Should a 12 year old eating French fries on the Metro be a crime?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You decide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070102247.html?nav=rss_print/asection

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You really love activist judges don't you? This is an example of following a law. This only makes him more qualified because he is willing to enforce a law that he doesn't agree with.

How do you feel about the following SCOTUS rulings?

1. Dred Scott
2. Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific
3. Bush vs. Gore

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Dred Scott - Horrendous activist decision that badly hurt America
2. Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific - Your piss and moan case. I could care less.
3. Bush vs. Gore - A case unnecessary at the time that really only assured Bush became President a month earlier.

2. So you don't care about some conservative activist rulings?
3. Say what?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I could care less about your pet case.

If the recounts were not ended, the electors would never have been appointed which would result in Gore receiving 267 EVs and Bush 244 EVs. Without a majority, the House would elect Bush President a month later in early January.

Actually, Florida was the first state to appoint its electors, long before the recount ended. Funny how Jeb Bush certifying a too close to call election while Pataki took his time cerifying Gore's 1.75 million vote margin of victory in NY.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How do you feel about the following SCOTUS rulings?

1. Dred Scott
2. Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific
3. Bush vs. Gore

1. A clearly baseless and horrid decision, and one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court.
2. ''
3. The equal protection portion was correct; the ruling that there was no remedy was dubious.

At least you recognize that #2 is a conservative activist ruling. However, you seem to have bought into the equal protection bullsh**t that isn't really explained with Bush vs. Gore.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is it really worth filibustering a nominee for this?

Please God, let Harry Reid's answer be yes. 

Can you say 65 Republican Senators in '06?  I knew you could.

Please name 10 vulnerable Democratic seats.

If they blow their capital on stuff like this, all sorts of possibilities open up.

Plus, it is called comedic exaggeration.

But Bush can blow his capital on crazy right-wing SCOTUS appointees specifically timed to distract people from the Rove scandal. Double standard alert.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is it really worth filibustering a nominee for this?

Please God, let Harry Reid's answer be yes. 

Can you say 65 Republican Senators in '06?  I knew you could.

Please name 10 vulnerable Democratic seats.

If they blow their capital on stuff like this, all sorts of possibilities open up.

Plus, it is called comedic exaggeration.

But Bush can blow his capital on crazy right-wing SCOTUS appointees specifically timed to distract people from the Rove scandal. Double standard alert.

If it were a right-wing nutjob, you might have a point.

Though the timing is defiitely meant to push Rove out of the news cyle.  That does not take any capital though.

Well, I suppose you wouldn't agree that he's a nutjob, but in his short record he does have some rather extreme opinions. It obviously doesn't hellp my opinion of the situation that this plus all of the rumors placed (we need to start using the word placed instead of leaked) sucked out of the media coverage. The mainstream media can't cover more than 1 story at the same time. They seem rather feeble minded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source.

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

Well, I'm just saying that when you say 'somewhere' is your source, it's not a good argument. Doesn't mean your source isn't really credible, but I could say I heard something 'somewhere' and really be making things up.

Do I really have to find it, just to prove that  yet again, my arguments are more factual than most people's on this board?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, jfern, how do you propose we deal with law-breakers?

Obviously the death penalty for possession of a french fry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From the Federalist Society mission statement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roberts is about as anti-activist as you can get, as demonstrated by this case.  He is exactly what we need.  jfern's opposition just proves that his recent anti-activist rhetoric was disingenuous; he labels judges "activist" when he disagrees with them.

No, basically alll judges are activist. I'm sick of hearing that only liberal judges are activist.