I’ll agree to the above.
Given the findlaw citations in both Kennedy’s majority opinion and Scalia’s dissent, it would appear that it is available to them… On the internet. 
Sure, go ahead, concede it to him–believe it or not, I really am interested in what he could have meant by that quote. It looked absurd to me on the surface, and I’m starting to grasp ways in which he could have meant it in a sane manner, which is helpful. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in this thread, but at least there is some signal.
Daniel
Well, considering that in the previous sentence, he skewered Justice Kennedy for relying on international law in forming decisions, it’s easier to see why he might believe that Kennedy was using “the Internet” in general and not confining his research to generally accepted legal sources.
I express no opinion on whether Justice Kennedy is or is not doing that – just pointing out that that seems to be a fair interpretation of what is upsetting Mr. Delay.
Then. Open. A. GQ. Thread. You. Fucking. Moron.
I don’t follow that–how does use of the Internet lead one to rely on international law? After all, Scalia uses more Internet cites in his dissent than Kennedy in his decision, yet Scalia wasn’t seduced by malicious foreigners and their wacky laws. If that’s what he was saying, then it’s very stupid, I think, both as a criticism and as an inference.
Daniel
I think manhattan has lapped LHoD about five or six times in the inexplicable outrage marathon.
manny: Seriously, dude. Decaf.
What’s the matter with doing some research on line? I’m sure there are many sites that would offer useful and pertinent information. It might be quicker to query a past opinion and see it on screen than to send an aide off to some musty shelf to retrieve the same thing in bound form. I think the separation of powers means that the justices can do their work any way they see fit without some congressman kibbitzing.
Has Delay lost it? Did he ever have it? He’s being exposed as unethical, it’s natural for him to try anything to focus the spotlight elsewhere.
DeLay thinks there is a Left-Wing Conspiracy to get rid of him. No doubt this is true, in the same sense that there was a Right-Wing Conspiracy to get rid of Clinton. It should come as no surprise that the opposition party will try to undermine the leaders of the majority party. “Conspiracy” might be too strong a word, as people can be united in a common goal without actually conspiring about it.
But someone needs to revoke Mr. DeLay’s excavation license before he finishes digging his own grave. Why couldn’t he have made his first remark about the use of non-US legal rulings and then shut the fuck up after that? Who knows what he actually meant by his attack on the internet, but that’s half the point right there-- it was a stupid thing to say without explicit clarification.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head with astonishment at how genuinely stupid a politician in power can be…
Exactly. I don’t agree with his harping on Kennedy for looking at international law, but at least it’s a sane argument to make, made clearly. It’s kind of what I expected from him. But the Internet comment was so totally bizarre–it was crazily beyond what I expected of him. Thus the thread
(And here’s where Manny helpfully comes along to give me, yet again, his advice on where and when I should post. Thanks, bud!)
Daniel
Oh, it’s explicable, all right, in the same way DeLay’s outrage is explicable. Both of them have just now begun to realize that others’ view of them as hate-filled fools is well-grounded in fact. Having gotten mostly past denial, they’re now in the anger stage. Next is depression, then acceptance, and, with any luck, reconstruction.
The SCOTUS decision that apparently pulled DeLay’s hair trigger, btw, is based on general social standards of acceptability of a practice as being “cruel and unusual” or not. How can one determine what those standards are by limiting one’s research to Lexis cites?
Fuck decaf. I’m tired of the intentional ignorance on this board. People should be fundamentally embarrassed to Pit something they don’t know anything about. They should, frankly, be banned if they do it too often. The blatent political nature of two of the forums (and the non-blatent but pervasive political nature of a third) notwithstanding, the fundamental mission of this message board is to fight ignorance. People like LHD who instead fight against that goal should be roundly insulted on every available occasion. If he really wanted to know what DeLay was talking about, there is a forum available for that purpose; if he had used it, I’d have spent this time looking for the answer instead of blasting his idiocy --honestly, I’m kind of curious myself, as it seemed a little weird coming after DeLay’s legitimate criticism of relying on or being influenced by other countries’ laws. But he didn’t really want to know, he wanted to have a liberal wankfest and then he got all pissy when it didn’t turn out that way.
I’m speaking solely of outrage over the particular incident mentioned in the OP. I should’ve thought that patently obvious.
I should reveal, however, that I am entirely supportive of manhattan’s indignation at LHoD for bitching about something which he admits that he’s only nominally informed. I, since LHoD has recently and wafflingly stated that he’s actually interested in what Kennedy might have said, anxiously await his return here to inform us of the fruits of his research.
Wow. That last post has got more projection in it than a twenty-screen cineplex.
On the off-chance that you’re really this stupid, I’ll explain it to you once before resuming ignoring your irrelevant pap:
I started it here because:
- I thought it was a dumb thing to say;
- I wanted to be able to say nasty things about Delay if it turned out to be as dumb as I thought;
- I knew that people would say nasty things, and I didn’t want the mods to get mad at me for making them move it.
Contrary to what you seem to think, people may have more than one motive for starting a thread. I also:
4) Wanted to know whether I was misinterpreting it.
However, while factual questions ARE allowed in the Pit, insults AREN’T allowed in GQ. I therefore started the thread in the least-restrictive forum, so that I could accomplish everything I wanted to.
Your guesses as to my motives are, to be charitable, moronic. Your contribution to this thread has been a thrilling batch of nonsense, making Brutus’s look good by comparison.
I’m certainly open to a defense of DeLay, and when folks have offered some defense of him (viz. Bricker and Hamlet), I’ve talked with them civilly and intelligently. It’s just your shit that’s earned insults.
Daniel
Delay is not stupid. He knew full well what all of implications of his statement would be, both good and bad. The internet is a legitimate legal research tool. I use it for ALL of my legal research. Some of the sites I use are:
Lexis-Nexus
Westlaw
Findlaw
Thomas
USPTO.gov
Copyright.gov
MNBar.org
WisBar.org
Based on my own experience, I would have to say that Delay was implying that 1) there is something inherently untrustworthy about information found on the internet and that no decent judge would rely on such information and/or 2) that the Justice used crap like blogs and message board threads like this little trainwreck in developing his opionions, which is another no no for any decent judge. Since neither these statements is either 100% true or untrue, Delay’s statement can be characterized as a ‘mis-truth’ or whatever clever word you would like to use.
There is NOTHING wrong with using the internet for legal research. Delay was just trying to make the Justice look bad, just as he’s been doing for some time now. Same MO even.
CJ
Great–you’ve given me a way that I can spend hours perusing court documents for a (possibly nonexistent) justification for a politician’s statement. Thanks, but that’s not gonna happen; and if you think that means I shouldn’t have asked the question, well, I’ll probably make it past my shame.
Daniel
My last post was in response to manhattan, not the far-less spittle-flecked post by UncleBeer.
I completely see DeLay’s point in objecting to a Supreme Court justice basing opinions on sources other than the Constitution. I see no point at all in objecting to doing your research on the Internet. So I suppose I agree about 50% with the Pitting.
Is there any indication why DeLay objected to the Internet? Anyone know?
Other than “DeLay is evil and insane and bad and wrong and kills puppies and blah blah”. I was kind of hoping for something rational for a change.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d also like to add, Unclebeer, that if you read tremendous outrage in my OP, you’re mistaken: read instead a mixture of bafflement, contempt, and amusement. Perhaps the word “outrageous” in the title threw you off?
DeLay has said some outrageous shit before, but this one’s not outrageous–it’s either poorly phrased or just plain dumb.
Daniel
Yes; IANAL, but isn’t there this thing called “judicial notice,” referring to a judge’s knowledge of facts about the world?
In my legal translation case, we dealt with a case in which, as part of the trial, the judge took judicial notice of the fact that children often run around and fall down. I’m assuming he didn’t look this up on Westlaw or CanLII. (As this was in the 1980s, he presumably did not look this up on the Internet.)
Of course, this case was in Canada, so maybe it’s different and judges are allowed to know stuff about the world here. (I know that most Charter decisions are so thoroughly impregnated with reference to Canadian society and the social impact of policy that it would make Brutus’s head explode… hm… emails Brutus the full text of Egan v. Canada…