slothrop

ok, what are the logical holes in the argument? You would have to attack his assumptions - which one?

Interested in people's take on this: Logical analysis of climate change and what to do

Coach, we need to incorporate some deeper passes. can we work on that this week? Our longest pass play was to TE Greg Harris for 13.5 yards (and he almost scored). BTW, Tyrone is now level two.

Best show ever (except for Lost and Battlestar Gallactica). This show helped define my generation. I remember my freshman year at Syracuse watching this show with about twenty co-eds. That night ended very nicely.

He is - it was in the book "Bad Twin" (which sucked). Also, I believe it was on the Hanso web page (not sure if it is still up.) It is my memory from teh web site that there seemed to be a split among the Dharma founders, board members or something.

true, thanks for the clarification - but there has to be some kind of award for this.

What the hell - - "damn drill is busted! - Honey! Git me my gun." F-ing square states - we should have let them win the damn civil war.

Widmore was a major funder of the Hanso Foundation which created the Dharma initiative.

that is great

ugh, did you even watch the video? Your crap is about as tiresome as the crackpots in the video.

I just saw this . It is an interview done by some Ron Paul crackpot with another crackpot. Now, don't get me wrong - I am not supporting McCain. However, it seems Paul's supporter tried to "swiftboat" McCain. I hated it when this was done to Kerry and now someone tried it with McCain.

BEST EVER!!!!!

ugh! the dumbing down of the USA continues. What was that old saying on PPP, oh yeah, Hotpocket nation. Same folks who thinks Obama hates America because he has an edgy minister.

ok, this thread started with someone thinking the Supreme Court had made a decision. I merely stated that this was only oral argument. I then explained how each justice, regardless of their ideological bent, was going to justify their decision legally (either through strict, intermediate, or rational scrutiny). Then I explained that the Court is split and Kennedy will be the deciding factor. That being said, what is your question to me? Politically (not legally) do I think the DC law is a good law? Yes, I do for several reasons, and not just because of the "guns = bad" sound bite. I also think it gives prosecutors another hammer to get bad guys for violent crimes. Legally, do I think the law passes Constitutional muster? I don't know. This is a case of first impression. This Court will be the first to decide what level of Constitutional Scrutiny is to be applied to laws such as the D.C. law (and laws in other states that are similar). If Kennedy agrees strict scrutiny is to be applied the law will be struck down. What will be legally interesting is if the four conservatives find that strict scrutiny should be applied and the four liberals find that rational scrutiny is to be applied (which would function to uphold the law) and the Kennedy concurs in the result but dissents in the rationale and thinks that intermediate scrutiny should be applied. Then we will get an answer on this particular case, but there will not be a Constitutional resolution as to how the laws in the other states will be handled because there is not a majority on how the Court will analyze the issue. If this happens this case will be studied for years in law schools. P.S. I can't think of another survivalist name to call you - so I am not too clever. Maybe Eric Rudolph?

Listen Grizzly Adams, I said the liberal block will VOTE to uphold the law. There are only four members of that block, which is not enough to constitute a majority of the Court. I ALSO said the conservative block will VOTE to strike the DC law. Does that make me a conservative with your logic? It comes down to which block Kennedy sides with. Thats my point. What don't you get?

Yeah, that made it all the better. I wonder what his teammates said after seeing this in the film room during the week?

Ok Davey Crocket, take off your furry hat and read every word this time: I said that the "liberal block" of Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and stevens will vote to uphold the DC Law. That part you got. I ALSO said the conservative block of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will vote to strike the D.C. law. That leaves Kennedy as the "swing vote." This is not taking a position. This is analyzing the makeup of the Court and my analysis (and most experts agree) is Kennedy will decide this case. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE WILL FALL ON THIS ISSUE.

Thanks for saying I am at the forefront of ruining this country. I thought we were a country of laws, and like it or not, lawyers are the vessel for that system. Maybe you are right and everyone should own a gun, get rid of the lawyers and let us shoot each other to resolve disputes like in other countries. That sounds great! By the way, you don't read do you. I never, until the above paragraph, took a stance on this issue in this thread. I merely wrote how the Court will be approaching this issue and what will be the basis of their decision:

I did not "brag about being a lawyer". Darin said that I should know better because he knows I am a lawyer. I also had some knowledge to bring to the issue. Sorry for insulting you - your point was just not analogous. My point about speech was just made to explain the way the Court is analyzing the issue, not on how they should come out on the issue. It comes down to Justice Kennedy and how he will rule. It will be interesting and I can't wait to read the decision.

Easy, William Burroughs

I am done trying to argue law with zealots. I just told you the issues. Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like. I quoted the one above because it made me chuckle. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?" The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

ugh! ok, I am a lawyer and am not going to give a Constitutional Law lecture. However, take speech for example. The government can restrict speech - but their ability to do so depends on what type of speech they are restricting, how narrowly tailored the restriction is, and how important the state interest is. This is what is called strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny (other lawyers may use different terms). For example, political speech receives strict scrutiny - the state must have a compelling interest to achieve a necessary end. Most restrictions fail under strict scrutiny. However, business speech (i.e. advertisements) receives rational scrutiny, meaning a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most restrictions are upheld under rational scrutiny. The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance. To answer your question - your rights are never absolute. Thus the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

Where, oh where, are the conservative champions of State rights? I guess when the NRA and Bush are parties to a case the conservative block cares about individual rights.