Justice O'Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law

WND ^

[BenR2]

Rather than "bias" and "mendacity" being mutually exclusive, they are most often seen in conjunction.

////////////////
Oh? That is a new one on me. "Most often seen in conjunction" by whom, pray tell?

A brief dictionary-and-thesaurus check of both words doesn't bear out your assertion. They may not be mutually exclusive -- that I will grant you -- but one does not immediately call (to my mind, at least) the other.

I submit that we are ALL biased at some point (except you, of course): We need not all be mendacious, however.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is not what this is about. It's about insuring that the USofA is in lock step with the rest of the world marching towards a totalitarian hell.

[tdadams]

You don't think bias and mendacity often go hand in hand? For reference, please see Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Cynthia McKinney, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala, Ted Kennedy... should I go on?

[BenR2]

I point out that you don't have your facts straight and you slander me. And you think this makes you a persuasive debater? Sorry, not so.

Grow up some and then try again. Calling me names and making obviously false accusations doesn't suddenly make you correct. It just shows how petty and immature you are, in addition to being factually wrong.

//////////////
Okay. Show me the "names" that I called you, and I will apologize.

Also, while you are at it, please show me the "obviously false accusations" I levied?

[BenR2]

You don't think bias and mendacity often go hand in hand? For reference, please see Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Cynthia McKinney, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala, Ted Kennedy... should I go on?


/////
Once again, a re-print from the post (of mine) to which you are responding above:

"They [i.e., bias and mendacity] may not be mutually exclusive -- that I will grant you -- but one does not immediately call (to my mind, at least) the other."

[Dan from Michigan]

That should be grounds for impeachement.

Or...since SCOTUS has neither 'force, nor will', maybe it's high time people should just give them the finger.

[M Kehoe]

O'Conner may have alzhimers. It's the only thing I can think of.

5.56mm

[tdadams]

Look at 56. Those are lies and you know it. I'm not going to play word games with you. It's simply more dishonesty from you to accuse me of being a "proponent of the radical gay agenda" but them proclaim innocence. Sure, you phrased in the form of a sentence, but it's still name calling.

And that you had to so quickly resort to slanderous, untrue, hyperbole only shows how weak you are on the facts. How petty.

To say that homosexuality is "fine and dandy" with me is also obviously false (so now, I will expect your apology). I do not think homosexuality is fine and dandy, and if you'd cared to check my profile you would have known that. But the when the Supreme Court recognizes there is a disparity in the way two different people are treated that is a breach of the equal protection clause of our Constitution, and moves to correct that disparity and make the law comply with the standard put forth in the Constitution, I have to support the Supreme Court and think they did the right thing.

The law should treat everyone equal. If you favor laws that promulgate disparate treatment, you're not abiding by the Constitution, you're simply rooting for your values to prevail. Understandable, yes, but morally wrong.

[mrsmith]

"make the law comply with the standard put forth in the Constitution, I have to support the Supreme Court "

Exactly when did the standard for "liberty' "put forth in the Constituion" change to include homosexual acts?
It never meant that before.
There was no change in the Constitution by any Constitutional means.

Hey, you'll love the European Union- the people retain no rights in their constitution.
Their rights come from the government, and the courts have power to define them all.

[DannyTN]

Impeach Her

I agree. If that's not a breach of her oath, I don't know what is.

[BenR2]

Look at 56. Those are lies and you know it. I'm not going to play word games with you. It's simply more dishonesty from you to accuse me of being a "proponent of the radical gay agenda" but them proclaim innocence. Sure, you phrased in the form of a sentence, but it's still name calling.

//////////
Look, Pal, you accused me of lying. Now, either tell me what my lies were, or shut the hell up. I am not playing ANY word games, chum.

You said that the last Supreme Court decision dealing with homosexuality represented equal protection under the law (did you not?). You said that the decision in 1987 was a poor one. Now, where is your DISAGREEMENT in these two instances with the gay radical agenda?

P.S. You are a whiner.

[Monty22]

These leftist judges are so aloof and out of touch with the country they are supposed to be working for. I doubt she'd give a crap if she even bothered to find out too.

[BenR2]

The law should treat everyone equal. If you favor laws that promulgate disparate treatment, you're not abiding by the Constitution, you're simply rooting for your values to prevail. Understandable, yes, but morally wrong.

///////////
Nice try. The good folks who penned the Constitution shared my values -- Namely, the homosexual acts are a perversion that can rightly be outlawed and prosecuted accordingly.

It is not the people, it is the acts they committed. One who commits murder does not incur the same penalty in court as one who does not commit murder. Now -- and please pardon me if I am wrong, petty, dishonest, etc, etc -- but I BELIEVE you have been TRYING to say that ONE WHO COMMITS illegal homosexual acts should receive the same treatment in court as one who does not?

[BenR2]

To say that homosexuality is "fine and dandy" with me is also obviously false (so now, I will expect your apology). I do not think homosexuality is fine and dandy, and if you'd cared to check my profile you would have known that. But the when the Supreme Court recognizes there is a disparity in the way two different people are treated that is a breach of the equal protection clause of our Constitution, and moves to correct that disparity and make the law comply with the standard put forth in the Constitution, I have to support the Supreme Court and think they did the right thing.

/////////////
Please forgive me for saying that the radical gay agenda is "fine and dandy" with you.

However, in terms of your legal positions, you are de facto in their camp, as far as I can tell.

Are you not aware of Justice Scalia's public criticisms of the Court's most recent decision regarding homosexuality?

[tdadams]

This is likely my last response to you because this was long ago petty and pointless, and beyond that I can't tell if you're just mentally challenged or if you're just being mendacious again.

Where did you lie? You asserted that homosexuality is "fine and dandy" with me, even after I corrected you. You said I was a "proponent of the radical gay agenda" even after I explained to you that it was simply my objective observation that the Supreme Court made a ruling based on disparate treatment which is not permitted under the equal protection clause.

Now, when you know the truth and state something to the contrary, that's a lie. And that's what you did. Maybe you just don't understand the distinction between an objective opinion and advocacy. For the sake of understanding these debates, it would benefit you to learn.

Maybe where we part is that you seem to think it's "fine and dandy" that the Court maintain the status quo of disparate treatment, in spite of what the Constitution says, and I disagree. You probably think it's OK because this particular breach of the Constitution satisfies your personal moral/religious beliefs.

But how could the Court overlook such plain disparity and still be true to the Constitution's equal protection clause?

How about a little intellectual honesty here? If the Court had ruled the other way, you would have been happy because it kept in force the influence of your personal moral/religious beliefs. But the Court would have had to ignore the Constitution, which is the very complaint you're speciously (but incorrectly) making.

According to the law, they ruled correctly. According to your moral/religious beliefs, probably not. But again, that's the difference between an objective opinion and an advocate's opinion.

[BOOTSTICK]

Another liberal, who needs to read the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

The majority opinion was NOT based on equal protection or disparate treatment.

It is very hard to believe that anyone still claims it was.

That was what we expected them to do, and O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion on that basis, but the majority did not.

Reading on FR at the time, one could see the shock of those who originally approved of the ruling as the implications of how it was reached sunk in.

[BenR2]

How about a little intellectual honesty here? If the Court had ruled the other way, you would have been happy because it kept in force the influence of your personal moral/religious beliefs. But the Court would have had to ignore the Constitution, which is the very complaint you're speciously (but incorrectly) making.

According to the law, they ruled correctly. According to your moral/religious beliefs, probably not. But again, that's the difference between an objective opinion and an advocate's opinion.

//////////////////
Hmmmm. Justice Antonin Scalia happens to disagree with you here. (And, guess what? I value his understanding of the Constitutional implications of this case just a tad bit more than yours -- especially since at least two of the six who decided the case have publicly made it clear that they hold the Constitution in low regard by saying they consulted the laws of OTHER nations in deciding this and/or other cases.)

[BenR2]

Where did you lie? You asserted that homosexuality is "fine and dandy" with me, even after I corrected you.

/////////////
Wait! I asked you to forgive me for saying that in post #74 (a fact which you failed to acknowledge).

Who's being "petty" -- and "mendacious" -- now?

[streetpreacher]

I was more than hoping to see her take Rehnquist's place should he retire.

You have got to be kidding??