tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632928765983902491.post7034893006758449763..comments2023-05-31T08:13:57.522-06:00Comments on The Ultimate Answer to Kings: Photographic proof! Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer associates with Reds! Old ones! In funny hats!Joelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03442354270552212335noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632928765983902491.post-83772748940112878972010-12-17T17:33:01.350-07:002010-12-17T17:33:01.350-07:00Breyer is still going to go to hell, Cardinal or n...Breyer is still going to go to hell, Cardinal or no Cardinal saying prayers over him.Pat H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18297461069687246149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632928765983902491.post-47933148741526963152010-12-16T07:45:28.116-07:002010-12-16T07:45:28.116-07:00I once had a lawyer (and co-blogger at a pretty we...I once had a lawyer (and co-blogger at a pretty well known blog) try to tell me with a straight face that the Ninth Amendment wasn't meant to mean anything, more or less.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780425923108876647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632928765983902491.post-69213110333088602142010-12-15T12:44:14.265-07:002010-12-15T12:44:14.265-07:00Nicely said as usual, Joel.
I'd also add this...Nicely said as usual, Joel.<br /><br />I'd also add this observation: even if you entertain the notion that Breyer was right on Madison's being more concerned with passage of his pet project than with a principled defense of a natural right...what does that tell us?<br /><br />Seems to me that it tells us that he, as a politician, <i>knew</i> that nobody would support nationalizing the armed public (whether out of defense of the individual or the states, no difference), and so had to toss a specific bone in there to convince people that this would not be tolerated. <i>He knew the public was against it, so much so that he had to include a specific prohibition in order to get the deal passed.</i><br /><br />"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," indeed. A politician knowing full well that an idea is both wrong and that nobody wants to see it happen, and nonetheless engineering a loophole so as to placate the public without ever intending to honor the agreement? Oh, my poor over-used shocked face...<br /><br />And speaking of common themes, how about that appointed government official, using his position and celebrity to lecture the peasantry about inexplicably implausible revisions of history, always and ever serving the singular goal of defending and aggrandizing the government which subsidized him?<br /><br />Seriously, just what do they teach people in law school about "conflict of interest" these days?Kevin Wilmethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18368887768008126052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632928765983902491.post-5133713063379982692010-12-15T10:49:38.051-07:002010-12-15T10:49:38.051-07:00I'd have to find it, but someone also commente...I'd have to find it, but someone also commented on the fact that Madison's comments post-dated the ratification of the Constitution, and pre-dated the Amendments.<br /><br />I'm not qualified from a legal standpoint, but time lines are pretty definitive...sueknoreply@blogger.com