My gosh. If I understand you, you’re saying that an accurate paraphrase of the quote would be:
“Judges shouldn’t use the Internet for research–that a Supreme Court Justice is doing so is incredibly outrageous.”
Is that correct?
Daniel
Oh, please. You know which forum is which and why. If you actually wanted to know what he said you’d have opened a GQ thread. But you didn’t. You opened a Pit thread with a title which you knew to be false, only to blow it off when called on it.
I repeat. You are an intentional and malicious spreader of ignorance.
So is it your belief that “the internet” doesn’t containt any valid sources for legal research?
Okay, whatever, Manny. You win; I lose; you’re right; I’m wrong. I’m the motherfucking AntiCecil. Will you shut up now, given that you’ve got nothing interesting to say even after being prompted several times?
Now to people with something interesting to say. Seriously, I’d like to see if anyone can dig up Kennedy’s original comment: I think we gotta see that before deciding whether Delay’s comment is as pitworthy as it initially appears to be.
Daniel
Nor do I. However, looking at it from a idiot’s (i/e Delay’s)point of view, “internet” can, and in this case I think was, be used as a catch all for crap, electronic information. I’m assuming Delay wasn’t being too careful about his word selection when speaking to Fox News Radio, so it is at least feasible that he meant to exclude legitimate legal research tools from the term “internet”.
Actually, the latter is precisely what Delay is saying. Kennedy authored the SCOTUS decision in Roper v. Simmons which struck down the death penalty for minors. Justice Scalia, and eventually Delay, attacked that opinion because, in it, Kennedy refers to, what Scalia considers to be, extra-judicial information. For example, Kennedy discusses APA research and the law in other countries in determining whether minors can be held completely responsible for murder. This position has been taken by certain Dopers also.
What Delay is doing in this quote is basically taking up Scalia’s dissent in Roper and dumbing it down for Fox News Radio. In doing so, he uses imprecise language which clouds his point, but the point is still there.
And Fuck You for making me defend Delay!
Bullshit yourself. I’ve nowhere said anything defending Rep. DeLay. I called out LHD on yet another thread which seeks to increase rather than decrease the amount of ignorance in the world.
For all I know, the second part of DeLay’s statement is stupid, and even Pittable (to the extent that you idiots want to open a Pit thread for every stupid thing a politician says – good luck with that). But doing so without finding out is reprehensible and contrary to the announced goal of this message board.
The problem here is Tom DeLay. The internet is an important and convenient way to consult all sorts of legal documents. I work at a law-firm, so I guess I’d know.
The real issue is of course quite simply that any reason for not preventing applying capital punishment to a minor is considered offensive by Tom DeLay and others as (for instance) described in the Washington post.
Says the guy who thinks the global peace movement consists of mindless tools of the Trotskyite conspiracy.
Give it up, dude. Your guy is a tool and you’re such a tool yourself that you don’t even know it. The harder you try to defend him, the more “intentional and malicious (a) spreader of ignorance” you prove yourself to be.
The thread, since you haven’t figured it out yet, is about DeLay. Not Kennedy, DeLay. Now try again.
To my mind, there’s a big difference between blogs, public opinion polls, wikipedia, and widely recognized research institutions like the APA and other legal codes.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t find your arguments persuasive. 
Hey, sorry about making you defend Delay, but frankly, you’re the only one in the thread willing to do so with any substance at all beyond the Chewbacca defense.
Okay, I just read through Scalia’s dissent in that case, and skimmed through the decision, and while both decision and dissent are rife with Internet citations (mostly to Findlaw, although Scalia refers a couple times to other websites), I didn’t see either of them criticizing the usage of the Internet nor mentioning doing their own research on the Internet.
'Sides, DeLay said that Kennedy said “in session” that he did his own research. So if he’s dumbing down this decision for Fox, he’s completely misrepresenting it–and misrepresenting it into something wholly inoffensive.
I suspect he’s actually referring to something else, but damned if I can figure out what it is.
Daniel
You are a liar. I have said that many American protests are sponsored by Trotskyites and that many of the marchers don’t know it. That is a true statement, as I have demonstrated. Your intentional and malicious stretching of that statement is wholly unsurprising, of course.
He is not “my guy.” But you know that, too.
To my mind also. But remember, we’re talking about Tom Delay’s mind. And I really don’t want to go there.
It’s not really an argument, per se. I just think Delay’s misuse of the term “internet” on Fox News Radio isn’t really that big of a deal. There is so much more to hate the guy for that I’m not too worried when he uses the wrong term in one of his insane diatribes.
Frankly, I don’t see what the problem is as long as Justice Kennedy only posts in GQ and discards any responses that begin with “IANAL but…”
Elvis, can we let manhattan have the perception of victory so that he’ll shut the fuck up? Because he’s not contributing anything.
Daniel
I’m sure it does. But I want the USSC to base their decisions only on reputable and relevant American law and legal research. Surely that is already available to them?
You’ll Pit it, then try to find out if it’s Pit-worthy? You really are a mindless idiot, aren’t you?
In the news story you linked, it is strongly implied in DeLay’s quote, that Kennedy claimed he was doing his research via the Internet in open court. Transcripts of oral arguments before SCOTUS may be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
I was unable to locate the particular incident that DeLay was speaking of, but I only performed a cursory examination. Since your outrage is vastly greater than mine, or most of the other participants of this thread, I’ll leave it to you to do a more thorough search of the archive.
In your own imagination only.
quote]Your intentional and malicious stretching of that statement is wholly unsurprising, of course.
[/quote]
Now I’m just stretching it, but therefore not a lair? Try wiping the spittle off your chin first - you can’t even get your own invective straight.
Your vigorous defense of him, using his own technique of childishly deriding anyone who dares to point out his contemptuous and contemptible silliness, notwithstanding, huh?
To reiterate: You’re a tool.
LHOD, sorry, it’s just too much fun!
yes, yes I am. Thanks for the heads-up! U R teh winnar!!!11!one!!!
That’s interesting, and if that’s what he was criticizing Kennedy for (surfing the web in the middle of an open session), and if Kennedy actually said that’s what he was doing, then it’s a legitimate criticism, and I’ll downgrade my pitting of Delay to a pitting for a misplaced modifier (in order to mean what you claim he meant, he sould have said, “he said that in session he does his own research on the Internet,” not, “he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet”: the former has the adverbial phrase modifying “does,” whereas the actual quote has the adverbial phrase modifying “said.”)
Daniel
If that’s the benchmark we’re gonna use—unsubstantive contributions—, then we’d have to concede this thread—and a great, great many others—to Elvis as well.
Sorry, Daniel. It appears that I was unclear. My interpretation of DeLay’s remark is that Kennedy stated in open court that he performed some of his research via the internet; not that he was doing actual internet research during a session.