From the Pork Barrel: NBC Drops Ann Coulter Like a Blond Cadaver
Norm Coleman Under Attack by Vast Communist Conspiracy
Caption Challenge: Obama, Pelosi and Boehner
Long Suffering Minority of Conservative Celebrities Finally Get Voice
From the Pork Barrel: NBC Drops Ann Coulter Like a Blond Cadaver
Long Suffering Minority of Conservative Celebrities Finally Get Voice
Caption Challenge: Obama, Pelosi and Boehner
Sasha and Malia Obama's First Day of School
Sasha and Malia Obama's First Day of School, Continued
D.C. Inauguration Security: $28 Million. Souvenir Scarf: Priceless
You want semantics? You got semantics. We'll even throw in a little Grand Theft Auto IV reference for all you gamers out there awake enough to pry your mitts off of the controller:
Does any of torture talk have any blowback on the Republican Party, or is John McCain going to quash all that nonsense should he make it to the White House?
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
RSS
Tebt
Wow! You really have some academic sources there. I would like to see what a legal brief written by you would look like.
The problem with the Florida Supreme Court ruling was that there was no instructions in how the votes should be counted fairly and uniformly not that they were trying to throw the election to Gore. In fact Gore was in his legal rights under Florida law to pick four counties for recounts in an election that close. Actually Gore filed what is called a filing protest and Bush filed the first lawsuit to stop the recounts.
Chris,
I agree with you. If people actually listened to the interview and not just some wise cracks Comedy Central writers wrote they would have heard Justice Scalia say he doesn't mind social change as long as done by legislation.
To tebt:
Thank you for the excellent research you did on defining "punishment" and "torture" for us. Excellent! The only point I was trying to make regarding that part of his interview is that from a purely legal standpoint, the technical, legal definition of punishment is not precilsely what you are going to find in Webster's or Oxford's. You will, however, find it in legal textbooks. When Scalia was talking about "punishment", he was speaking strictly from a legal perspective.
Of course torture can be punishment, but torture is not necessarily punishment. Scalia is talking about torturing as a interrogation technique. The purpose of that torture is not punishment.
A couple of points:
Bush vs. Gore, if you can take the emotions and the politics completly out of it (nigh impossible), was strictly about the Florida judiciary's last minute hi-jacking of the Florida state constitution's electoral laws. All the Supreme Court did was prevent the Florida judiciary from warping their state's own laws. You can argue liberal vs conservative all you want, but at the end of the day it comes down to a purely logical, technical interpretation of Florida State's own law, nothing more nor less than that. Sorry Al didn't win, but he was the one who brought the lawsuit, not Bush.
In regards to Scalia wanting change, I can only listen to what he says in the interview and take the man at face value. He clearly points out, and I reiterate for you, that his job is not to "follow the will of the people"--that is the responsibility of the legislature. And he explicitly states that. He says change should come through the democratic process, the voice of the people. I couldn't agree more! The job of the Supreme Court, in Scalia's view, is to defend the Constitution, to resist change. Again, he says as much in the interview. (Have any of you listend to the interview?!!) That is the beauty of our system of governance, the balancing of the 3 branches of our government. It forces debate and thoughtful reflection, and resists rapid, emotionally charged change. That is a good thing. It allows our culture to thoughtfully, intelligently adjust to changing times.
"Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment?"
Only every dictionary. Try looking up "torture."
As in the Oxford English Dictionary: "1. The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion...."
How about Webster's Unabridged: "n 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge...."
Merriam-Webster online: "2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish...."
Dictionary.com: "1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."
So... I'd have to say the answer is yes, asshole.
Or, if that's not good enough, try the language of the UN Convention Against Torture.... (little hint, it's in the title): "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment."
If you're going to play the semantic game... at least play it well.
I'll take Justice Scalia interpreting the Constitution to Jon Stewart any day of the week.
With all due respect to Chris,
I have to disagree with your opinion that Scalia wants change. I think that if he followed the will of the people then he would be a much more moderate judge like O'Connor was. Scalia seems to ignore the majority views in favor of his own much narrower views and tends to attack others for different opinions.
James,
Good idea on the due process issue - but read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: procedural due process is subjected to a lowered Eldridge balancing test in this context. Assuming the detainees received the process that was due under Hamdi, there's probably no 5th Amend claim.
Daringtexan,
Unfortunately, your logic on the treaties issue is somewhat flawed. First of all, an agreement does not need to be "mutually binding" to be a contract (see R.2d of Contracts sec 45 on unilateral contracts); second, breaching a contract does not nullify it - quite the contrary, breach of contract is actionable BECAUSE the contract is enforceable. But, aside from all this, treaties are simply not contracts - they are treaties. It's been a while since I took constitutional law, but I believe the Pres can suspend treaties unilaterally in certain circumstances.