never play poker with the Dubya, this was perfect... now when Rehnquist retires Dubya can nominate Judge Brown and then they will really howl!!!Which is basically what the judge's opinion says: He almost openly insults the wisdom of the law but, failing to see any constitutional barriers to it, cannot bar its enforcement. Libs like Shapiro just want the right result in policy terms, the actual democratically-passed law be damned.
Antoher writer who doesn't know the meaning of "beg the question".
The more I read about the good judge, the more I like him.
For too long the judiciary and a leftist house had hamstrung
republican presidents, perhaps I might even be alive to see
a renewal our government.
...but they do beg the question.
A lesson from From Lynch's Style Guide:
It doesn't mean what you think. Begging the question — from the Latin petitio principii — is a logical fallacy; it means assuming your conclusion in the course of your argument. If you say "Everything in the Bible must be true, because it's the word of God," you're taking your conclusion for granted. If you say "The defendant must be guilty because he's a criminal," you're doing the same. It's a kind of circular logic. The conclusion may be true or false, but you can't prove something by assuming it's true.
This is very different from raising the question, though people are increasingly using the phrase that way. It's sloppy, and should be avoided. Here, for instance, is a piece from The Times (London), 30 Nov. 2004:
The behaviour of ministers is a matter for prime ministers, who appoint and dismiss them. But this begs the question of who should find out what has gone wrong on behalf of a prime minister.
No it doesn't. It raises the question; it prompts the question; perhaps it forces us to ask the question; maybe this question begs for an answer. But it doesn't beg the question.
Hey, jackass Shapiro, all they have to do is wear uniforms and quit targeting civilians. Then they get Geneva Convention treatment.
I'd be willing to bet that The Nation had no problem with supporting Al Gore's nomination for President, despite the fact that he is a white male who has spent his entire adult life in Washington.
I used the Case of the French Fry as a solid reason to support Roberts, not oppose him. And as for appointing another women, I am certain that when Justice Ginsburg finally releases her claws from the US Constitution and squawks her way into retirement, I guar-on-d*mn-tee that President Bush will nominate a woman to replace her.
Congressman Billybob
Buffalo is not part of the northeast. It's more along the lines of the other Great Lakes cities -- Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. In New York State, the Northeast ends about 15 miles west of the Hudson River.
never play poker with the Dubya, this was perfect... now when Rehnquist retires Dubya can nominate Judge Brown and then they will really howl!!!Uhhmmm...is that because the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to un-uniformed, no country allegiance, dirty rotten bastards that target innocent citizens?
How long is this asshole and others going to push this crap?
FMCDH(BITS)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf
Good reading - the "French Fry" case.
Some snips.
TRACEY V. HEDGEPETH, AS THE NEXT FRIEND TO ANSCHE HEDGEPETH, APPELLANT
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL., APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
[snip] The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.
[snip] The district court had and we too may have thoughts on the wisdom of this policy choice — it is far from clear that the gains in certainty of notification are worth the youthful trauma and tears — but it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments. See City of New Orleans v. Duke, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976) (per curiam) (rational basis review does not authorize the judiciary to sit as a ‘‘super legislature’’).
Ansche finally challenges her arrest on the ground that it was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This claim quickly runs into the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Atwater. There, a woman challenged the constitutionality of her arrest for violating a state statute requiring all motorists and front-seat passengers to wear seat-belts. As in this case, there was no dispute that the plaintiff had violated the statute in the presence of the arresting officer and that state law authorized her arrest, even though the offense was punishable by a fine no greater than $50. Unlike the present case, by statute the officer in Atwater had the option of issuing a citation instead of effecting an arrest.
[snip] On the basis of this passage, the defendants argue that Ansche’s arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment, for it is undisputed that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Ansche had committed a criminal offense, however minor. No balancing or inquiry into whether Ansche’s probable cause arrest was otherwise reasonable is permitted.
[snip] The present case is different, Ansche reasons, because here there was no exercise of discretion by the arresting officer. The officer did not have the choice of issuing a citation; arrest was the only enforcement option.
[snip] While we can inquire into the reasonableness of the manner in which an arrest is conducted, the most natural reading of Atwater is that we cannot inquire further into the reasonableness of a decision to arrest when it is supported by probable cause. That is true whether the decision to arrest upon probable cause is made by the officer on the beat or at a more removed policy level. Even if Atwater were not controlling, Ansche has not made the case that her arrest was unconstitutional. Her claim that a policy of mandatory arrest for certain minor offenses is unconstitutional boils down to an assertion that officer discretion is a necessary element of a valid seizure under the Fourth Amendment, at least for some minor offenses. She has not made an effort to defend that assertion under the usual first step of any analysis of whether particular government action violates the Fourth Amendment — asking “whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed.”
[snip] Nothing requires that the no-citation policy for minors be subjected to heightened scrutiny. That policy is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring parents are notified of their child’s transgressions. Given the undisputed existence of probable cause, Atwater precludes further inquiry into the reasonableness of Ansche’s arrest under the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
But Jesus would never do that. He came to seek and to save the lost. That means liberal Democrats in particular.
Barf on the Nation, don't read the Nation.