Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Wild Hoss]

as someone who has proposed there needs to be more of a cost/benefit evaluation when choosing a college, I'm not for incentivizing Universities to drop areas of study because their graduates won't make good money.

I had the opportunity to take classes I would not have chosen because of my college's common core. The diversity of topics and discussions added to my growth and college experience. I would not want students to be limited.

Philosophy 101 helped pick up chicks. Or at U of C...chick-like entities.

[Wild Hoss]

Sorry, I was trying to be funny.

Neither a right to privacy nor a right to intimacy appears anywhere in the Constitution. It just doesn't. These are the newly discovered rights of a "living document", which in turn is simply the SC imposing its will regarding social issues. Roe is based on a Right to Privacy and Obergefell is based on a Right to Intimacy. I'm like Talent. I support gay marriage, simply because what folks do regarding Intimacy is none of my business. But that is a far cry from being a constitutional right.

And Seattle, you were right in calling me a dick for what I posted about Fruit. Fruit, I apologise. I was wrong.

IDK how anyone could read the 4th Amendment and think there is any kind of stretch from it to a right of privacy. Just because the word P-R-I-V-A-C-Y doesn't appear in the text does not mean it is not protected.

[hack]

Market regulation inevitably leads to considerations of the "common good" and that leads to control over whatever happens to be unpopular.

Or popular, or ignored. There's no example in human history of a market free of oversight. Either it's gone by government or by guns. can the basis for discussion be that regulation is a necessary evil?

[hack]

This is the next big bailout, estimated at around 300 Billion. What has been said about counseling is true, but the best answer to the problem is for the Colleges and Universities to be co-signers of all these loans. If the students do not repay, then the college must. I suspect that would change the counseling immediately. It would also be the death knell a lot of the non-remunerative majors, and I believe there would be a serious cost/benefit analysis.

I think, in the end, that when things are purchased on credit they are prone to bubbles and then bailouts. Maybe if college is cheap enough that it doesn't require financing, consumers' behaviors would also adjust? Dunno. But talking about the importance of education is just another way of selling fear in this country. It should be no surprise that this is what it's come to.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Geezer, thanks for your response, it's stupid but it means a lot to me.

I agree with you that there is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the constitution. However, I am doubly certain that that was only because it never occurred to the founders that anyone would ever think it was appropriate for the govt to determine who could get married or have a surgical procedure. Especially not a government of enumerate powers like it was supposed to be.

[CGVT]

Visit Mississippi: We're even worse than North Carolina.

Ha!

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/acm7?_ccid=2383869b-81a5-4e59-97d2-05c3c8c0d9d8&_cc=__dbbl

[ame="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ca31c914a7/mississippi-anti-gay-tourism-video?_cc=__d___&_ccid=2383869b-81a5-4e59-97d2-05c3c8c0d9d8"]Mississippi Anti-Gay Tourism Video from lauren, Funny Or Die, Funny Or Die Politics, Ha...[/ame]

[lineygoblue]

I think Tom Jefferson probably assumed too much about how smart this country would be in 2016.

[froot loops]

Tom Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Madison however did, he didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary. He thought that all of those rights were in no danger from the government. He changed his tune and became the biggest proponent of a bill of rights. You can be assured most of the framers expected a right to privacy.

[iam416]

You can be assured most of the framers expected a right to privacy.

Really? I would have thought the words "right to privacy" would be strewn throughout their writings then.

I assume I can also be assured that this right to privacy obviously included gay marriage? LOL.

Some of the absolute worst decisions as a matter of legal reasoning are the ones where the outcome is easy to embrace. Griswold comes to mind. Roe, as a matter of legal reasoning, is borderline indefensible. The gay marriage decision is the worst of the bunch. The reasoning almost literally amounts to "love wins."

[iam416]

I should clarify a bit. When I was in law school I was very much outcome driven. I'd figure out what I wanted the answer to be and backfill the arguments. I was entirely a "Living Constitution" guy, too. And this approach is a good way of thinking for litigation provided your arguments are colorable - your client is stuck with a set of facts and it's your job get the outcome. And, of course, I was very much, e.g., pro-penumbra.

As I progressed I started to care about the process. I wanted judges that applied the law correctly. I lived in fear of god-awful legal reasoning. One judge nearly tanked one of my cases with an indefensible opinion. It was so indefensible he actually reversed himself on a motion for reconsideration -- any lawyer knows that happens on the 7th Sunday in the Land of No Fucking Way. The case it almost tanked was worth $200M!

As I moved out of litigation into my current role, I focused on counseling. Counseling is all about predictability and process. You want a clear statute and clear precedent so you can figure out what the law is. Clients comes to you and ask "can we do this"? -- not "we did this, what can you do for us?" So I've come to really appreciate the process.

The thing with the "right to privacy" is that it amorphous. It means what 5 Justices say it means. That's it. I can think of a lot of things that could be within the "penumbra" of privacy: the right to use your own land as you see fit, including draining small puddles; the right to say the "N word" on a private bus w/o being punished by the State; the right to ingest whatever the fuck you want in the privacy of your own home; the right to have sex with a person even if you paid them; and so on. Of course, none of these things are currently rights, but some may be at some point in time if 5 Justices think they should be. And that bothers me.

It's crystal fucking clear that the right for two dudes to get hitched and the rights to buy contraception, engage in sodomy and obtain an abortion were not in the Constitution in 1789 nor in 1868 when the 14th A was ratified. Nor are they in the Constitution today. They exist because enough Justices think they should exist. I agree 100% with the outcomes. The process - the legal reasoning, though, is indefensible. A majority of Justices have legislated -- and will continue to legislate without an accountability to the American electorate.

Our system of government provides mechanisms to enact laws. Federal legislation is enumerated. There is also an amendment process that has actually been used. IMO, though, today we wouldn't ratify the 16th A or the 17th A....the Supreme Court would just hold (despite clear language to the contrary) that the income taxes are permissible b/c they're "NOW necessary" and direct election of Senators is permissible b/c voting rights. The process spelled out by the Founders would be ignored.

I also want to say that I fully get the "Living Constitution" argument. I lived it and passionately articulated it. I'm not a fan so much today, but it's manageable IF the Court sets out clear standards and rules (LOL!). However, I prefer the Court moor itself to SOMETHING. Originalists aren't perfect, but their legal reasoning is generally sound -- it's certainly not "love wins" appalling. I prefer the Court interpret statutes as they're written. I prefer the legislature to legislate.

But that won't happen. The next right to be "discovered" in the Constitution will be "gender identity" based. Or perhaps education -- though that one is far bigger stretch.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from when I say I'm fine with the outcome, but the legal reasoning is awful. Reasonable minds can differ -- my younger self and older self -- though I guess that's just two unreasonable minds differing.

[lineygoblue]

You are scaring me. I actually agreed with most of that.

[iam416]

FLAGSHIP!!!!

I hope that eases your mind. Heh.

[lineygoblue]

Ah, yes... old arguments renewed ...

Good choice.

[THE_WIZARD_]

disturbing

[lineygoblue]

Yes, it is.

Almost as disturbing as the Huskerettes beating our Lady Wolverines last night in softball ...

i still hate scott frost ...