Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: McArdle is astute (Score 1) 4

by smitty_one_each (#46777299) Attached to: Obamacare is Not a Single-Payer Conspiracy [Bloomberg]
McArdle is astute, combining some actual knowledge of economics (in contrast to Krugman).
However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

But we're not getting the National Health Service anytime soon.

No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration. I reckon she's wreckin'.

Comment: Re:Sorry (Score 1) 12

This is where I'm going with the argument. It's one thing to say "we cannot take any direct action now". It's quite another to lay zero foundation for any future action. As an example, we have NATO allies in the Baltics. Have we signaled anything to them other than "You are effed"?
Let's see: we've had some Navy presence in the Black Sea. I guess that's not fully nothing.

Comment: Re:Maybe if you understood the the business of war (Score 1) 12

I mean, I hold a Masters in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College, with an emphasis in the Law of Armed Conflict. I've also been around the block a little bit. I'll buy off on your "press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications" observation.
Nevertheless, the geo-strategy is as plain as the dumb on your Congressman's face: Russia is on the march, and the POTUS is in the fetal position. There is precisely shag-all going on, in a preparatory sense, to prepare any sort of response. Oh yeah: the BLM thinks it found Crimea somewhere in Nevada.

Comment: Re:Also Disturbing (Score 1) 116

by danheskett (#46771699) Attached to: Lavabit Loses Contempt Appeal

Well you are right. Thanks for that. I think that I have improperly cement Section I as the only one establishing courts because it is the one most cited in research, Section II being well settled by this point.

I was not originally suggesting the Court seek out cases or controversies, or have a police power (like in, say, France).

I do suggest that they need to actively distrust in hearings and rulings the claim that the Government will do what it says. In the case, Lavabit, the Government says matter of factly that it will not use the SSL keys to do anything to the other 400,000 customers of Lavabit's service, but that is (a) not binding and (b) not believable. It would be ideal if a Judge, hearing such a claim, pro-actively took steps to either force the Government to adhere to that (i.e. consent agree) or to in some other way hold it harmless. It is really in a way too bad that the Government can't usually be forced to post a bond. Levinson was fairly clearly concerned that the Government would overstep their authority, leaving his customers damaged and himself without recourse. This was the nature of his request to provide the data after the fact (after he could verify it was only targeted to one customer who under investigation). The Judge immediately dismissed his concern because the Government stated - in a non-binding, non-policy specific way - that they would only tap one customer.

Comment: Stevens never deserved that job. (Score 1) 1322

by jcr (#46771181) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

His antipathy towards our most important civil right, the right to self defense, shows that Stevens was never fit to be admitted to the bar at all. The second amendment doesn't need fixing, it needs ENFORCEMENT.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't for the government to grant or withhold, and the second amendment doesn't even presume to do so. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, it cites one important reason for preserving it, and forbids the government from infringing it.

-jcr

Comment: Re:Also Disturbing (Score 2) 116

by danheskett (#46770895) Attached to: Lavabit Loses Contempt Appeal

Judges should NOT start being proactive.

I suppose I should have said "in their rulings". Meaning, they should be defacto skeptical of Government claims, and defacto assume that Government shall not be trusted. Currently, they take the Government's claims at face value. I.E. the Government says they wont use any data they are not allowed to, so we trust them. They should be proactive in assuming that the Government lies.

n the US, at least, judges are - per the US constitution - reactive.

Really? Where is that? Article III establishes the Judicary, but does not in any way circumscribe the power of the Courts, or make them reactive in nature. There is nothing even suggesting that a suit must be made - only that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.

The entire concept of a reactive, ex-post facto review based Court is entirely based on statue and tradition (Marbury v. Madison et all). There is nothing inherently anti-Constitutional about, for example, the Court being given, by Congress, an ad-hoc review power of any government action. Or a pre-enactment review authority over all legislation.

At very least, allowing judges to be proactive would require a massive rewriting of laws, starting with the constitution and working your way down.

I disagree. Most of it is all stacked precedent and not black letter law.

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...