it's our tax dollars at work x 2, since we taxpayers are footing the bill to collect all the data, which is then repackaged by the for-profit services.

AccuWeather gave Santorum $4K in the last election cycle...Senator "Man on Dog" works cheap for all the grief this is going to cause him.

Exactly - we've already paid for the data, and now they want us to pay for the privilege of accessing it. And yes, the CEO and his family gave $4000 last cycle, and have gave $2750 to the Santorum 2006 campaign, according to FEC.gov.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I couldn't care less about the NWS issue, especially since I am sure everyone involved knows the bill will go nowhere.

On the other hand, you should at least characterize his position on Lawerence correctly in that he predicted in the face of much ridicule that if the Supreme Court were to find a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawerence, that we would be rapidly on the way to court mandated gay marriage, bigamy and polygomy.

He has been proven 100% correct, so what is your issue?

So I guess he gets a free pass on this idiotic NWS issue, because of course if it won't get passed, it's like it never happened, right?

As for Lawrence, perhaps you should practice what you preach, Art. Below is the entire quote in context, from an AP interview easily accessible via the Web.

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

So once again, assuming you can read that, explain to me exactly how I mischaracterized his comments - he mentions marriage as a bedrock institution with relation to heterosexuality and suggests that because homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it will erode a basic societal unit. Nowhere does he say that the Court would be pressured to pursue gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Rather, he argues that the, in his opinion, unguaranteed notion of personal privacy opens the door to all of these practices, including bestiality and pederasty, as you will note.

So perhaps here, as in other discussions on ST, you should actually read in context what you're so willing to discuss publicly.

Or is it just too easy to knee-jerk reflexively defend a Republican, despite his non-libertarian stance on personal privacy?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Nowhere does he say that the Court would be pressured to pursue gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Rather, he argues that the, in his opinion, unguaranteed notion of personal privacy opens the door to all of these practices, including bestiality and pederasty, as you will note.

Yeah, that's what Art said. And he's right, and so is Santorum.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I guess you don't understand yur own quote. Here is the most important part, all in the context of Lawrence.

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.

Within a few months, the MA Supreme Court, referencing Lawrence, created the right to gay marriage, a right he references later in your quote. You just don't get any more prophetic than that.

Given the reasoning in Lawrence, I don't see how the Supreme Court can uphold bans on gay marriage, incest and polygomy, but with that gang, you just never know.

Your statement was: once you allow homosexuality (or in fact fail to criminalize it) you are immediately on the slippery slope to the legalization of bigamy, bestiality and pederasty. It is not an issue of allowing homosexuality. It is an issue of finding a Constitutional right to sodomy. Those are two completely different concepts that you mischaracterized.

As an example, it wouldn't be hard to convince me to vote out the Texas sodomy law. I would probably go along. A Constitutional right to sodomy is just not there. More penumbras and emanations.

One is legislative judgment arrived at through democratic processes. The other is a nondemocratic fabrication of a right by five men in black pajamas.

Hopefully, you can see the difference, but since you can't parse your own quote, maybe not.

I don't even know if Santorum has a position on whether the Texas or PA legislatures should criminialize sodomy. So far as I know, he does not.

Sorry, don't give a damn about the NWS issue. I am sure that pressing issue will grip the rest of the public though, so keep at it.

>>>>Hopefully, you can see the difference, but since you can't parse your own quote, maybe not.

Look at Art go!

He's a *master* of parsing the language...witness the excellent crypto-racist work he's done over on the Bolton thread.

You keep calling those "spades," Art...it's why we love you.

witness the excellent crypto-racist work

I'm honestly disappointed, Larry. Pulling the race card is beneath you.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Beneath who now?

I'm not the one lauding DPM for calling spades "spades", am I?

The Old Man has had all day to explain his-self...he's chosen not to do so.

Not choosing my words carefully is the only thing beneath me, Vitus.

Ah, I just find it sub-standard work, considering your usual contributions. Like I said, honestly disappointing, if only on aesthetic grounds.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>>>disappointing, if only on aesthetic grounds.

Noted...but I strongly disagree.

I didn't say Art is a racist because I have no way of knowing that...but there's no doubt he used crypto-racist language on a point having to with issues relating the black community, and has yet to either clarify or explain himself.

Given that the task of defending Art's woefully inept word selection has somehow fallen to you, how do you think such a thing should be handled "aesthetically"

Would you prefer we not parse the parser because the results are messy, or is there another, more gentle, characterization I should have chosen?

Do tell...and while you're at it, share with us your "aesthetic" opinion of the original phrase in question.

but there's no doubt he used crypto-racist language on a point having to with issues relating the black community, and has yet to either clarify or explain himself.

Oh, I doubt he had any intent of using that language in a racist matter.


Given that the task of defending Art's woefully inept word selection has somehow fallen to you

You misunderstand. In the first place, I don't see that Art's selection of words needs any defending. In the second place, when I said I was honestly disappointed with your choice to play the race card- twice- I meant it. I usually enjoy reading your posts.

share with us your "aesthetic" opinion of the original phrase in question.

What, "calling a spade a spade"? I think anyone who really thinks it's an inherently racist phrase, or that Art intended as a racial insult has serious issues of their own. I doubt that applies to you, though- I think you're just using it as a cheap way to score some points, like a common demagogue might. Like I say, it's honestly disappointing.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, I understand my quote quite clearly. And I understand the context of Lawrence. And most importantly, I understand the demogoguish stance you take towards it and your flawed logic.

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.

The Court said no such thing. What it did say is that people have a constitutional right to privacy regarding consensual relations, of which homosexual relations is one. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, which is a question of the state sanctioning a relationship for legal purposes, and certainly nothing to do with incest, bestiality, or pederasty, because, and I shouldn't even have to explain this, those are relations that can be showed to involve coercion or lack of consent. Polygamy is a different question, which I don't have an answer to.

Your statement was: once you allow homosexuality (or in fact fail to criminalize it) you are immediately on the slippery slope to the legalization of bigamy, bestiality and pederasty. It is not an issue of allowing homosexuality. It is an issue of finding a Constitutional right to sodomy. Those are two completely different concepts that you mischaracterized.

No, I didn't mischaracterize. You choose to portray it as a Constitutional "right" to sodomy. My "parsing" of your words suggests that you believe that it is effectively a state sanction or endorsement of such activities. This is simply untrue. Rather, the Court simply says that it is unconstitutional for laws to ban such activities amongst consenting adults who are protected by the 14th Amendment, among others. This distinction may mean little to you. Even if I took your stance, that it suggests a right to sodomy, this simply doesn't extend to other more repugnant activities for the reasons stated above. Your slippery slope has a few potholes in it, and gay marriage isn't one of them.

As for your attack on "activist" judges, as I read it, I'm not sure what your problem is. Apparently you believe that legislative processes should trump all, despite arguable unconstitutionality, or for that matter, the mercurial nature of some of our lawmakers. If you want to revise the separation of powers doctrine, you should just come out and say that, rather than argue circuitously about judges simply because you disagree with the outcome of their decisions. Based on your logic, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and segregation as the law of the land. Or do the guys in black pajamas become venerable legal experts when you agree with them? And would you suddenly start arguing about federalism if George W. Bush were suddenly John Kerry?

And the question is not whether you give a damn about the NWS issue - rather would you care if it were Hillary Rodham Clinton as the sponsor and not the great mind of Rick Santorum?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

No, I wouldn't give a damn about the NWS issue if it were Hillary's proposal either. Keep going on this issue right through 2006 though. You should get good traction with NWS obsessed electorate.

It is obvious that you simply don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and the state legislatures in the context of our constitutional democracy. I would be happy to take the time to explain this to you, but I am off to St. Anthony's. I will try again Sunday night if you are interested.

Just as a hint, the Court overturned the Texas law, and the laws of 12 other states, by finding that they violate the newly discovered constitutional right to sodomy. They have no power to overturn laws on any other basis.

Predictably, and predicted by Santorum, the MA Supreme Court took that decision and created the constitutional right to gay marriage.

More later, if you are receptive.

AJ... I see that you still have this democratic-majority rule is ultimate determining factor for defining right from wrong or even good from bad... this is not always the case.

What happen to the Bill of Rights? These are rights that can not be re-defined by majority rule.

For example... what if a law was passed that would make it illegal for Jews to marry Gentiles? (BTW, I intentionally chose that example).... would you agree to this majority-rule based removal of a right and denial of equal treatment under the laws? Based on your argument, the answer would be yes... My answer would be No. By the same token, I see other laws in the same light - specifically, the gay-marriage issue.

Joe Moya

Why don't you take the time to educate the masses, instead of taking the Brian286 route of pretending to know something and begging off when forced into a corner.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

The problem is not that it's even a majority rule issue - its not as if these issues were put to a national referendum - although the gay marriage issue was seen in various state referenda.

It's that elected officials, with somewhat unpredictable preferences can ram it through, due partially to the vagaries of gerrymandering and the impurity of the legislative process. And then it becomes a question of whether the majority, especially a narrow majority, has the right to remove protections for minority classes. Perhaps this is why the Founders were smart enough to make Constitutional amendments so difficult to pull off.

As for your example, I believe there are a few states still with miscegenation laws on their books (although I don't think your particular example would count) - and I'm quite certain there are those whackos who would argue against the Court striking these downs on the same grounds - the creation of a Constitutional "right". And apparently when the Court extends basic protections to all classes; i.e., prevention of discrimination on various grounds does it then get called "activist". Apparently only certain people (those who aren't likely to be discriminated against) are due the benefits of incumbency. But that's an outcome of extended conservatism.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Ok... so that sounds like a more "real life" observation of the current form of democracy which we have... one that is special interest driven. In which case, the arguments of representative government becomes diluted. And, when swayed toward an extreme (whether it be left or right) the idea of special interest becomes dangerous and the real threat to a society.

I buy that argument...

As for my example, the reason I used it is this... the argument of gay rights being a choice seems to echo as a basis for denying the equal treatment under the law. At last look, religion is a choice... so, if you use the argument as gay being a choice (which (btw) according to gays - it is not) then you would have to say that "IF" there were miscegenation laws as related to religious choice discrimination benchmark, then the argument of dening cross-religious marriages would be sitting in the same position as gay marriages.

If I read you correctly, then this idea fall's under your idea of "certain" people do not fall under basic protections. And, some (special interest groups?) define anyone (i.e., judges) who try an extend equal protection under the law (and, counter to the general will of the VOTING population) gets deemed as activist. In essense, the activist (in this situation) becomes the "real" constitutional definition of the greater good... with those ideas, I agree.

FWIW Joe Moya

e-PS... speaking of gerrymandering... have you looked at the Texas Congressional districting changes lately... wow... if democrats were a racial minority, this gerrymandering in Texas would fallen under a civil rights violations laws.

Yeah, pretty much. One of the right's nagging contentions is regarding what they consider the activist court, which is ironic since most of them are Republican nominees.

They're considered activist for a number of reasons, depending on who's saying it. In this context it's because of their extension of Constitutional protections to groups that at the then-present time can be discriminated against. Examples could include women, ethnic and religious minorities, the handicapped, and now potentially, gays.

What's interesting is that in the past, most cases regarding these groups revolved mostly around employment and similar types of situations. But with gays, its even more elementary than that - it's their simple right to engage in consensual relations, without disrupting or impacting others in any measurable way. I'm not up on current employment law, but my understanding is that job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still a pretty muddy area.

It comes down to a core intellectual question - what constitutes a "protected" group and why? You mentioned choice as one criteria. Perhaps there are others.

I'm not sure I agree with you when it comes to whether it conflicts with the voting population. I'm not sure that comes up, and frankly I'm not sure its reliably measurable. I think the key question here for me is whether the right is arguing about the sanctity of the process or just pissed off when the outcome doesn't go their way.

My feeling is that it is the former. The process wasn't exactly controversial for some time, and it's remained the same pretty much since the beginning of the republic. And given how sharply partisan the country has become, and you can see this from Art's posts from the election period, the process is now a problem pretty much because of the outcomes it produces. I alluded to this earlier when I talked about federalism - when conservatives disagree with the reach of the federal government, typically when Democrat control, they always talk about federalism and state's rights. But when it's a Republican administration, this ostensible core principle becomes unsurprisingly absent from the dialogue. Democrats have a problem with federalism to the extent that it's history has been deeply marred by issues of slavery and segregation - state's rights were often invoked by the Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmonds of the world when trying to justify an otherwise self-evidently repugnant public policy.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I will take this to mean that, no, you are not interested in understanding the role of the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

I guess like Joe M, you don't know what the Constitution says, never read it, but you are quite certain it protects those "rights" with which you agree, but not those "rights" that you oppose.

Life is much simpler that way.

we've had this discussion before, but...

is it your opinion that the substantive rights contained in the constitution(vs. procedural guidelines) must be validated by an act of congress that, typically, will follow popular will? supposing there was an absolutely clear violation of the constitution--say congress passed laws in accordance with constituents' wishes(most of them) saying that women could no longer vote. is it not the supreme court's role to step in and overturn that legislation even if it counters popular opinion? or would women have to convince congress to repeal the law?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Boy, now that is a tough question. Hmm, let me see:

Amendment XIX
The right of Citizens of the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Tough call, but it looks vaguely like the law you describe is in direct conflict with the Constitution, so it goes.

Saying otherwise would be as stupid as the Supreme Court's looking at the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech" and concluding that Congress can make a law abridging freedom of speech in the 60 days before an election.

Sorry, I just remembered that they actually did that, but, hopefully, you get my point anyway.

The setup of the Constitution is pretty clear. It is primarily a restriction on government. It says, for the most part, Congress can't do this and Congress can't do that.

You can take it to mean whatever you want. You will either regardless of what I actually say anyway.

For the record, I asked your for an explanation of your assertion, but apparently it was easier to just throw an ad hominem insult instead. Talk about keeping life simple.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

ok, then what if congress repealed the civil rights act as applied to women and then passed laws saying women couldn't be engineers, attorneys, or doctors. can the women challenge that law in court? what result? can the court say that's no good or does it need to defer to congress?

---

f/k/a mclamb6