Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

heh

[entropy]

ok.. who has replaced talent with this reasonable person. I'm actually missing the jackass version.

[Mike]

Just give it a few minutes.

[THE_WIZARD_]

He's still a jackass.

[hack]

He's given that a lot of thought and it's in his area of expertise, and it shows. Good post.

[THE_WIZARD_]

DO NOT FEED THE TALENT...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

[hack]

That was just my way of saying that 99.9% of what he does here is crap.

[Da Geezer]

hack said:

It just adds up to, in most cases, tighter regulation of the market. In truth, it's basically more market and less capitalism.

I wasn't able to find your original post, Hack, but I was just pointing out that "tighter regulation" and "more market" are mutually exclusive phrases. I suspect we disagree on our definition of capitalism, but, to me, it is free people acting freely in the economic sphere. As we have discussed many times, I view man as evil, and capitalism as a system wherein men promote the common good by looking after their own sweet ass.

[Da Geezer]

the fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Roe presumes that being subject to a ban on abortions unconstitutionally violates a woman's "person". I don't want to argue about it, but I know of no serious law professor who believes Roe is well-reasoned. The fourth amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure. It says what it says. Certainly it would apply to wiretaps and to listening to folks through their cell phones. I don't see where it applies to abortion.

Similarly, I have re-read the Obergefell decision, and it just wanders about. Scalia said it had the academic heft of a fortune cookie. Scalia's dissent is actually fun to read and I'd encourage that.

If you can find a "Right to Intimacy" in the Constitution you can find a right to almost anything. While I agree with the outcomes of Roe and Obergefell, I view them as "untethered" to quote (the now reasonable) Talent. I don't understand why social issues need to be decided for the whole US by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote of 9 lawyers. Abortions were available before 1973. Gay marriage was allowed before 2015. I remember when being Catholic was seen as a disqualifier for the Presidency. Time seems to bring consensus on many social issues, and I'd just rather follow the 10th amendment and its mandate that the States and the People of the several states decide most matters in their states.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Is Da Geezer the poster formally known as Old Scribe???

[Wild Hoss]

If somebody wants to argue that Roe's attachment to privacy as a concept via Griswold is tenuous, that's their bag. It is impossible however, to deny that there is an inherent right to privacy described in the 4th. Intimacy...depends on context I suppose. By definition it requires another individual, who has rights as well.

[Wild Hoss]

Is Da Geezer the poster formally known as Old Scribe???

He's not that far off his rocker. Is he? :D

[lineygoblue]

Old Scribe. Now, there's a name out of the past.

[Da Geezer]

Well. . . .I'm not a scribe.

[Da Geezer]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is impossible however, to deny that there is an inherent right to privacy described in the 4th. Intimacy...depends on context I suppose. By definition, it requires another individual, who has rights as well.

1. The 4th clearly circumscribes its intent as relating to government action and illegal search and seizures. This is one of the "negative rights" that Obama rails against. The Constitution of the US is a document describing the relationship of the people of the US to their government(s). It was never intended to regulate interpersonal relations.

2. There is nothing in Obergefell that says that it pertains only to relations between individuals. Read it and substitute "a dog" for "a partner" and see how that turns out. I'd have said letting men go into women's' bathrooms was just a nuts as beastiality, but we now have a situation in Charlotte where the whole Progressive establishment is going to boycott NC because of a law that says you need to look at your lower unit and, from that information, determine which bathroom to use. Is there any limit to where this "living document" stops?

3. Probably a good time to buy long-out sheep futures.