The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Raiders is great. Indy is great. But that scene is the opposite of what a hero does.

And yet, it's an iconic scene at this point.

Also, Indiana Jones, much like Star Wars, is clearly ripped from early Hollywood serials.

Even further, Raiders was made in 1980 or thereabouts. It's at least 30 years old at this point. I wouldn't exactly call it modern.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

What do you want him to do? Negotiate?

The Classic Hero does all sorts of things that aren't practical, doubly so because the bad guy always picks the expedient route. One of the signals of heroism is not taking the easy (sometimes even smart) way. He upholds values even when they don't make practical sense. Which is why he's a hero, not just a fixer.

A partial list of rules:

1. Never shoot the bad guy in the back.
2. Always give the bad guy a fair fight. If he has a knife, you drop your gun. (Of course, he probably immediately pulls a gun. That's why he's a bad guy.)
3. Always respond proportionately. If a hero is insulted he slaps the bad guy. If the bad guy is insulted he pulls a gun.
4. Never abuse a woman or a child.
5. Always give the headstrong youth or the drunken fool a way out without violence.

The move towards realism and anti-heroes had some good points, but it also reflected the hardening of the culture and the transition of America's self-image from isolationist garden to imperial power. We found reasons to justify expediency and excuse ourselves from "the quaint notions" of romantic heroism. So we wound up with "24," both on TV and in real life.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Boring case handed out today dealing with bankruptcy and the tax code. But the 5-4 split was interesting. It was the conservative wing plus Sotomeyer in the majority; Kennedy joined the remainder of the liberal wing in dissent.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Whoops. Our bad.

But it's not like anyone died...oh wait...

 

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Boring case handed out today dealing with bankruptcy and the tax code. But the 5-4 split was interesting. It was the conservative wing plus Sotomeyer in the majority; Kennedy joined the remainder of the liberal wing in dissent.

Wait. I didn't think it was possible for anyone appointed by Obama to agree with a conservative? Isn't that the whole point of electing a socialist dictator like we did? So that no one can ever disagree with him again?

Whoops. Our bad.

But it's not like anyone died...oh wait...

Let's see. We have to start the refutation of this article with the fact that it's a commie Brit paper, so obviously everything in it is a liberal commie lie. Second, even if this guy turns out not to have killed that woman, he's surely guilty of something else, why else would he have known a criminal. Third, this is only one case out of history. And obviously, the fact that no one has been PROVEN innocent means no one was innocent. Because the jury never makes a mistake the first time. And finally, in that picture, he looks to me like he's up to no good. Nope, I'm sure that not only did he deserve to die, but he proves the righteousness of the system.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Whoops. Our bad.

But it's not like anyone died...oh wait...

A couple of points:
1) Without the death penalty, this case probably doesn't get much if any publicity, is never looked into by anyone, and the innocent man winds up living for 50+ years in prison - still not a good outcome by any stretch of the imagination.
2) Rather than use this to ***** about executing the wrong guy, I would say there's a larger lesson here: shoddy police work + incompetent defense attorneys = lots of potentially awful outcomes in our justice system (to go along with the well known variety of the likely-to-be-guilty walking free on technicalities).

Let's say you are innocent of a horrible crime and know it to be true, but you look exactly like whoever carried it out and have no alibi. What do you do? Plead not guilty and hope your mediocre defense attorney can shoot enough holes in the prosecution's case to be found not guilty? Or do you recognize you're ****ed from the get-go and plea bargain down to 10 years in prison on a lesser charge?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Extensive write-up in The New Yorker with background about the Citizens United decision by Jeffrey Toobin.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Extensive write-up in The New Yorker with background about the Citizens United decision by Jeffrey Toobin.

Lots of good information, but that guy writes like a sophomore sportswriter.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/federal-judge-gets-drop-on-tombstone/

The feds deny water to Tombstone, Arizona, which must now rely on arsenic-laced wells. 130 years of water rights out the window. Thanks again to our Kenyan king. Imagine you're protecting the wilderness, rather than protecting the populace.

A more detailed article from CNN, prior to the judge's decision:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/tombstone-water-fight/index.html

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/federal-judge-gets-drop-on-tombstone/

The feds deny water to Tombstone, Arizona, which must now rely on arsenic-laced wells. 130 years of water rights out the window. Thanks again to our Kenyan king. Imagine you're protecting the wilderness, rather than protecting the populace.

A more detailed article from CNN, prior to the judge's decision:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/tombstone-water-fight/index.html

Move out of the desert.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Move out of the desert.

Wow, even you can't come up with a defense for Obama on this one!

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wow, even you can't come up with a defense for Obama on this one!

Didn't read the story. Have no idea what the details are. However, as the Colorado River dries up (and it IS drying up - doesn't even make it to the ocean anymore) the people of Arizona and Nevada are going to find that there is less and less water available for them. The lion's share of water is going to go to LA and the San Fernando Valley.

So I say again, move out of the desert.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why do you think we're keeping the Michigan Militia around? We fully intend on shooting anyone from out West that suggests taking from the Great Lakes to water their farking lawns in a desert.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Didn't read the story. Have no idea what the details are. However, as the Colorado River dries up (and it IS drying up - doesn't even make it to the ocean anymore) the people of Arizona and Nevada are going to find that there is less and less water available for them. The lion's share of water is going to go to LA and the San Fernando Valley.

So I say again, move out of the desert.

The Colorado River has zero relationship to the water supply for Tombstone, which comes from the Huachuca Mountains, not that far from our southern border.

Maybe Obama is saving the water for the illegals?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The Colorado River has zero relationship to the water supply for Tombstone.

I think Sam Kinison once told people in Africa to move to food. Same reasoning applies here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think Sam Kinison once told people in Africa to move to food. Same reasoning applies here.

Arizona is not in Africa.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Maybe Obama is saving the water for the illegals?

Obviously.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Obviously.

What's wrong? You normally defend Obama regardless of the situation. Come on, give me a good excuse why those Johnny-come-latelies, the Forest Service, can deny water supplies that have been relied on for 130 years by a town of less than 2,000 people, forcing them to access wells laced with arsenic.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

What's wrong? You normally defend Obama regardless of the situation. Come on, give me a good excuse why those Johnny-come-latelies, the Forest Service, can deny water supplies that have been relied on for 130 years by a town of less than 2,000 people, forcing them to access wells laced with arsenic.

You already told us: The "Kenyan King" is stealing the water for illegal aliens. Probably Marxist Muslins from Kenya. It has absolutely nothing to do with the town of Tombstone attempting to use the "emergency" to get a new water system.

In court papers, lawyers for the federal government say there's no emergency. Instead, they contend, Tombstone is using the fire's aftermath as an excuse to "upgrade and improve" its water system.

No, he's setting it aside for illegals.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/federal-judge-gets-drop-on-tombstone/

The feds deny water to Tombstone, Arizona, which must now rely on arsenic-laced wells. 130 years of water rights out the window. Thanks again to our Kenyan king. Imagine you're protecting the wilderness, rather than protecting the populace.

A more detailed article from CNN, prior to the judge's decision:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/tombstone-water-fight/index.html

First off, World News Daily? Seriously? That's like Kepler quoting The Nation or something.

Also, gotta love a newspaper that quotes solely the briefs and press-releases of a think-tank institute rather than, I don't know, the actual judicial opinion.

"Defendants have attempted to accommodate plaintiff's requests to repair water structures, have consistently encouraged plaintiffs to submit site specific information with details as to the work that needs to be performed and the equipment needed such that defendants could properly assess any impacts in the wilderness, and defendants have been receptive to plaintiff's requests and have changed certain requirements after considering plaintiff's concerns...
...it appears that plaintiff's water from the Huachuca Mountains has been substantially restored, plaintiff currently has access to sufficient and safe water between its wells and the Huachuca water, and that plaintiff's claims of a drastic water emergency related to public consumption and fire needs are overstated and speculative."