Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
- Repealing DADT = Denying Spiritual Comfort to Dying Soldiers – Is there anything in the introductory paragraph’s quotes that makes any coherent sense? I couldn’t find any.
- Heritage Foundation on Money and Morals – The social conservative movement is desperately trying to co-opt the financial conservative movement because they know the demographic tides are not moving in their favor.
- Mohler: Christians Who Practice Yoga Are Endangering Their Spiritual Welfare – (1) Most practitioners of yoga I know treat it as a physical exercise, not a spiritual one. (2) The idea of “a spiritual discipline by which the adherent is trained to use the body as a vehicle for achieving consciousness of the divine” has a long and honorable tradition in Christianity, it seems to me, mostly (though not solely) in the monastic orders.
- Obama To Hedge Fund Manager Who Complains Of Being ‘Whacked’: ‘Most Folks On Main Street’ Feel Beat Up – Cry me a river, guys.
- DeMint Credits Fox News With Recent Tea Party Victories – Fairly Unbalanced.
- Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Prevent Gender Discrimination – There’s good reason to believe that at least 4 justices would be willing to accept this idea. But, of course, NON-activist conservatives would NEVER overthrow a years and years of Supreme Court rules … right?
- Even fiscal conservatives agree: Bush tax cuts were ‘good for nothing.’ – CSMonitor.com
- FBI Placed Left-Wing Activists On Terrorism Watch List Without Cause – But remember — giving unchecked and unmonitored power to federal law enforcement and anti-terrorism agencies in this country is (a) the only way to be safe, and (b) putting that power into freedom-loving professionals who never make errors or allow concerns other than the strict love of justice to color their actions.
- Knights Of Columbus Donate More To Fight Gay Marriage Than Fight Hunger – Well, I guess which of Jesus priorities they consider most important. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, keep them darned gays from marrying, shelter the homeless …
- 60 Plus Association – SourceWatch – Ah, I love the smell of Astroturf in the morning …
- Pity the Poor Couple Who Make $450,000 Per Year (Yet Another Failure of Our ‘Elite’ Educational System) [Mike the Mad Biologist] – Wow. Would that I had Prof. Henderson’s money woes. Actually, I’m just as happy I don’t — I don’t have a half a million dollars in school loans, and I didn’t then choose to buy a lovely house in a high-priced neighborhood. Prof. Henderson’s problems seem at least somewhat of his own making.
- Kyle Fitzgerald exits the Old Blinking Light, but has a new restaurant in the works – Denver Restaurants and Dining – Cafe Society – Very sorry to see Kyle go — but looking forward to his new restaurant in Littleton.
- Adaptive Traffic Lights Could Achieve ‘The Green Wave’ – We now have the computational and networking infrastructure to make this work. It’s a more complex system, therefore more prone to glitches — but it sounds like a promising approach.
- Scalia: Constitution Does Not Protect Women, Gays from Discrimination – But that is, of course, not an “activist” interpretation. Of course, the 14th Amendment doesn’t explicitly call out race — but Justice Scalia knows what was meant, thus, as an originalist, he seems okay with denying due process and equal protection for anyone on any basis other than race (maybe ethnicity, but age and religion would seem to be dubious, and, as stated, gender and sexual orientation are certainly not covered). Gee, remember the days when SCOTUS nominees were unanimously approved?
- Race and ethnicity: Denver | Flickr – Photo Sharing! – Fascinating.
62 view(s)
Yep, Scalia is just more of the same when it comes to the Consertative Movements drive to undo everything done since 09/14/1901.
~confused~
What is fascinating about the Denver map? It’s not all that different from the TIGER Maps based on the 2000 census.
Don’t believe I’ve seen the TIGER map in question. Just interesting to see racial patterns in where folks live in the area.
I was about to call you out on the phrase “What it meant”. When interpreting a law you must only go on what it says, not what was meant (“The script not the spirit” you could say). Otherwise you end up with 10 lawyers and 11 opinions on ‘what was meant’ – I’ve been a roleplayer, wargamer and union activist too long not to make sure rules are watertight. This is why the 2nd amendment is such a pisspoor piece of writing. However I went and looked the 14th
(without due process of law- which could be federal laws)
You can’t deny rights to any one or any group that are not explicitly denied them in law. This is why DOMA is such a big thing. I bet since repeal of the sodomy laws there is nothing explicitly defining “One ManOne Woman”
Now you can write a law which amends earlier laws, (or gives the later primacy, but this isn’t a good way to do this), but unless that is explicitly done the earlier law stands in cases of conflict, and can well invalidate ALL the later law.
SO unless the law banning gays from the military explicitly and specifically neutralised the 14th, their exclusion is illegal.
No wonder the Right are getting jumpy – society is getting liberal enough that public opinion is no longer supressing the law.
(PS Like the bit about “And no, you can’t get compensation for having to release the slaves – bravo to the framers and writers of that one. That is covering your bases)
As BD notes, Scalia is of the “Originalist” school that says that, when in doubt (or even not in doubt), go by what the original writers intended. That can be gleaned specifically by looking at notes from debates (Constitutional or Legislative), or other writings by the writers, or even indirectly from the “attitudes of the times.”
Of course, this means you’re letting 18th Century male white politicians dictate 21st Century law. But some people seem to like it that way. (To be fair, it’s also possible to be so flexible in interpreting what the words of a law really mean that you end up effectively legislating from the bench, which carries its own problems.)
I am still surprised that no one has asked Scalia if; Being an Originalist, does he believe that only white male land owners have any rights? or because of the amendments do blacks and women only have the right to vote and nothing else?