random comments, random questions and thread titles made for Google

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

I've never claimed I'm smarter or better than the judges, I'm simply giving my views on what I think is badly wrong in the US of A.

Please calm down.

You continue to interject yourself into a space which tends to be a little serious.

If you want to work hard we will work with you. If you don't we have more important things to do.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by jasong

When you interpret the law, it is best to try to invoke the mindset of the original people that passed the law.

That's not universally accepted by any means. I might have a slightly favorable view of originalism but I'm not a lawyer -- presumably they have a better idea of what the advantages and disadvantages of different theories of judicial interpretation (of which this is just one).

Originally Posted by jasong

That's another huge problem, judges "interpreting" the law in a way that suits them, rather than indirectly respecting the will of the people by invoking the attitude of the original writer of the law when deciding a case.

I think that by most standards you would be said to be interpreting the law in a way that suits you.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I have no interest in law. My judicial philosophy boils down to "the best government is that which governs least".

[kladner]

Originally Posted by jasong

Can we at least agree that if people are going to make fun, they should refrain from posting?

We cannot agree to any such thing. If one posts risible comments, one cannot be completely surprised if the result is derision from others.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

... but I'm not a lawyer.

I love lawyers. They are artists of language.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

That's not universally accepted by any means.

That's where most of this disagreement lies. If we're not going to respect the idea of written law, we shouldn't call ourselves a republic. And, as for the idea of written law being important for a republic, that's the most important reason The Founding Fathers NAMED us a republic. The definition may have changed recently, but when the constitution was written, that was the important aspect of it, the written law aspect.

I think that by most standards you would be said to be interpreting the law in a way that suits you.

The only prejudice I've applied to the law is the idea that the law should be more powerful than anything but a repeal. When I was actively doing my research a decade or more ago, I was SPECIFICALLY looking for a proof that I was wrong. Which I didn't find.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I have no interest in law. My judicial philosophy boils down to "the best government is that which governs least".

TEchnically, that's an anarchy, but I believe I understand your intended meaning and agree with it. :)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by jasong

And, as for the idea of written law being important for a republic, that's the most important reason The Founding Fathers NAMED us a republic.

Nope the name is just "The United States of America". http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...tes-of-america
The Constitution gives the name as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Etymology

[jasong]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

That's not universally accepted by any means. I might have a slightly favorable view of originalism but I'm not a lawyer -- presumably they have a better idea of what the advantages and disadvantages of different theories of judicial interpretation (of which this is just one).



I think that by most standards you would be said to be interpreting the law in a way that suits you.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I have no interest in law. My judicial philosophy boils down to "the best government is that which governs least".

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Nope the name is just "The United States of America". http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...tes-of-america
The Constitution gives the name as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Etymology

Okay, I think even an autistic person would flame you for thinking this makes sense as a comeback. I really hope you don't speak English as a first language, because, otherwise, OMG.

The US is named a republic in the same sense that I am named a human being. Simple logic, I didn't say anything about a proper name. (that's for the foreign speakers)

Edit:Maybe, rather than name, I should've said "chose," but they both make sense grammatically. Example:The Affordable Care Act named the US as a nation that supports(ed?) government-based health care.

[jasong]

Okay, back to the semi-random stuff.

Here's a fun question that's probably gotten some play on the internet. I'll google it after I write it, but I think you guys might find it interesting to think about.

Let's say someone gave a lot back to the world with their life, like Einstein, or Marie Curie. If you clone them and try to put them on a similar path to their twin, how well would that generally work, in your opinion? Is there an appreciable chance that things will go badly, like if Einstein 2 wanted to go into a radically different occupation than what the people who cloned him wanted? Could simple statistics make this sort of thing a good idea, in other words, clone Einstein and then simply encourage him to do what he loves?

And, then, of course, there's the moral aspect, how people would feel about having to compete with extra Einsteins and Curie's. Or what if someone wanted to prove that Adolf Hitler wasn't programmed to be evil from birth...All sorts of questions to be asked in regards to this.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by jasong

Okay, I think even an autistic person would flame you for thinking this makes sense as a comeback. I really hope you don't speak English as a first language, because, otherwise, OMG.

The US is named a republic in the same sense that I am named a human being. Simple logic, I didn't say anything about a proper name. (that's for the foreign speakers)

Edit:Maybe, rather than name, I should've said "chose," but they both make sense grammatically. Example:The Affordable Care Act named the US as a nation that supports(ed?) government-based health care.

as someone with an autism spectrum disorder ( according to doctors at least) I know this doesn't cover us all.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

as someone with an autism spectrum disorder ( according to doctors at least) I know this doesn't cover us all.

I apologize if I offended any autistic people, I get mental emergency red lights when I come back to some of these threads.

You fight with someone enough, they start expecting it. With the possible exception of Brian-E, there aren't any "enemies" on here I'd feel safe arguing with in public. (my memory is bad, sorry if there are other people that deserve to be named)

[S485122]

Originally Posted by jasong

...
If you clone them and try to put them on a similar path to their twin, how well would that generally work, in your opinion?
...

This would work only if heredity is all that determines a being. But even for the most simple organisms the environment has a role to play.
I find it irritating how, now that it is possible to analyse DNA, there is a tendency to explain everything by DNA and by DNA only. DNA is now used everywhere for instance : "it is in the DNA of the company, association, or even activity". It is also a very deterministic view of existence.

Jacob