Rush said he was going to talk to DeLay about his statement. Presumably, if DeLay had a reasonable explanation for his position, Limbaugh would have passed it along and leapt to DeLay’s defense. Since he hasn’t, I think Limbaugh’s silence means we must take DeLay’s statement at face value.
Which makes DeLay an idiot.
In case you haven’t noticed, there are several posters who have a serious deficiency in the ability to use inductive reasoning. You may note that I’ve used that phrase frequently in the last couple of days. It’s because I’ve finally figured out what the problem was with these idiots. I had thought that they were being intentionally obtuse. But I’ve recently decided they’re really that stupid.
I understand this as a good definition of what the Court sees as its responsibility regarding matters of fact (as opposed to matters of law; I realized that phrase was not clear), but quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – if the Court decides to take judicial recognition of matters of fact that did not come out in the first-instance trial but which are relevant to the case, who’s to stop them from doing it?
Do you consider a *amicus curiae * brief to be out of line then?
Yeah, you’re right. The most logical explanation is that DeLay doesn’t think judges should use the internet. And since Rush didn’t defend him, there is simply no other explanation other than that DeLay is an idiot. QED. :rolleyes:
Well, DeLay himself in his clarifying comments doesn’t offer much clarification: he either ignores the whole bit about the Internet, or he claims (dubiously, IMO) that we was talking about looking up international law on the Internet.
And Rush said that he found the Internet comment confusing and that he’d come back the next day with an explanation of that comment. I’m not (surprising though it may be) a rabid Rush-listener, but on the few occasions I’ve tuned in, I seem to recall his giving updates on previous stories; doesn’t he do that routinely? If so, his apparent failure to update this story provides at least a suggestion that he was unable to find a compelling explanation of the Internet comment.
If DeLay is now pretending he didn’t say the bit about the Internet, that suggests to me that he realizes it was a pretty dumb thing to say. If DeLay is claiming that he was talking about looking up international law on the internet, then he’s compounding his error: while there’s arguably something wrong with referring to international law in SC decisions, the offense is not made worse if the law is looked up online as opposed to being researched in paper format.
Me, I suspect that he’s realized it was a dumb thing to say. I wouldn’t call the man an idiot–I think he’s way too clever a weasel for that–but in this case, he said an idiotic thing.
(Of course, it’s not something important–just something that I found to be amusing in its dumbness).
Daniel
Careful, you’re starting to sound like Dewey when he goes into his judicial-overreach mode. As a matter of constitutional law, there is nothing in the world to stop the Supreme Court from dong anything it wants except for Congress’ power to impeach and remove the justices. But I ain’t worried about it.
It must be contagious! 
Thanks for the caution. I trust the practitioners of true judicial self-restraint on the Court to do the right thing. Regardless of what DeLay or Howard Dean may think about it.
I’m curious… does the “SDSAB” under manhattan’s name imply some sort of association with the Straight Dope? The Advisory Board? Because, seriously, from his actions on this thread I’d more expect to see the good old “BANNED” tag than find out that anyone with any official capacity here would affiliate themselves with anything he is saying. Pit or no Pit, his behavior is atrocious, and he doesn’t sound particularly bright either.
Manhattan was a moderator here for quite a while. And yes, he was outspoken, not to mention controversial, then too. He bowed out of the gig after an honorable tenure, so the tag under his name is a courtesy for all the time, sweat and effort he put in.
Veb
He used to have some interesting posts, but in the last year or so he has deteriorated into hyper-aggressive “Bullshit!” “Liar!” drivel with little or no real content.
So he’s off his medication, or needs some. Gotchya.
Either way, if I were the Dopesters I’d be yanking that tag right out from under his name. I haven’t seen anything yet that would give a reason to ban him, but he’s not at all portraying the kind of behavior that Straight Dope Advisory Board staff should be exhibiting.
Fortunately, the “dopesters,” nor you, have an actual voice in the matter. Those decisions are made by the by the staff of the message board in consultation with the owner/operator of the message boards—the Chicago Reader. You, on the other hand appear to have some personal axe you wish to grind; manhattan’s comments in this thread are no more quarrelsome than those of many others.
In the interests of full dislclosure, the same appellation—SDSAB— should be under my user name. It is not there due to some bug in the subscription process, but my status here is fully equivalent with manhattan’s.
Yes, that’s true in more than one way.
And I proudly agree.
Dick.
We don’t normally sign posts with our real names here, but if you want to get into the habit, that’s fine, Dick. Why not add a “Regards” too, while you’re at it?
Regards. Dick.
Oh, I dunno, I think Unc’s got it all over Manny when it comes to cute and cuddly. Besides, Unc’s just a curmudgeon, and Manny’s a misanthrope.
To be fair, Unc’s also a hypocrite: he questioned my integrity for not spending 20 minutes researching his cite (suggesting that if I actually cared about the issue enough to post so much about it I’d do that much research), but when called on this, he refused to do 20 minutes of research on his own cite in order to back up his attacks on my integrity. Whatever else I’ve seen from manny in this thread, I don’t recall any hypocrisy from him.
Daniel
And what makes you believe I didn’t search the SCOTUS site for that transcript? Besides, it was you who suggested the idea that it would be fruitless. So you look kinda silly now calling me a hypocrite for assuming I didn’t do something you weren’t willing to do either. And how the hell did it become my responsibilty to search out an answer to your question? It’s like asking the librarian to write your term paper after she digs the resaerch titles out of the stacks for you.
Dick.