I'm not surprised. Alito always struck me as the one most likely to be willing to legislate morality from the bench. No libertarian, that guy.
Did you just call Samuel Alito a bugfucker?
Did you just call Samuel Alito a bugfucker?
All I meant is that it would be irresponsible not to speculate about the existence of a film of such activities.
I haven't spent any time on the issue, but I found Alito's opinion">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZD.html">opinion pretty persuasive. Except where he invokes National Hunting Day and quotes the proclamations. Come on.
Is there a subset of furries that dress up as bugs? If so, can they please be called "crunchies"?
Reading that dissent reminds me of two things: that legal writing, even what I have to assume is good-if-not-great legal writing, is pretty yucky (not that the writing coming out of my discipline is any better, mind you); and that it's often hard to discern much about a judge from a single opinion (this point is probably generalizable to the hazards of using limited samples of just about any kind of data).
From the dissent: "Virtually all state laws prohibiting animal cruelty either expressly define the term "animal" to exclude wildlife or else specifically exempt lawful hunting activities".
Buh? Why would anyone take the first approach? I can understand wanting to allow people to, say, shoot deer with shotguns, but surely even hunters don't think it should be legal to, say, tie them down and skin them alive. (It would also be consistent to make shooting domestic pets with a shotgun illegal for reasons other than that it is cruel to animals, because really, it's not like the difference between deer and dogs is that the former don't mind getting shot.)
shoot deer with shotguns
My reflexive thought to this was, no, people shoot deer with rifles, right? But then my mind went, no, duh, self, it's called buck shot. But then, isn't it both? And why the difference if so?
Yes, and you use grapeshot to shoot grapes.
However, it seems that a shotgun designed to shoot slugs is an inexpensive way to outfit a new hunter for deer season.
A shotgun seems like overkill for slugs. Unless they're really fearsomely enormous slugs.
I would think that slugs and deer would demand entirely different hunting techniques.
Pwn'd, but at least my pwn'd post seems plausibly like a continuation of the conversation.
Actually, I've heard tell of crotchedy property owners who shoot trespassers with shotguns packed with rock salt, which purportedly stings but generally not in a fatal way. While probably still overkill for your average slug, I could see that being an effective slug-murdering technique.
Anything worth killing is worth overkilling.
Spring is in the air, flowers are blooming, and a young man's thoughts inevitably turn to discussions about Samuel Alito and bugfucking. So here I am.
Unless they're really fearsomely enormous slugs.
We have those out here, but only a good shot with a powerful gun should ever try to shoot one. They're a lot more dangerous if you just injure them and make them angry.
I think this opinion issued this morning lets you learn plenty about the judge.
During law school, I interned for a judge, and wrote a draft opinion in a case about whether rats, mice, and birds were "animals" within the meaning of the lab animal protection statute. As I recall, the judge ruled against the government's Chevron argument, and that doesn't happen much. Reversed on other grounds on appeal.
26 -- Reversed for lack of standing.
I don't remember who MAE is. Boo, but oh well.
Where's a Giant Mutant Cockroach when you need one?
Where's a Giant Mutant Cockroach when you need one?
Lately he's been spending the night at Alito's place, and some days he doesn't come home at all.
32: I dunno. Ask Alito, he's the bug specialist.
Where's a Giant Mutant Cockroach when you need one?
HE'S MY ALTER EGO!
NO, THAT'S A DUNG BEETLE, YOU ILLITERATE.
NABOKOV GETS IT EXACTLY RIGHT.
Quick! Somebody get an apple! I know just what to do!
37: I CAN'T READ YOU! LA LA LA!
39: What kind? A MacBook? An iPod? An iPad?
HOW COME NOBODY EVER TELLS ME HOW FUNNY I AM?
They charge when wounded.
Just like lawyers.
Tip your servers.
Speaking of shows that are on public radio, does anyone have any opinions about "The Splendid Table"?
They're doing a trial run on the Austin station, and we're supposed to vote "spatulas up" or "spatulas down" as to whether it gets a regular slot. I simply cannot bear to listen to the unctious sounds of Lynne Rossetto Kaspar's voice for more than a minute or two (although I like her cookbooks fine), and so want to vote no to keep them off my radio. But I feel guilty about that somehow and will probably just not vote and then make sure I never ever listen to the radio between 11 and noon on Sundays.
we're supposed to vote "spatulas up" or "spatulas down"
This is confusing. Spatulas down, presumably taking the proxy for "Nay" here, could plausibly be an "Aye" vote, if you think about it. After all, when one's spatula is down, one is preparing something without incident; things are copacetic.
An up-spatula, on the other hand, could indicate a moment of pause: confusion, a mistake, frustration perhaps.
Therefore, I vote simply spatula, as they deserve confusion pie for the confusing ingredients they've thrown in the damn thing.
"taking the proxy"? That can't be right. Who am I, and what have I done with my English?
49: What is the sound of one spatula?
Hey, OPINIONATED ILLITERATE, didn't I meet you last week? You know, at the Tea Party?
we're supposed to vote "spatulas up" or "spatulas down"
I read this, and started a whole comment about hey, they're doing that here, too! I erased it.
Your fathers didn't say "En Bee Dee"? Mine certainly did, and how.
On "The Splendid Table," I dunno. Last week I endured in the background an entire radio conversation about how to prepare possum (I think). I'd do without that show, but I gather the callers find it of value.
an entire radio conversation about how to prepare possum (I think)
If you can't tell what animal a particular piece of roadkill was originally, I'd advise against cooking it.
58: (because once it's been pulverized by traffic that much, it's really best served tartare).
48: Spatula upside the head!
If you're a foodie it's probably worth developing a tolerance for the voice. I'm whatever the opposite of a foodie is (a poopie? a barfie?), but I've managed to enjoy the occasional bit of an episode, though I have to switch stations when they try stuff as the quasi-sexual grunts of appreciation make me homicidal.
you eat poop?
All wage labor is coprophagy.
I hate to bring this thread off-topic, but in a concurrence in this decision I think I read somewhere that Roberts wrote something about "balancing the harm to society against the harm of restricting speech" being a terrible way to decide what narrow exceptions to allow for the 1st amendment, specifically in response to Kagan's argument. And in that same somewhere, I read a bunch of people arguing about whether the exception for child porn uses that rationale. But I think a much better comparison would be obscenity laws.
So, how are obscenity laws justified by the SC?
To be smut it must be utterly without redeeming social importance.
But that's exactly the position that Roberts excoriates in his concurrence. Is he at odds with the established law on this one?
If she isn't established law I really don't know what is.
From Kagan's brief:
To determine whether a certain class of speech enjoys First Amendment protection, this Court has preformed a categorical balancing analysis, comparing the expressive value of the speech with its societal costs. Where the First Amendment value of the speech is "clearly outweighed" by its societal costs, the speech may be prohibited based on its content.
From Roberts' opinion:
As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document "prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure."
Later in his opinion, Roberts says how that reasoning doesn't apply to child porn, but it those distinctions don't justify the prohibition of obscene content in general. So there must be some other reasoning, right? Or not?
From Lehrer's song:
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Roberts' opinion isn't a concurrence, it's the court ruling. I'm not sure I understand the question.
I assumed "NBD" meant "Nota bene, Diane" for a while, but eventually figured it out.
We're recording tonight, so we have to leave this comment out of it.
63: It does? I am confused. I think I will eat poop.
I assumed "NBD" meant "Nota bene, Diane" for a while, but eventually figured it out.
I still haven't figured that out. Help?
78. So did I, but I'd prefer it to mean National Bank of Dubai, because a link to the SCOTUS from that would be fun.
So I didn't get something completely obvious. BFD.