Posted on 09/15/2014 4:03:20 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
He also likes to pick fights with Scalia. It's pretty obvious he thinks he should be on the Supreme Court, but that would be a mistake for both parties.
So, if he found the “right to rape exceeds the victims damages” then I suppose he might find the right to kill in the same light.
P.S. Forgot to add, no intended threat to him personally, but what my “Right To Kill” means if I find someone’s actions sooooooooo intolerable then I should have the right to kill the idiot to relieve my pain, according to his distorted way of thinking.
In business cases (breach of contract and securities lawsuits and the like), or cases involving government regulation of business (especially antitrust cases), Posner is an excellent judge, always trying to get the law to coincide with economic common sense. Reagan put him on the Court of Appeals exactly for that reason. But Posner's economics background gives him a strong libertarian streak, so he can be a big disappointment to social conservatives in cases involving abortion or gay rights.
SNAP!!!
We'll have em by the short hairs!
Respect for tradition is the deference paid to generations of wise men who knew far more about real life than ivory tower relics like this butt hole.
He may be "incredibly smart," for a lawyer that is, but he rolls like what Thorstein Veblen identified as an "educated incompetent." I suspect he never made the high court for good reason.
Your honor, stare decisis is founded in history.
Your suspicion would be correct. He's a pretty good circuit judge who is good on business and regulatory cases, but should never be allowed anywhere near the Constitution.
The progressives continuing the war on reason and common sense.
I’d give all his gay neighbors those licenses, with a “one Posner” bag limit.
In all seriousness, could you please explain yourself? I am just not getting it, and am sitting here horrified that this makes sense somehow.
dig up ted “waitress sndwich” kennedy’s.
How about Rapist Hunting Licenses based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the “right to justice,” for some men at least, “exceeds the rapists’ pleasures.”
I only skimmed his opinion, but he says that the AG’s arguing against homo marriage made some weak arguments. All I’m saying is, when Richard Posner tells you that your argument is weak, you need to go back to the drawing-board and develop a better one.
Unbelievable ping.
Well, throw him in general population in a prison where people he has tried are serving time and tell them they have a *right* to rape.
See if he enjoys it so much and if his physical and emotional pain is insignificant to the prisoners *right* to rape him.
I would prefer marriage between one man and one woman be the only “marriage” recognized, but I agree a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary for such to pass in this absurd legal climate.
Failing that, the government getting out of the marriage business is the only other option.
Marriage is a religious rite, same as a Bar Mitzvah or Baptism, and should have no more or less legal recognition to either.
I agree completely. Getting government to “recognize” what should be private religious affairs is what lead to this mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.