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would have said executing someone for child rape (but not adult rape) violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - violating age discrimination. Rape is rape. Changing the rules based on age gives preference to one age in deciding how horrible a crime is. Age is protected federally. Hence, unconstitutional.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2008-06-26 20:44:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate Scalia...kind of unsure about whether I agree with the ruling.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-06-26 20:44:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So what happens when they find some fucking degenerate with a half dozen pre-school kids chained up in a basement or some shit. We're going on the premise that this piece of shit doesn't get barbecued. Fuck that.
Submitted by MackTuesday (user info) at 2008-06-26 20:08:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Scalia gets some things right, but he's usually a twat.
In Edwards v. Aguillard, he voted that teaching Creationism in a public school science class was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Thompson v. Oklahoma and Stanford v. Kentucky, he voted that sentencing a minor under the age of 16 to death was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Texas v. Johnson, he voted that burning the American flag was protected by the 1st Amendment. Okay.
In Harmelin v. Michigan, he voted that a life sentence for the possession of 672 grams of cocaine was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Lee v. Weisman, he voted that prayers led by religious figures at public high school graduation ceremonies were not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he voted to strike down Roe v. Wade. Twat.
In Romer v. Evans, he voted to allow an amendment to the Colorado state constitution prohibiting protection for homosexuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Twat.
In United States v. Virginia (518 U. S. 515 (1996)), he *alone* voted to allow the public Virginia Military Institute's male-only admission policy. Twat.
In United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, he voted that cable providers scrambling unsubscribed video must scramble sexually explicit material more thoroughly than other material. Twat.
In Troxel v. Granville, he voted that a state law allowing grandparents and other third parties to petition for child visitation rights against the wishes of the parents was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Stenberg v. Carhart, he voted that a state law banning previability partial birth abortions was not unconstitutional. Eh, partial birth abortions *do* seem to be a bit extreme. I don't know.
In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, he voted to allow the PGA to prohibit a handicapped player from using a golf cart to travel between holes. Twat.
In Rogers v. Tennessee, Tennessee had abolished its year-and-a-day rule (which says it isn't murder if the victim takes more than a year to die) and then retroactively prosecuted an assailant whose victim took fifteen months to die. Scalia voted that the prosecution was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Atkins v. Virginia, he voted that it was constitutional to sentence a mentally retarded person to death. Twat.
In Lawrence v. Texas, he voted that a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sex was not unconstitutional. Twat.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he voted that an American citizen being held as an unlawful combatant had no right of habeas corpus. Twat.
In Roper v. Simmons, he voted that it is not unconstitutional to sentence a minor under the age of 18 to death. I sort of understand, but no. Twat.
In Gonzales v. Raich, he voted that Congress can ban the use of cannabis even when state laws allow its use for medicinal purposes. Twat.
In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, he voted that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse was not unconstitutional. Twat.
Generally speaking, SCOTUS judges sensibly. Also generally speaking, Scalia dissents. He's a nutjob.
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:53:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:57:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No death penalty for child rape. This means Denny Crane keeps his 100% record in Boston Legal. The writers will be pleased.
--
I can't understand that. Serial molesters, kill 'em. Serial rapists, kill 'em. What the fuck, you can't rehabilitate someone with a history of abusing little kids. Ain't gonna happen. So kill 'em.
--
England doesn't have the death penalty, not even for serial killers so from that perspective execution for child rape would be harsh although I agree that these sick people can't be rehabilitated and thus leave myself in a catch 22 where I don't want to kill them but on the other hand don't want to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives wasting the tax payers money that could be spent councilling the victim. I'm still undecided on this.
However in certain states in the USA where the death penalty is accepted & used for a variety of heinous crimes it's seems ridiculous to exclude these sick fuck child rapists. They should die with the rest of the scum.
I never though I'd actually lean back in my chair for 20 minutes and actually think about an issue after reading a post on this site. A rare treat.
Submitted by Harmon (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:31:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This bothered me greatly
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:10:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
EMOS VS PUNKS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SOXkdvqxY
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:57:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No death penalty for child rape. This means Denny Crane keeps his 100% record in Boston Legal. The writers will be pleased.
--
I can't understand that. Serial molesters, kill 'em. Serial rapists, kill 'em. What the fuck, you can't rehabilitate someone with a history of abusing little kids. Ain't gonna happen. So kill 'em.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 19:01:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:53:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
When I was pre-law I subscribed to a service which emailed SC opinions. I might have read half of one of them.
--
Yeah, most of them are dry as toast, but some of them are pretty interesting and you know that the SC Justice who 'wrote' an interesting one had the underlings scurrying that week.
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:57:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No death penalty for child rape. This means Denny Crane keeps his 100% record in Boston Legal. The writers will be pleased.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:55:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Apollo NEVER had anything to write. Ever. He's brainless.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:53:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
When I was pre-law I subscribed to a service which emailed SC opinions. I might have read half of one of them.
Submitted by Yozz (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:49:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*Yozz fucks off*
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:49:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Final proof that the Charlton Heston alter is no longer mine. Apollo has nothing left to write so he just dicks with me all day.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/117364#2734008
http://www.ubersite.com/m/117364#2734007
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:48:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
788 posts...Good grief.
I'd say "get a job" but apparently, from what I understand, you have one of those.
How about "get a life" instead?
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:47:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If I ever catch a child molester in my neighborhood I'll give him a gun with one bullet in it and cuff him to a water pipe in a room filled with monitors Showing An Inconvenient Truth. He'll blow his own fucking brains out.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
jack, +2'ing your own post isn't cricket
Submitted by Charlton_H (user info) at 2008-06-26 18:45:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment