Neo

Learning that you are DE-caffeinated is my find of the day!

Oh, my post is going to lose something in translation, I just know it. 1). Whiskey, good post about Davis, "no one else" and "her views". Central to the point and an element I'd not considered. 2). Hoss, your post made me think, but the following doesn't address your post. I have views on the topic of Christian hypocrisy, but that's not where I'm going here. Instead, your post made me think about social issues and how citizens respond to social change. I am happy with where we are, liberally, on the gay marriage issue. Sure, I've argued language and accommodating words, but I'm happy that any sexuality is recognized the same way as any other. Vive la différence! Here is what Hoss reminded me of. At the time that the gay marriage decisions were working their way through the courts, some commentators made the point that when a change evolves through the will of the people, and legislatively, it evolves with popular support and is therefore more palatable. It's more accepted and on firmer ground when it arrives. When it arrives with the help of activist courts*, the opposition feels resentment. Important to note, I'm not legitimizing resentment. I'm acknowledging it as a feeling among the deeply committed. Several of the stricter constitutionalists find that allowing people, and because of them, legislators, to learn and change over time results in the same change without the resentment. I support gay marriage (civil unions!), but do not support the path through courts. That, for all of your consideration. Now, I know what I'm saying denies the urgency of time and relies on faith that an evolving citizenry ultimately gets to the right conclusion in its laws. I do have that faith. I'm fortunate that none of my urgencies require time to be addressed and sympathetic to those not in my shoes. That sympathy, though, doesn't cause me to not expect resistance, sometimes vitriolic. I encourage those who resist in such a way to move on, it's settled law. I understand why moving on is hard. I hope I have the same approach both for change I do and do not like. The separation of powers that protects me also makes it hard for me to enact "my view of the world". Lucky us. The post court decision world is often more controversial than the post legislation world. When you look at a nation's character over time, and assess its trajectory for tomorrow, it's "will of the people" laws say more about both than what any nine person group of lawyers says on any particular day. It's my faith in our character that drives my judicial conservatism. Nearing the finish, and going where I said I wasn't, I'll add this about Christian hypocrisy. I don't think it's greater than any other. Hypocrisy is a human failing. I do believe Christian volume in its evangelical and born again contexts sets it apart for the charge of hypocrisy. The louder you are about being "good", the bigger the target you are when you're "bad". We may both be hypocrites, but you stuck your neck out. Lastly, as a tie in to the thread's original intent (see what I did, there?), I look forward to the election debate between the two candidates and vetting their views on Supreme Court Justices. This is always an area of interest of mine the equal of the economy, foreign policy, and the like. Important Post Script: Evangelism is NOT hypocrisy. It is high profile. * "No Bias Alert" - Judicial Activism is an ambiguously defined phrase used by many, differently, to apply to all variety of practices. It has politically liberal and conservative manifestations. While I am a judicial restraint person in the context of how the phrase has appeared in our recent and middling past political discussions, the following paper informed me greatly with regard to the courts and activism over time and in different circumstances. In short, it gives me pause and opens my eyes to legitimate "activism" when its absence would be abdication, among other things. For those who click, I found the sections on activism vis-a-via other branches and social issues most interesting. Truly presented to be fair and balanced. This paper is not an argument for judicial restraint presented here by me to support my view. Those more persuaded by urgency and social change will find a voice here, as well. Berkely. Who knew? http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=californialawreview

The story has it all. A faith conversion, an accommodation, an over-reaction, a litigation/complaint, "ism" - hitting for the cycle.

Hoss: great same issue, other point of view. I hope I'm consistent. You said it all for me. A religious faith is wonderful for many. Accordingly, some jobs are not. You could be, like, a referee, or something. I sense no bias, ever. Stats! "Just the facts, ma'am."

Or die! Senator Tom Coburn described the situation well when he said, "In several election cycles in recent history, more incumbents died in office than lost reelection bids." Members of Congress enjoy some of the best job security in America -- and the least amount of accountability. Huffington Post.

Plato AND Barry Goldwater! My heart flutters.

If you drop 'essentially" and allow "about" to include "tangential to", we may agree. I don't believe we read "essentially" the same. I think the article supports that slavery was among many issues, large and small. The essential nature of the compromise, though, was large vs small, and not free vs. slave. Had you said "slavery was essentially the south's primary agenda item", I'd read further and might agree. I'd have to reconcile Maryland and North Carolina, however. From senate.gov: "The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses". We are both free to take away what we will. I take away free/slave and north/south represented on both sides of the vote. Again, slavery was an issue nearly everywhere, but it wasn't the essence of the compromise, if one considers essence the primary purpose. If it was, in fact, the essence, then Maryland and North Carolina were very confused. They voted against the proposal. That's nearly as many as the three southern states, Virginia, South Carolin and Georgia, who voted for it. The vote was north and south, large and small. Free/Slave and North/South appeared on both sides of the issue. How do you explain a 3-2 split among slave states on a compromise essentially to protect slavery? I can't call that the issue's essence. Post script: I add, as I learn, from usconstitution.net: Sherman and the Connecticut (Great) Compromise - "Most of the debate in the first few weeks concerned the revision of the Virginia Plan. The Plan "corrected" the inequality that the "one state, one vote" notion inflicted upon the large states (and those, like the Southern states, that hoped to be large soon). Most of the details could certainly be worked out. Issues like fugitive slaves, export taxes, and import taxes were minor, when compared to the really big issue facing the Convention: representation".

I'd certainly prefer the first 535 to the last 535. I've seen lingering tailgaters. Ok, I've been one .... "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University". William F. Buckley.

There's a part of me that likes a "one day/same day primary" in each state. It retains unique local choice and representation without allowing a unique demographic to give or take momentum. My problem, though, is how you "campaign" for one big shot with 10 candidates and 50 states.

I'll await your great success! If you fail, I'll be calling Wjag "My Liege" !

I'd stop short of "essentially set up" for that purpose. It wasn't the primary intent. In fact, it may have been tangential. It was essentially set up to balance the interests of great populations (and a fear of majorities or mobs) against the interests of small populations (or States). Hence, Congress and Senate, a nod to both on all issues, not just one. Slavery was naturally an issue at the time of the conversation, but largely in terms of how the counting would be done, and not whether slavery would survive or be protected. Giving the south more than 3/5 of a vote per slave would have done more to protect slavery, if that had been the essential purpose, than bicameralism would have. My point here isn't that the conversation around slavery was not in the mix. It was, in terms of counting heads. In some respects, it was in the mix regarding everything. Instead, my point is around the essential purpose of the bicameralism. The "essential" nature of the Connecticut Compromise was coaxing small states (North and South) into supporting a confederation of states at the national level without the fear of losing their identities and self determination. The dialogue, in fact, centered around "large and small" states. New Jersey, and its New Jersey Plan, calling for equal representation regardless of population, was hardly a pro slavery state. Bicameralism existed before our Constitution and in nations without slaves. Not everything was a slavery issue. I remain, as always, interested in learning more ... Post Script .. GREAT and quick read about the many considerations, including representation, slavery and taxes, among others ... ....https://politicalscience.byu.edu/jeremycpope/assets/ajps_final_draft_august2010.pdf

Our national election process, from the Electoral College, to the two party system, to primaries, to small states and big states, to early primaries in the north and later primaries in the south, would be an interesting topic. With completely non-partisan intent, I'm not sure I like it, or not. I am sure I can't think of a better one to balance the interests of "local" and representation of the different communities and "national" to provide uniformity in process. Me not being able to think of one sure doesn't prelude one from existing! SabreSpace thought stimulator: The number of members we have from other countries who've commented on the unusualness (perhaps painfulness) of a 20 month election cycle struck me. Our system and the Electoral College are clumsy and old. Is there something better?

Agree and agree! I laughed!

5. Slew foots Matthew Barnaby. I jest. Interesting take on Lindros and HOF: http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2014/06/24/eric-lindros-open-and-shut-case-for-the-hockey-hall-of-fame/

I understand the eras. Still, you made me look. Mario had 715 points in his first five years as well as a Calder, five All Star games, four Harts, two Lady Byngs and two Art Rosses*. I'd forgotten how crazy it was. * (Chicago Manual of Style for the plural of Ross; who knew!)

The Iran Treaty and alternatives play themselves out in the political debate. I've cut the administration some slack in prior posts but hinted at my skepticism about the negotiating savvy and intent of the US team. Today, Colin Powell endorsed the deal. This is meaningful to me in light of how I view his credibility. I remain committed to a full public vetting for any treaty before the Senate advises and consents, of course.

I'm also looking at it another way, handicapping overall roster talent and scoring. If he finishes in the top scoring mix behind Kane, O'Reilly and Ennis, say with Girgensons, Larsson and Moulson, I'll be very happy. Bar too low?

Dudacek ... once again, awesome summer. I suspect we're all thankful. I voted 50 points and a top six rotation. I think that would be outstanding. He's young and will carry the weight of expectation without much of a proven four line supporting cast. I don't see production numbers at 60 or above, and that's no criticism. I also voted Gilbert. It's not that I'm reminded of Gil, but I think the circumstances and expectations are similar. If we were born in 1970, we certainly died and are now reborn in 2015. He's young, but he'll be given time to mature with the franchise. I think if we get glimpses throughout the year, it's a success. Harder than glimpses will be consistency. Eighty two games is a long season and he's a young man. I'll wait patiently for that, too. If we see that Kane, O'Reilly, Lehner and other veteran additions ready to play now, and if we see continued development among the young, then simply glimpses from the newly arrived will make me very happy. Development, in a more concise way to say it.

3Putt: Thank you. I remember that Supreme Court decision because of your mention. I will re-read Scalia's dissent today. No surprise, I enjoy his critical thinking and use of sharp language. Notably, the dissent was joined by Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Strange bedfellows, indeed. Now, will you check my conclusion? To wit: Since M v K, it is now the law of the land that law enforcement can compel DNA samples whenever they determine it's important to an investigation OR booking and identification, with respect given to procedure. Did I over reach with that? Does a suspect/POI have any defense? Addendum: I'm reading. It seems to me that a compelled or searched for sample, where there's a warrant or probable cause, existed befor M v K. The M v K decision then went further to allow for compelled samples during routine booking following an arrest. Saturday fun - read Scallia dissents after mowing.

I'm thinking of getting a Chancery Wig. $500 to $2,100, U.S., at chancerywigs.com.

Eleven - grateful! You've raised another question in my mind. No assignment, you're busy. Can you get DNA from a toothbrush found during a home inspection? My television training - I thought investigators had to wait for you to discard a Coke can in a public trash container so there'd be no expectation of privacy. Is that expectation relevant? Perhaps it goes away with the search warrant, if it was ever there. Good info on the fingerprinting/DNA/testimony front.

General question for those more informed than me. My legal training is comprised of watching L.A. Law and Law and Order on television. I understand a suspect/person of interest can voluntarily submit to DNA testing. I also believe it can be court compelled. One, is that correct? Two, if a court order is secured, would/could it be before charges or a Grand Jury presentation? I ask as a general matter. The question occurred to me while reading about the Grand Jury in this case.

Awesome .... Enjoy ... He'll remember forever.

Awesome interview ... UC Irvine student government President ... "Sometimes, to be inclusive, you have to exclude things you don't like ...." http://video.foxnews.com/v/4462427955001/uc-irvine-student-american-flag-represents-hate-speech/?intcmp=hpvid1&playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips Give 'im enough rope ...

LGR - I ignored a point I often make. A nineteen year old boy often looks different when he's a twenty something man. The NHL system of drafting boys as they project to men is a challenge. No insight from me, here. I attended the 1991 Entry Draft in Buffalo. Philippe Boucher was a waif! Equally grateful, 3Putt. I agree with your assessment of profundity. I'll say one thing. Samson appeared to toy with people at the World Juniors. The impression I got was an older uncle, not as fast as the teenagers playing basketball at the family picnic, but on another planet with his skill and understanding. Smiles all around ... Dudacek - Awesome summer series.