Slashdot Mirror
Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.
Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me page for some clues.
Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity.
My work here is dung.
This is a US centric site, managed by Americans about technology.
You're going to have a lot of US bias here. If you don't like these stories, don't read them.
I mean, looking at the title, what exactly did you think you'd find in this article?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Great, block politics from your home page. This is not a tech news site, it is a news for nerds site. If you don't like politics, feel free to modify your preferences. This appointment could have very significant consequences on dozens of issues to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Many of those, no doubt, will be news for nerds as well.
I think I'll stop here.
I don't come to the comment page for this type of article to read this kind of comment. I read these comments to see flame bait and trolling.
Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Help and Account >> Classic Index >> Sections >> Politics >> Click checkbox corresponding to red circle with line through it >> Press Save button
Reply to That ||
Today Paris Hilton walked past an internet router.
I mean, looking at the title, what exactly did you think you'd find in this article?
A new BSG spin-off?
Um, how was the comment you're referring to not flamebait and trolling?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
What if Ms Kagan runs Linux?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Really? You think we're unaware of the American-heavy story selection around here?
The point here is clearly that a purely political story is misplaced on /.
That said, I would love for somebody to analyse Kagan's positions on tech issues here (or provide some pointers to places doing that).
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
I know right? What possible impact could the LIFETIME appointment of a 50 year old have on the world. It's not like that appointment will have anything to do with directing the behavior of US law. And US law never has had any impact other countries.
Ok, snark off...
But understand, that a young Supreme Court Justice can have an impact on the United States and its laws an policies that go well beyond that of even the President. Obama is gone in 8 years at most, and as we have seen the first year, the fourth year, and potentially the 8th year will mean nothing. At most you will see 5 years of him effecting change and quite possibly only 2.5 yrs. Considering we see these justices approaching 90 years of age, and they don't have to campaign, this appointment will likely have 30+ years of influence on US law that will likely resonate around the world.
I'd place a US Supreme Court justice as one of the top 100 most powerful people in the world. They don't get to wield their power in the typical manner like a show of force, but they when they use it, it would take 3/4ths of the United States to overrule them.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
http://politics.slashdot.org/
Slashdot is not exclusively for tech nerds, politics nerds can hang out too.
Hi. Please turn in your internet license.
This may not be strictly technology news. However it is most definitely news that matters. In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government. You can damn well be sure this will impact many hot button topics that relate to technology.
And if you are outside the U.S. the impact is less... but the United States still sets the tone on many privacy and technology issues. It would be smart to have at least SOME idea about what is going on in this regard.
So, sorry that this isn't your third daily update on the iPad. But maybe, just maybe, this is more relevant.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Elena was having a torrid affair with Stallman. So, you know, we got that angle.
Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!! RUN AWAY! Run of the hills!
Few people outside of the tech industry have as much influence on the tech industry as a Supreme Court Justice. I'd say this is meta-tech news, so it has a place here.
US centric yes, but where's the nerd part?
Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on /. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.
Let's fact it, U.S. elections have a huge effect on the technology world and a Supreme Court appointment directly effects many issues as well. Many YRO stories are closely tied to what the leadership of the U.S. is choosing to do with respect to technology, the policies they pursue and the laws they pass.
Now I would have expected to see a story relating something in Kagan's past that related to technology and might reflect her views on something relevant to our interests. Nevertheless, her choice can be very important to "News for Nerds", but since she has not been a judge I think it will be very interesting trying to decide what kind of judge she will be. Non-judges have been appointed before, there's no problem with someone who's never been a judge but has other relevant experience, but there's no paper trail of judgements or decisions.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
And yet, look at the most active stories:
Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."
As others have pointed out, you can disable politics by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad.
Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.
CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.
I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.
Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.
My work here is dung.
I, for one, welcome our new man-suit wearing overlords.
You know, this sort of thing has always confused me...I've heard people accuse Obama of being right-wing, and I've heard him accused of being a socialist.
wtf.
Living With a Nerd
Or at least tell us which type of phone she has and what her favorite desktop theme is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.
- New York Times, 17th February 2009
There you go! An article on her view regarding detention and human rights, two hot topics on any news website. If you want a nerd angle, consider the word "cyberterror."
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to put Krogans in the Supreme Court. After all, they were genetically engineered as a weapon and so it might not be safe for the other members of the court. On the other hand, it might give me and Obama Paragon points that might open interesting conversation options later. What do your think?
Not that kind of Cisco.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
While it may not affect you now. It will.
These dudes decide MANY of the constitutional things. Such as is the DMCA constitutional. Who is in charge of copyright (the congress). How long is 'too long' for copyright (any time just so long as it is limited).
Then it will get pushed on other countries as being 'congruent'. Which I disagree with.
"I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot."
Then don't read it, move on to one of the many other articles that get posted here. There, problem solved, move along...
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
are political
the reason for this is that people are interested in politics, techie or not. and there's nothing wrong with a roomful of techies talking politics. you don't have to go there if you don't want. so leave us on slashdot who are obviously interested in politics (based on the most commented stories in slashdot history) to our politics, and go away
in fact, a political discussion on slashdot, theoretically, might be a more useful political discussion than a roomful of other classes of careers: as engineers, techies have minds which are designed to root out a problem and solve it. politics needs more of this, certainly
i really wish there were a class of "political engineers" sometimes when i hear certain mindless discussions: "the political engineering union has deemed this political topic pointless and, by the power vested in us, we are closing down this issue and erasing it from national attention. that is all"
well.. maybe that isn't such a great idea ;-)
but when i see some of the propaganda wallowing out there, the idea of "political engineers" becomes momentarily attractive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why isn't this article linked to the source AP story instead of a lol-atarian blog? I wonder if the owner of the blog submitted this story hoping to jack up his page rank.
See that big bright ball in the sky? Thats the sun.
This wet stuff? It's called rain.
None of this happens in basements...
LOL at most of what you said, but I have it on extremely close and good authority she's not actually gay.
I know someone who *knows* her, if you catch my subtly inferred reference to a certain religious book and the sort of "knowing" of people contained therein...
PhysOrg.com offers REAL science and tech news, interesting science factoids etc, not just fanboi stuff. Let's see what some of today's front page headlines are...
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
Masses of common quarks are revealed
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
QUT physicist corrects Oxford English Dictionary
Funnel vision: New info about how cells in the eye help guide light into the retina
Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth
Scientists create mouse grimace scale to help identify pain in humans and animals
Chemist stitches up speedier chemical reactions
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
I've seen far better links and discussion elsewhere already, slashdot should wait for an article that covers her views on imaginary property.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Because it's flamebait, jackass. Hell, I'd argue the comment "Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration." is nothing but shallow trolling... though it looks like you might actually believe it, so flamebait is probably appropriate.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased. I don't give a shit if you disagree with the thesis, those are the facts. Pointing that out doesn't mean you support this administration or it's policies (whatever you believe they are). It simply means you desire journalistic integrity.
You, apparently, don't feel that way. Fine. But take your trollish flamebait elsewhere, we don't need it here.
I like political news as it pertains to technology (e.g., DMCA, ACTA, George W. Bush's daughter giving him an illegal mix CD for his birthday). I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
What if Ms Kagan runs Linux?
Wow, I knew Linux was platform-agnostic but had no idea the kernel was compatible with flesh and blood architecture. Or are they patching in the spleen and circulatory system drivers later?
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me. What with all the attention paid to editing Slashdot submissions...
Wait a minute. I think I just figured it out.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government.
One way to look at it in terms of impact. Take the US Federal budget, divide it by three(3 branches), then divide that by 9. $3.6 trillion dollars/3 = $1.2 Trillion dollars. divide by 9, and this very gross approximation of her influence is on the order of:
$130 billion per year. Assume she sits for 28 years (78 yrs old?) and somehow the US budget doesn't increase and she will have a total lifetime impact of $3.64 Trillion. Of course, she doesn't determine the budget in a way where she has at her disposal that much money, but when you consider that is how much of the government she represents, it kind of puts the weight of this appointment into perspective.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Don't be silly, he was clearly talking about Kagan's computer.
Unless...maybe this is a subtle way of saying Kagan is a robot! Is Obama poised to nominate the first female robot Supreme Court Justice? This could indeed be a historic moment! Not only that, it would finally balance the court in terms of robot justices. Finally the liberal side of the court will have its own robot justice to balance out Clarence Thomas.
Don't let the spin fool you. It would be impossible for Obama to find someone to the left of justice Stevens. Therefore, even replacing him with a fire breathing, man-hating lesbian liberal would be a move to the right.
And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?
That's the thing about "if". If it happened it would be Slashdot-worthy news and I wouldn't have whined publicly about it. If didn't happen this time which is why I'm reaching for my tissues and bon bons.
So... what does this story have to do with technology?
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
...including nerds...kind of stuff that matters (though behind...Obama's announced he was nominating Elena Kagan already...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Thank you. Just added that site to my morning reading list.
http://politics.slashdot.org/
Slashdot is not exclusively for tech nerds, politics nerds can hang out too.
I'm unfamiliar with the concept of "politics nerds". Can they dislodge my pocket protector with their caucus whips?
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Glenn Greenwald has written several articles over the past few weeks detailing what information is available about Kagan.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
Facing this disturbing visage, you'd surrender too.
My work here is dung.
I agree with this article, that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.
You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.
As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?
You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since when are Poly Sci not considered nerds? Granted politics in general show a stereotypical lack of intelligence, it's not like it's Theology.
This is of course not really worth replying to, but I'm feeling masochistic today, so:
- Kagan is the current Solicitor General of The US
- Kagan was the Dean of Law at Harvard
--> Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."
This argument comes up all the time.
Since when is News for Nerds, limited to just technology? You might be a "technology" centric nerd, but there are other nerds out there. There are Sci-Fi Fantasy nerds. There are nerds of sciences other than Technology, like Psychology and Sociology...
If you don't like the title, don't click the link.
No wonder it takes so long to get cases heard these days!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
i also thank you.
Snarky but excellent point. It is simplistic to say one-ninth of the judicial system... but the point remains that this is a very powerful position, one that sets the tone for how law is interpreted and to a certain extent enforced.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
you forgot obamasan giving the queen of england an ipod full of illegal beatles mp3's.......
"I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot."
Then don't read it, move on to one of the many other articles that get posted here. There, problem solved, move along...
Good idea. Why improve what you can ignore?
3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
1. That's an awful lot of creationist textbook stickers.
2. Why do we care what CowboyNeal thinks of them?
That said, I would love for somebody to analyse Kagan's positions on tech issues here (or provide some pointers to places doing that).
That would require her to have publicly taken positions on issues.
prove it by not commenting on political stories. indeed: go away
however, if you comment on political stories, then you care about politics. actions speak louder than words. so admit that you care then
these are the only logically coherent choices for you:
1. continue commenting here and on political stories, i welcome you. but please admit that you care about politics
2. stop commenting here and on political stories. you thereby prove you don't care about politics. i will then admire you for your intellectual honesty
but there is no 3rd choice. when you comment, you care. there's simply no way around that fact
it is not possible to summon the desire to read a political comment, and then summon the will to type a reply, and then, miraculously, somehow claim you don't care
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
All I've got to say is how Cmdr Taco found time to head over to Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
Sorry that was a typo on my part, it should have read:
3314 Saddam Husseins Arrested by CmdrTaco
Yep, three thousand fourteen Saddam Husseins arrested by CmdrTaco, each more Saddam Hussein than the last. I think the real question here today is why CmdrTaco wasn't retitled CmdrInChiefTaco?
My work here is dung.
Add my voice to the chorus of thank-yous. Anyone have any other suggestions for good, science-based news sources that a) aren't afraid to get technical/mathmatical and b) stay away from dreary shit like politics, copyrights and patents?
She has argued before the supreme court that if a prosecutor manufactures evidence, causing the conviction of an innocent person, that the prosecutor should not be subject to a lawsuit from the person they fucked over.
She has no interest in justice, only in power.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate ... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Yep.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oooh, thanks for the source:)
Eeewww. That's an image I didn't need this early in the A.M. thanks.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
You're being a bit disingenuous:
'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists
Chavez rockets to No. 1 on Twitter in Venezuela
'Happy ending' gives recyclable products higher status
Sweden pushes condom use as study hints risky sex common
All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
My work here is dung.
Patton Oswalt is giddy with glee to have a perfect lookalike nominated to the High Court.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
Wow, I didn't know how much Taco did in Iraq.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
And I somehow missed the appointment of CowboyNeal as a Supreme Court Justice. Did Bush or Obama pick the CowboyNeal option?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
A better synopsis:
I am a radical leftist lesbian who doesn't have much of a paper trail because I have never been a judge, never argued a case in court before I joined the Obama administration and spent very little time as a practicing attorney. My lack of a paper trail will make it more difficult to oppose my nomination which is virtually assured anyway because the Republicans rarely put up much of a fight over nominees. As a Harvard Dean, I have demonstrated my radical bent by working vigorously to prevent military recruitment on the Harvard campus using the argument that the US military is bad because it has not been made into a propagandizing tool working on behalf of homosexual radicals. I can count on the radical left to continue to generate smoke screens by claiming that Obama is a centrist and regurgitating the Administration's talking point that I am a consensus builder who works with and persuades conservatives. This is, of course, rot. But it may be convincing to some of the American public who don't follow politics closely. Just as Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process by simply appointing more than 50 political freaks as "czars" in his administration, including his "safe school czar" who wrote that he wanted to "queerify" America's elementary schools and his "science" advisor who once supported population control through forced sterilizations and spiking the water supply with anti-fertility drugs, Obama has nominated me, another political freak, to the Supreme Court, knowing that I will hide my views until I am actually sitting on the Court. His appointment of me as solicitor general was intended to give me at least a little court room experience so as to prevent opposition to me based on my extreme inexperience.
He, of course, knows that I am fully on board with his effort to radically transform America. My senior thesis at Princeton, I think, sums my views up well, “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness ... Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.
[The story of the socialist movement’s demise is] a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”
Great, block politics from your home page.
I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
OK, simple solution: don't click 'Read More'. Problem solved.
WHOOSH!
That was actually pretty good. Sorry I'm not up on my P.H. Scripture. I had an unfortunate vision of a fat guy with a 5-day shadow, in a tutu.
Note to self: Google BEFORE posting.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
caring encompasses loving the topic, and hating the topic
not caring is complete emptiness of interest in the topic
so you need to re-characterize your position more accurately: you hate american politics on slashdot. you detest it. the idea of it fills you with emotion: hatred, anger
which is fine. i understand your rationale
but recognize that you are in the succinct minority on the topic: american politics happens to find great interest here on slashdot, for better or for worse. its just the way it is. should it be this way? should it not be this way? who cares (wink, wink), its just the way it is
so stop picketing outside mcdonalds because they don't sell sweaters
(completely inaccurate allegories require only simple deflection)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That is because of the way left wing and right wing have been defined in recent years. Hitler has been defined as "right wing" and Stalin as "left wing" even though the only real difference between them was that Hitler had some really weird ideas about race and wanted to conquer the world in the name of the "German people" (as defined by Hitler) while Stalin wanted to conquer the world in the name of "the proletariat" (as defined by Stalin). Other than that and that Germany was already an industrial state when Hitler took over, there really isn't any difference between the policies they implemented internally (Ok and Hitler focused his mass murders a little more tightly on Jews).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated. Diane Wood, frequently put forward as a good alternative to Kagan, has been on an appellate court for 15 years. Being a competent lawyer and being a competent judge are different skills, and I'd much rather have a pick that has demonstrated they're capable of being a judge.
In addition, there's good reason to call her competence as an attorney into question. For instance, in Citizen's United v FEC, her first oral argument of any kind, she (by her own admission) panicked when Justice Kennedy asked her about other significant First Amendment cases. (the exchange can be found on page 41)
And I'm not suggesting this rule has always been followed, but when it isn't followed, we are taking a much bigger risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I am officially gone from
My undergrad degrees are in History, CompSci and Geology and I tested the waters of Political Science.
The problem with PoliSci isn't that they are "left liberal elitists" nor is it because they are "edumecated and stuff" or that they come from "hippy universities", the problem is that they believe the crap they are saying and it's all political with no "science".
The only field of modern Polisci that has any relevance or worth is international relations.
That said, the Tea Party is a bunch of garbage too.
Right-wingers tend to be Fascists (in the historical, technical sense, not the neo-Nazi genocidal version that everyone thinks of when they see the word now) while Left-wingers tend to be Communists.
They're both just variants of Socialism.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
There are more than two "sides."
For example, the Sartorial Extremists already hate her for refusing to wear morning dress when she was arguing before the Supreme Court -- thus denying them the satisfaction of being able to point to the Solicitor General as the last outpost in American public life for the morning coat and striped trousers.
She's already killed formal daytime attire. Heavens! Who knows what will happen when she becomes a justice... you think Rehnquist's gold stripes were crazy? Look out....
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait
No, it's offtopic (relative to the article submission, anyway). If it was flamebait, I would've, for example, called the OP a fascist partisan troll.
"anti-authoritarian then you're against unrestrained capitalism and government"
Oh how do we restrain capitalism with a restrained governance?
The two are mutually exclusive. It takes authoritarianism to restrain anything.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Nothing. We aren't in a capitalistic society right now. We are in a corporatism society, which is critically flawed, in that it mostly removes personal responsibility from the capitalism equation.
You see, the "corporation" is a creation of the state, and not capitalism. Therefore if you don't like what we currently have as economic policy, it is because we are closer to fascism than most people think, and are moving closer all the time.
And fascism is closer to socialism than capitalism is by a long shot (government/corporate oligarchy). We've all become pawns of the corporations that fund our elections.
Obama is no different than GWB, except in degree.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."
Kagan has been Solicitor General for less than two years.
That's her entire legal experience in a courtroom. She has never been so much as a justice of the peace. Other than the handful of Supreme Court cases in which she has represented the federal government, she has never prosecuted or defended a case in a courtroom.
I don't care about her political views or her academic career or anything else -- it's irrelevant. But, her lack of experience is appalling.
There are many federal appellate judges or even federal district court judges with years of experience on both sides of the bench. I can't believe that the President couldn't find at least a few acceptable candidates from that group.
and as we have seen the first year, the fourth year, and potentially the 8th year will mean nothing
I wish that was true, Obama has managed to do a lot of damage in his fist year.
[citation needed]
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
or i shall wield this awesome power of mine on what you just wrote
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Personally, I would have preferred Diane Wood as well. Kagan is too anti-civil rights and too pro-corporate for my taste.
But how a single episode of temporary nerves is supposed to indicate an incompetence to ask pertinent questions, I don't get.
I imagine rising to the position of Dean of Harvward Law School is one hellishly competitive endeavor that would require the amounts of assertiveness and competence a SCTOUS nominee should have.
I'm willing to discuss (and conceivably concede) the judge vs. lawyer point though: What exactly is it that a judge has to be able to do that a good lawyer/law professor doesn't?
Kah, there goes my breakfast.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Which illustrates the main problem with the current American debate: the use of "socialism" (and sometimes "facism") as a synonym for "stuff I do not agree with".
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I want to know where the 3313 other Saddam Husseins went.
SCOTUSblog has a great writeup on Kagan.
Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.
It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.
Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on /. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.
You're currently soaking in it.
Do you know what percentage of slashdot readers are American? If it's a majority, then it makes sense; it's the job of a news outlet to provide news that it's audience is interested in.
Kagan is more to the center than some of the other potential candidates (like Diane Wood) and certainly less liberal than Stevens. I think Obama's trying to get this confirmation process over with without too much bloodshed. The only issues I could see arise would be her lack of scholarship and her alleged lesbianism (tragically). I blogged about it earlier here, there's a bunch of good analysis linked to there.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
I can see how the square jaw would make you think of Batman, but if you take into account the hair cut and overall body build, you should be thinking more along the lines of Fred Flintstone, in drag.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Our society has severe discrimination against heterosexual females.
* John Roberts: Was a Republican Party operative who had been a judge for two years before being appointed to lead the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship.
* Earl Warren: Was governor of California and that state's Attorney General, and became one of the best justices of all time.
* William Rehnquist: Was a Republican Party operative challenging the voting rights of Latino citizens in Arizona before being an Assistant Attorney General, and became one of the worst justices of all time.
* Abe Fortas: Was a Democratic Party operative and a criminal defense lawyer who won Gideon v. Wainwright.
* Harlan Stone: Was a U.S. Attorney General.
* Clarence Thomas: Was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a member of the EEOC and had been a judge for two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship
* Lewis Powell: Was the American Bar Association President and a Tobacco Institute lawyer.
* Arthur Goldberg: Was a union lawyer and Secretary of Labor.
* Byron White: Was a running back and an Assistant U.S. Attorney General.
* John Harlan: Was judge for one year before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who gave him a judgeship.
* Felix Frankfurter: Was a Zionist activist and co-founder of the ACLU
* William Douglas: Was a member of the Securities and Exchange commission
* Robert Jackson: Was a U.S. Attorney General
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
Elena Kagan at fifty would be the youngest judge on the Court.
Justice Stevens is ninety.
Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court cast a very long shadow.
"If confirmed, Kagan will be the fourth woman justice in the history of the Supreme court, the eighth Jewish justice to sit on the court, and the first nominee since 1972 with no prior experience as a judge." Court Nominee Elena Kagan
The U.S. Supreme Court is the court of the Constitution:
It has become fashionable for Supreme Court nominees and sometimes the Justices themselves to deflect controversy and play down their own importance by suggesting judicial decision-making involves nothing more than the simple application of clear, undisputed rules. Perhaps with Obama's selection of a woman, we won't be subjected to the baseball metaphor that Chief Justice John Roberts has used, but however the idea is couched, it's pure bunk. There is no rulebook for constitutional interpretation. In trying to give meaning to inherently elastic constitutional concepts like "equal protection of the laws" and due process, and in interpreting federal statutes that are often less than precise, Supreme Court Justices inevitably make subjective value judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise.
In voting against confirming John Roberts, then Senator Obama explained that he was opposing the conservative Roberts because of how he would decide the slim "5%" of cases in which the law really is ambiguous and a Justice's values will inevitably shape his or her views. Our law-professor President got the concept right but the percentage wrong. Cases rarely reach the Supreme Court level when the right answer is clear. Most of the time, the Supreme Court hears cases only after lower federal courts have reached conflicting answers on vexing legal questions.
In short, there is a reason that Justice Harry Blackmun, a man whose grandfathers had fought for the Union in the Civil War and who idolized Abraham Lincoln, opposed the states' rights movement and was a passionate liberal voice on issues of race. There is a reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer of the fight for women's legal equality, takes an expansive view of the equal-protection clause. There is a reason that Roberts, who came of age as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, has a voting record that matches the old Reagan agenda. And there is a reason that Clarence Thomas, who grew up resenting the racial preferences that took him up the educational ladder to Yale Law School, reads the Constitution as imposing absolute colorblindness on government actors.
Conscientious judges understand that the law is much more than a reflection of their own personal preferences. But in the hard cases, the political cases, the cases tinged with moral judgment, where constitutional language and history provide no single irrefutable answer, a judge's formative experience matters -- family, geography, mentors and heroes -- they cleave liberal from conservative and ineluctably insinuate themselves into the law.
Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees: 3. Supreme Court Justices Are Umpires
I'm not so sure of that. I mean, if I were to assume your synopsis of here judicial philosophy were accurate, I'd have to say most politicians and political commentators of both sides would agree with her 100%.
conceding an argument, deep in a thread, rather than digging in your heels and shouting "no, YUO!!!" in blind stubbornness
is this the internet? intellectual honesty and integrity on an internet forum? you have just asploded my mind
much respect sir
for the record, i'm as bothered by endless american navel gazing as you are: it makes americans self-absorbed and shallow to be so unaware and unconcered with the wider world. but its not up to me to stop that, its up to you
leave and start your own australian/ ukian/ canadian/ kiwian/ etc centric slashdot. unfortunately, as a simple rule of the network effect, it won't have the same size userbase. and so you are forced to go to america-centric forums, and suffer through american navel gazing to get larger doses of the tech talk you desire
for the america-centrism, i apologize. but its a function of history and the network effect, no malice. don't hate us, enough of the world already does
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you're going to put politics up on the front page, don't select slanted articles from known biased sources. What are you going to do next? Follow it up with a response by the KKK?
Is there a way to know whether it is her personal view, or whether she was just doing her job?
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
You mean like the guys who just turned our campaign finance system over to corporations.
Cut the bullshit with that "originalist" crap. That is the most obtuse intellectual fraud perpetrated on the American people in at least a generation. "Originalist" seems to equate "cherrypicked for conservative values," and often includes outrageous interpretations of what the Constitution means.
Of course, I don't give conservatives much credit for knowing what's in the Constitution. Like the Bible, it seems to be a document that exists entirely in their minds which does little more than confirm their vile prejudices and selfish habits.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/09/us/politics/20100409-stevens-candidates.html
Sounds like someone Bush/Cheney would have nominated.
For my first three years as a blogger I posted under my alter-ego, Mr. Pink Eyes, but now I have come out of the closet (so to speak) and post under my real name.
Nice. He actually managed to get quite a few hits from that link from slashdot. I can't believe that an article that only has two links to radical right-wing blogs managed to get on the front page of Slashdot. I have the nagging suspicion I know how the next few elections are going to turn out...
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It could certainly have some impact if as a Supreme Court justice she has to make some ruling on a topic like, say, net neutrality. Or IP law. Or similar topics. It's not a direct technical advancement, but it's got a high potential to impact the technological world anyhow.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
Both links in the summary lead to hysterical right wing sites. Really Taco, can't you click before you post?
Congress is about the way "most American's live."
Most Americans are apparently lawyers and/or successful businessmen, then.
Tweet, tweet.
You have the attitude of "the eternal campaign" to thank for that. A politician is no longer in congress in order to pass/eliminate laws. They are only there to get reelected to congress -- which consists of attempts to make the other party look bad while only promoting your own.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk
Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
Looks like after CowboyNeal's ruling, Zonk decided to take matters into his own hands. So they sent CmdrTaco to Iraq to capture Zonk, but caught Saddam Hussein instead.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I can't believe that an article that only has two links to radical right-wing blogs managed to get on the front page of Slashdot.
Really? This isn't even the worst submission this week. You must be new to these parts.
Cool, thanks for the link. I was just thinking I needed to up the science reading, rather than getting into all the useless political discussions (he says, while sifting through a political article he clicked on).
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Yeah, from what I've read so far, I think I like her.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
AFAIK, the US Supreme Court is currently working on the "In Re Bilski" case which *could* lead to software patents ceasing to exist, so that the heavy arm of US dept. of trade (TRIPS and ACTA) no longer leans on the rest of the world to accept those things. After all, it would be a bit hypocritical to tell the rest of the world "harmonize with us, believe in our bloody software patents" and then cancel them yourself because they're bad for your economy :-)
In this light, I for one would like to know if the new judge joins in this case, and if so if that changes the likely outcomes, or if her predecessor works on this case and she'll only start on new cases.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Try http://www.slashdot.jp/ to avoid the American slant... good luck with the Kanji.
Or you could skip the articles with the *American* flag icons?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Seeing the type of people he normally nominates, she must be something like a convicted armed bank robber.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
If you want a nerd angle, consider the word "cyberterror."
You can do far better than that actually. With reference to net neutrality, Kagan appears to be arguing on behalf of cable companies in private writings when saying: that the "Buckley principle" states that government may not "restrict the speech of some elements of our society [think: powerful corporations] in order to enhance the relative voice of others [think: average individuals]." Her Buckley principle is almost the opposite of the Obama statement that "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." and then saying that the Buckley principle "could summarize the view" of the Turner dissenters, who sided with the cable companies. This also would seem to at odds with the president's public statements in support of net neutrality. More info here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-elena-kagan-disagree-with-justice.html
Kagan also appears to be a corporatist, which is probably why our corprate media is predicting that she will be confirmed without much republican protest despite the fact that she is a social liberal. If you read the material in the link I provided, you will find that even though Kagan was tasked to support the govt in the CU case which the govt lost (and Obama chastized the SCOTUS on TV over), Kagan expressed views contrary to the principles that she was charged to support in arging the govt's case. The case Kagan argued against the CU decision was poorly made and she could have invoked supreme court precedent to make a much stronger case for the govt, but failed to do so. Again Obama looks to be a hypocrit; this time when he said he would nominate someone who would follow in Steven's footsteps WRT the CU case, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Kagan.
It's not that there isn't alot on Kagan out there, it's that the liberal corprate media doesn't want to report it.
Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.
Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Somebody mod this up please.
Because "real Americans" means "Americans who have the same political opinions that I do". You spew the same filthy lie that the rightwingers do, and are therefore one of them.
Liberals are conservatives are liberals are conservatives. Lying, freedom-hating scumbags, each and every one of you.
Well that depends on whether you really mean freedom, or you just mean the license to do whatever the hell you want to. I don't think you understand what freedom really means.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
...
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
Boring!
Slashdot politics... Priceless.
That is all.
That section was a dig at Justice Thomas, but I'm fair about applying that principle: if Obama nominates and confirms someone who's just as mute, I'll condemn that.
And I sincerely hope that you were going for a Funny mod, because I'm definitely not hoping that Kagan will behave like Thomas.
I am officially gone from
That means nothing, what are her "positions" on vibrator technology? This is what is important and what is news for nerds.
Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.
I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Republicans who have gone over to the batshit crazy tea party. You have no defense for what your party has done, so you falsely claim that both major parties are identical. Not true. Democrats are influenced by big money and special interests. Republicans are owned by them, lock, stock and barrel.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why Flamebait?
Because it's not radically left-wing. One thing (one of the many) that democrats can't handle is a critical look at their world views. It looks like reddit users have discovered slashdot. Sigh...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Elena was having a torrid affair with Stallman. So, you know, we got that angle.
Kah, there goes my breakfast.
I hope you didn't get any in his beard. He'll save it for his next public speaking snack.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased.
An by "biased", you mean, "not horribly, ridiculously left-wing."
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
It's hard to be sure, but I think we were making similarly obscure snarky comments. Let's not argue, let's be friends.
If you're on the right you're for less government, if you're on the left you're for more government. People get confused because every politician is on the left so they start coming up with new artificial distinctions (like war and social issues) to define the two sides. Bush was one of the biggest socialists/fascists this country has every seen until Obama came along, but he called himself conservative, so now everyone blames the problems of big government on the right.
The truth is that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Obama, so people throw these terms around to express their hatred for the other side, but they're really just reflecting the self-loathing they have for their own side's hypocrisy. The Republican / Democratic split doesn't represent the true divide in this country. The true divide is between (small l) libertarians and statists.
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
The Supreme Court is the Court of the Constitution.
You can spend a lifetime in the lower courts and come no closer to understanding what the Supreme Court is all about than the Gray Line bus tour.
You can't fool me, that's John Lovitz in drag!
Wow! You know what I actually meant better than I do! Scary. Do you read minds, or is it some kind of clairvoyance? Actually, fuck it. You're a loon, and there's no debating loons. Nothing you say has any relevance to the real world, it's all just your own fucking ego trip. "Blah blah blah, look at me, I see the TRUTH, unlike you deluded fools!" Have fun in your fantasy world, freakshow. You live there alone.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
arigatou
Thomas has said that he refrains from asking questions because it allows him to devote the fullest possible attention to the oral arguments. If he desires to pick apart the positions presented he can do so equally well after the fact.
I am not a huge fan of Thomas' jurisprudence, either, but that doesn't mean I can't see the merit in his rationale here.
He's a left-leaning centrist with Socialist/Fascist tendencies. He has done some things that have surprised me, the Kagan nomination being one of them.
Overall, though, he's still 90%+ anti-libertarian - and that's who you see doing the stirring right now, not the people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Hell, I think they should promote him to GeneralTaco.
Learn about Photography Basics.
As a sort-of-libertarian, sort-of-Objectivist who identifies with the Right -- you're absolutely correct. They piss me off too.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Listening to the radio this morning, I was under the impression that the job of the solicitor general is to argue on behalf of the government. Basically an employee of the current Presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Solicitor_General
The radio show mentioned that a solicitor can object and not argue the case if they find it morally or legally wrong, but that this is rare. I imagine if you do that, you are fired and a more compliant solicitor is installed.
1 more liberal supreme court during the Gore vs Bush presidential race would have meant (bunch of maybe's ahead) Bush not being president, no war with Iraq, no war with Afghanistan, no oil spill in the Gulf, etc. etc. etc..
A single judge in the US supreme court can very much influence the entire world.
Since you were being snarky, we're pals. If you'd seriously been suggesting that Thomas was the smartest guy on the court, I'd have asked you who your connection was so I could get hold of whatever you were smoking.
And the scary thing is, these days I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that you had in fact been serious.
I am officially gone from
The Solicitor General has a nickname: "The 10th Justice".
She is very well qualified. She also clerked for a justice.
Yes, I was mostly being a wag.
My criticism of that style is that if justices can adequately decide cases without hearing arguments or asking questions, then why, according to him, do courts have proceedings?
So, okay, it's true I guess I think his style is less good than the normal style. But, I wouldn't say I'm informed enough about it to criticize him strongly -- mildly, perhaps (as I have), but not strongly.
Libertarians are the people I am targeting with my signature. Libertarians want license, not freedom. Libertarian's political theory and agenda can be summed up by the phrase we all remember from childhood: "You're not the boss of me!"
Libertarians look at the free market as a God. They start from the dogmatic belief that the free market can do no wrong, and work backward from there to find the 'evidence' needed to reach that conclusion. For any given scenario, the answer is always "the free market will do it," like God, the free market is all powerful and all loving.
Libertarians do not care about freedom in any real sense. The reason they want less government is because governments can be used by the powerless to stymie the will of the powerful, and libertarians do not want to limit their license to do whatever the hell they want without consequences. "Freedom" to a libertarian means the freedom to oppress the less powerful, to offer up a trade of "Do what we say, or starve to death."
In short, libertarians want all of the benefits of living in a cooperative society, without any of the duties that go along with those benefits.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
By the way, you all are going to love the President's choice for a new solicitor general to replace her...
No, I just mean ridiculously biased. As in, not reporting the facts, but rather reporting a hyperbolic, partisan spin on it. Any idiot can see that, given loaded phrases like "Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him."
And yes, I'm saying that if you can't see this is a moronic post from a partisan hack, you are, in fact, an idiot.
My understanding was that he believes it is better not to distract himself with finding pointed questions to ask when he can more readily get to the core of an argument by simply listening. To him, the hearing is in fact too important to muddle with it by attempting a dialogue with the speaker.
Our positions don't differ by much, then. Were I were in his position, I too would favor asking questions over sitting mute, but I am willing to overlook his behavior as simple personal preference.
I'm sure Thomas finds most of the questions he might have are eventually raised by another justice, anyway. I would definitely have a problem if all the justices on the court as passive as he is, however.
I think she may be Kevin James' twin sister. :)
Separated at birth perhaps?
With reference to net neutrality, Kagan appears to be arguing on behalf of cable companies in private writings when saying: that the "Buckley principle" states that government may not "restrict the speech of some elements of our society [think: powerful corporations] in order to enhance the relative voice of others [think: average individuals]." Her viewpoint on the Buckley principle is almost the opposite of what Obama said: "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.". Kagan suggested that the Buckley principle "could summarize the view" of the Turner dissenters, who sided with the cable companies. This also would seem to at odds with the president's public statements in support of net neutrality.
More info here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-elena-kagan-disagree-with-justice.html
Good thing we've got Clarence Thomas on the Court. He's asked a handful of questions in his whole Court career, even though the entire Court procedure is based on justices asking questions during the arguing of cases before them. He's the worst justice of your lifetime, and he's your gold standard.
Along with Roberts. Evidently, the more extreme Republican they are, the more you like them. Hardly an example of "real world" connectedness.
--
make install -not war
Come on Obama, i'm the perfect choice.
I don't have religous beliefs, I don't like demo's or repubs.
I did a lot of drugs and have a criminal history (felony free though).
I'm a poor white person.
Oh ya, and I don't like corporations all that much. they have too much power.
Sheesh, the media will be having a field day over me, that they'll forgot anything else your doing. And I can handle the pressure.
"Mr. Nyder, is it true you sold herion in the 90's?"
"Damn straight. had the best stuff you could get, till the stupid recession made business harder. had to switch to politics."
"Mr. Nyder, is it true you don't believe in god?"
"Ya, but I don't believe in the easter bunny either, so?"
"Mr. Nyder, is it true..."
"sure, it's all true. look, if your going to go on about my past, lets smoke this joint first."
But seriously, I'd have the best interests of people. Not the corporations, and not any political parties. And i'm used to people not liking me, or what I'm saying.
I mean, seriously, can we have someone who wasn't born before 1960?
You know, someone who's in touch with reality of the modern era.
Be seeing you...
Were it not for GOP obstructionism during the Clinton years, there's a chance the woman would have had a decade on the Federal court.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"She would be the third Jewish justice along with six Catholics. With Stevens' retirement, the court will have no Protestants, the most prevalent denomination in the United States."
How Jewish and how Catholic? Is this religious designation by parental attributes or by deep involvement in the positions of the various churches.
Is it not time to have someone who is identified as atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Confucian or who simply claims to be a rationalist? Does no one find it disturbing that justice is being represented (claimingly) by two religious viewpoints know to be steeped in the old testament? Is a religious claim necessary for public life?
im not racist just hate illegals and socialists
And grammar.
And spelling.
And punctuation.
And logic.
AND NICE RED UNIFORMS!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The law isn't "it is written"
The law is "it is as I an appointed official not an elected official says it is because this is democracy and I say so, or else here come the storm troopers"
Nonsense. There's also "communism" and a few other isms.
What I'm really trying to say is that your post is fascist.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
If I sat here and drew a caricature of your beliefs, then I could easily knock it down as well. FWIW, when I first saw your signature here, I posted it on my blog, Twitter, and Facebook. It looks like I have a different interpretation, though.
While I indeed challenge the moral authority of anyone who attempts to control my personal life, I also recognize that I do not have the authority to do the same to others.
As for the "free market", I have no such allusions - it is not some mystical being that loves everyone at all. "Free markets" are simply the natural state of economies - they are what happens completely absent regulation. I observe that regulation is always a net negative - as an extension of that, I believe that an unregulated state is the optimum state for commerce.
I care deeply about freedom - the freedom to do as you please, the freedom to make what you will of yourself, and the freedom to fail. The consequences are an integral part of concept, they cannot be separated from it.
I seek the benefit of living in a society of equals, with all the consequences that come along with it.
Learn about Photography Basics.
No, a free market is not what happens without regulations. We need regulations to keep it free, or the markets will be dominated and controlled by the biggest players. As long as people can and do use force to enforce their deals and ownerships, economic coercion is just as real as any other type of coercion. But you probably see that as a 'freedom.' The freedom to get whatever you can from others, the freedom to amass as much power over others as you can, the freedom to have and dominate the have nots. Those are not real freedoms, but mere licenses.
What you describe as 'freedom' is mere license. It is not freedom at all, it means that the powerful are free to oppress the weak and call it 'helping' them. Freedom is a social construct. Without society, all there is is power. Can you do it, or can't you? That is all. Only through contracts between individuals are freedoms created. Every freedom comes with two costs, something you can't do, and something you must do. You can't infringe another's freedom, and you must defend him when his freedom is infringed. It is only through this agreement to refrain from certain behaviors and defend others that we create freedom. Can you see the difference between freedom and license now? "The freedom to do as you please" is mere license, "The freedom to make of yourself what you will" also license, and the freedom to fail is an anti-freedom, not even license.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm a terrible liar who convinces multiple moderators here to mod me up. Who came out smelling better in this exchange? Not you, poindexter. Learn how to sling insults and fight dirty if you're going to go that route. You look like a fucking amateur.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm railing at libertarianism as it actually plays out, rather than the self serving fantasy libertarians have in their heads.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The mods were thinking I'm right and you're wrong, the same thing most Americans think. You are a minority, get it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Are you checking for my replies every ten minutes? It's flattering, really, but give it a rest, you've lost and your baseless assertions to the contrary demonstrably fool no one. You don't understand my mocking the minority party of 'real Americans.' Libertarians seem to believe exactly what I say they believe, despite the lies they tell themselves so they can sleep at night. Libertarianism in a nutshell: Me! Me! Me! I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you. Every libertarians secretly wants to be the master and ruler of everyone and everything, the only one with all the power. Which is why libertarians can't organize as a party, no one will listen to anyone else because everyone wants to be the emperor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You seem to be the only one who defines the term "free market" that way. A free market is a market free from government intervention, with the exception of regulation of fraud and force - period. "Economic Force" is a false construct, nothing more than noting that some people have more than others. The desire to have more than others is the entire motive force behind markets.
You're seeking a system of equal results, while I am seeking a system of equal opportunity.
In building my own business, and hiring employees, I don't sit back in a chair somewhere, rubbing my hands together, orgasmic over the thought of controlling people - I am prideful of what I have built. I'm satisfied that the product of my own effort has produced so much that I am now able to afford to pay someone else to do the things that I don't want to do.
I got to this point in my life by making good decisions, and working my ass off. As my business grows, and I hire additional employees, then I will reward those who work hard with greater pay and responsibility. How is that oppression?
If an employer treats employees badly, then why don't they leave? Why don't they form a union and strike? Why don't they build their own business? Absent physical force, this is the single most fair system mankind has ever encountered.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Economic force is not 'some people have more than others,' it is 'you have the freedom to starve to death. or, you could do whatever I tell you." Force is used to protect the haves from the have nots. What do the have nots get from the agreement? Why should they respect other people's property?
I am decidedly not seeking a system of equal results. I am seeking a system where the natural human heirarchy is not subverted by power seeking individuals, where some people have more if and only if most people agree they deserve it. where respect is freely given and not taken with force. In order to have more in such a system, people will need to earn it, not take it against the wishes of others.
Beyond a certain amount necessary for life, and a little more to give freedom of action. money represents only power over other people's lives.
You pay others to do the things you don't want to. That is power over others. They probably would rather not do them either. But you have the power, and it does not matter if they could do your job better than you, you set the rules.
Plenty of people in life make good decisions and work their ass off, and get nowhere. Plenty of others get handed everything, due to nothing more than luck. Both sorts of people think they deserve what they have. That is one of the privileges of power: no one dares contradict your self serving beliefs.
If an employer treats employees badly, the employees will simply have to suck it up unless they have other options. When they try to organize, the owners feel justified in using force to protect their property. They don't build their own business because our economic system has denied them the opportunity to amass capital, and even though they may be better leaders than those with capital, they do not get the chance to demonstrate that. Leaders are not better than followers. A leader without followers is nothing. But because we overvalue the leadership role, and undervalue the follower role, people who are not natural leaders seek out such positions, even though they are bad at them.
A free market can not exist absent physical force. A free market is based on property ownership, and ownership is based on force. Without the threat of force, how could anyone enforce ownership over distant resources? If someone is using a resource directly, they own it through use and people naturally respect that more than if they say, "see that fruit tree over there that I'm not using? Yeah, I own that and you can't take the fruit, even though I'm not using it. But I'll let you pick the fruit for me while I sit on my fat ass, and maybe I'll even give you a little of it." Without the threat of force, no one would accept such a ludicrous proposition. Only people who actually use a resource should control it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wow. You've not thought this out, have you?
Your position, as far as I can tell, boils down to "People deserve only what everyone else thinks they deserve."
That is Communism. I don't mean "OMG, you're a commie!" a'la McCarthy - I mean your vision is very very similar to the writings of Karl Marx. The idea that the means of production are controlled by the economic elite - the Bourgeoisie - while the rest of the people - the Proletariat - are forced to work at their behest. You are arguing for the concept of wage slavery.
I'm not going to get all upset about it, because I'm not that kind of person - but our philosophies cannot coexist. I am right, you are wrong; you would argue the opposite.
I don't see that we have anything left to gain here.
Learn about Photography Basics.
You've illustrated my point exactly. You think people deserve whatever they can take, and if others don't like it, tough. Of course, in a true free market everyone only gets what others think they deserve, too. I mean, exchanges are voluntary, Right? But as you've demonstrated, here, you don't want that kind of free market. You want the kind of 'free' market that is free only for the elites, that preserves your own power over others.
It's funny, you give up pretty easily. You say, "Oh my God, you believe this that and the other, that means I don't even have to respond to your arguments. I can just point out that you're a commie, and I win!" Well, I'm not a commie. I believe in private ownership, just not private ownership of natural resources.
What is the justification for taking something that was at one point free for all to use, and turning it into something private? By doing so, you are stealing from the rest of humanity. I've heard the argument that when one adds one's work to a natural resource, that justifies ownership. And yet, when you hire someone to work on your yard, they don't own it. Because you owned it first. And all of us could use any resource before it was privatized through the use of force and coercion, so when you mix your work with a natural resource, you are working on something already collectively owned, and your effort does not give you ownership rights.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not "giving up", I'm simply stating that our beliefs are diametrically opposed. Natural Resources are owned by whoever owns them. I can't recall a single natural resource today that is unclaimed on Earth.
I reject the notion that anyone other than an individual can "own" anything. Humanity doesn't "own" an ore deposit, a person does (or the collective will of many people, i.e., a corporation)
I would like to point out that you seem to think that I'm part of the "elite" because I have an employee.
What do you believe in private ownership of, if not resources? All property comes from a resource of some kind
Learn about Photography Basics.
As I said before, she's evil.
Before you use her participation in support of the Pottawattamie prosecutors to extrapolate her entire character,
I recommend reading the Pottawattamie County v. McGhee article over at SCOTUSWiki. Among other things, you'll find out that even the McGhee and Harrington side of the case agrees that prosecutors "enjoy immunity when they knowingly introduce false testimony during trial" based on the 1976 SCOTUS decision in Imbler v. Pachtman. All the legal wrangling was over drawing lines across contiguous situations, like whether or not that immunity extends to pre-trial conditions. The central idea of immunity for prosecutors during trial apparently wasn't even really being questioned, because much of the lawyering world believes that if you open prosecutors to liability, it'll have a "chilling effect" on them.
Now, from an ethical and liberty-focused perspective, I completely agree that a lot of this is ridiculous. I think that fabricating evidence is flat-out simply beyond the job description of any state officer, and so by definition, whether or not it happened pre-trial or during the trial, it's outside of official prosecutorial duties and can and should incur criminal and civil liability. But there are beings who walk the earth who see court cases very differently than a normal citizen does, who don't operate directly on matters of ethics and policy and justice and liberty, but instead on the law as the instrument which serves those matters, and who apparently see a prosecutors role as such an important one in actually pursuing justice that it's deserving of considerable latitude. I disagree and I think there's a cultural problem here that needs to be addressed by legal means: we're apparently going to need a law stating that fabrication of evidence is explicitly outside any public duty and that no immunity of any kind applies.
I'm unimpressed by Kagan's advocacy, and think everybody should contact their Senator -- particularly if they've got one that's on the judiciary committee -- to highlight this issue, but flogging her in particular for it isn't going to address a systemic problem.
Tweet, tweet.
The fact that all resource have been appropriated by private concerns today does not negate the fact that at one point, anyone could use them. If a corporation can own a resource, any other group can too. Even 'all of humanity,' or would all of humanity have to join a corporation before they could assert collective ownership?
I believe in ownership of personal property. Clothes, food, electronics, toys, even houses. Not real estate. Private property requires very little threat of force to maintain ownership. Real estate, on the other hand, requires a much greater threat of force. Keeping others from using your clothes, not so hard. Keeping others from using your land, much harder. We, as a society, expend a LOT of effort protecting the real estate of the owning class, and for what? How does that benefit the rest of us? Why should we agree to such a system if we aren't getting anything out of it? Just so we have the illusory idea that maybe we, too, can own land one day? How many of the six billion people on the planet own land? Not so many, so why should the majority of non-land owning humans support the right to own land? They are getting nothing more than empty promises from the deal.
You still haven't explained what you think gives a person ownership privileges. What is the basis for ownership, in your esteem?
All property comes from natural resources. In my ideal world, those resources would be transformed into goods through collectively managed production, while the finished goods would be privately owned. Collective control of resources provides protection from the Tragedy of the Privates, where private owners exploit and deplete natural resources so they can accumulate capital to buy another block of resources to exploit and deplete. Collective owners will not deplete a resource and move on, as their children will depend on that resource. As an example, clear cutting over sustainable forestry. Clear cut and move on, leaving the loggers in an area with no employment, or manage a forest sustainably, so there will be jobs for generations. Which do we do?
I'd just like to point out that I've argued my points with specifics, whereas you've resorted to emotionally charged generalities and have not explained the basis of your reasoning. You have demonstrated the process of starting with a foregone conclusion and arguing backwards towards points that support it. You know what must be right and true, it's just a matter of cherry picking the right data and emotionally charged sound bites to support it.
This is always the way it goes arguing with libertarians and free marketeers. As I stated, the real reason you support the ideals you do is to maintain your own power and privilege within the system. You can't admit your reasons to yourself, so you are left with a sense of certainty about your position, but no idea how you arrived at that certainty. Well, you arrived there through unbridled self interest at the expense of others.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Man owns property because we are human. We exist as individuals, and every individual has an absolute right to the product of their own labor and of their mind.
You say you believe in private ownership of property, but not real estate or natural resources. You believe that everyone should benefit equally - collectively - from those. If everyone has an equal stake in a resource, then each person would get an equal share of the capital generated by it's use. That capital can then be used to purchase finished goods, but no one may accumulate finished goods -- everyone starts out with the same capital. That's equality of outcome.
You've not argued with specifics, you've argued with strawmen.
In your case of the foresters, how would it benefit the owner of that forest to clear-cut? That would not be in the owner's own self-interest, as his source of income would be destroyed. Rational self-interest is the motive behind economies, and those who understand that, and act in their own long-term self-interest are the people who accumulate wealth.
Say, for the sake of argument, that the forest was clear-cut. You've decided that the *only* job available to those people and their descendants is forestry. Wouldn't their children farm the newly cleared land?
I'm curious, have you ever read Marx? I know tone doesn't come through well in a text format, but I'm asking seriously, not as a debate tactic. Marx wrote about a utopia that is pretty much exactly what you're arguing for - only he realized that the state of the world would never allow it. Instead, Marx held that Capitalism was the system through which Utopia would be reached - he recognized that Capitalism was the single most efficient system we have at our disposal, and that if mankind was ever to reach the level of prosperity to allow for a peaceful coexistence, it would have to be through Capitalist.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Agreed. Everyone has a right to the product of their own labor. But in the free market, it is the owning class that gets the product of everyone's labor. And property is not the product of anyone's labor!
I never said that everyone should have an equal stake. With democratically controlled resources, the collective owners can vote to give certain members more. As an example, look at pirates. Pirates elected a captain, who got a larger stake than others. Why didn't everyone just vote for themselves? They realized that they weren't leaders, and they could get more if they let a real leader lead, so they voted for the man they thought would net them the most loot. That is equality of opportunity, not outcome.
It would be in the owner's self interest to clear cut. Take down all the old growth trees, screwing the forest, and using the profits to buy more old growth forest. It is more profitable to ruin a forest and move on than manage it sustainably. In fact, without regulations, that's what actually happens in the real world Did you really not know that? t is important to note that newly clear cut land is usually incredibly non-productive: all the nutrients and biomass were in the trees. How did you think the trees got so big?
Marx was wrong about a great many things. There was a reason the Soviet Union killed all its anarchists. There was a reason Trotsky got an ice pick to the head. You want to know who I respect, politically? Not Marx. Trotsky, Proudhon, Chomsky, the social anarchist thinkers. José Arizmendiarrieta, the founder of the Mondragon Collective.
Now that is an interesting case study, he was a liberal Catholic priest in one of the poorest areas of Spain. He turned it into an industrial powerhouse in less than fifty years. Mondragon illustrates the blend of public and private I think we should strive towards. Everything there is a cooperative, and anyone who wants to can start there own. In fact, there are cooperative banks to lend the money, cooperative business consultants to help plan, cooperative staffing agencies to staff the place, and cooperative ad agencies to get the word out. Ninety percent of new cooperatives in Mondragon last more than five years. In the US, only ten percent of new businesses do the same.
Capitalism is not efficient. You are confusing capitalism and the free market. Capitalism is about capital, lending money for profit: otherwise known as the sin of usury. Capitalism encourages rent seeking behavior: sitting back and collecting money with little risk and no effort.
The free market IS efficient. Trust me, it pains me a little to say that, and my younger, more radical self would probably have called present me a sellout, but I'm not dogmatic and I do change my views when presented with compelling evidence. But is it the most efficient? That depends.
One thing planned economies lack is price signals. However, with proper communications systems, we can replace the price signals of the free market with even better intelligence. This was tried, and it was working. Unfortunately, it was tried in South America. In Chile. If you can't guess what happened next, you don't know US history very well. That's right, we aided pro-capitalist rebels in deposing the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende. You might want to look up Project Cybersyn. It's fascinating what a third world country could do with 1960s era analog electronics.
Also, free markets fail to operate efficiently under certain conditions, namely when there is imbalance of information, when there are positive or negative externalities, or when there is a natural monopoly, where it is actually more efficient to have one supplier, as with sewers and roads. What do we do with the cases where the free market fails?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Whoa there! Senate confirmations are hard enough to get through without you trying to start a holy war. Be careful what you say, man! Her phone choice is LOADED.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but any free-market will result in monopolies and de-facto states unless there is a societal decision that these are undesirable.