But apparently what I eagerly await is not forthcoming. LHoD is spending way too much time here in this thread throwing gasoline on the fire to be actually researching the answer to the question by which he claims he’s plagued.
Then prove it by stepping away from this thread for more than four minutes at a time and go look for your answer.
Well, you actually agree with 100% if I understand you: while I disagree with the first part, that’s not what caused me to start the thread. (Although I’ll point out that Scalia’s dissent invoked two extrajudicial sources).
Your question is my question; presumably, Unclebeer will point you as well to the metric buttload of court documents and order you to sort through them as well! 
Daniel
If he knew where to look for the answer, he wouldn’t need to start a thread, would he?
You silly boy, I never claimed it plagued me. Apparently you’ve got nothing worthwhile to add, either.
Daniel
Frankly, until DeLay himself (or his spokesperson) comes out with an explanation, we really won’t know what the hell he was talking about. Given the number of bullets he’s dodging these days, I’d be very surprised if this one gets any further attention from him. If the Republicans were smart, they’d duct tape DeLay’s mouth shut for a few months so they can get some actual work done.
Why are your methods of research limited to my suggestion? Can’t get to Google? Anyway, you could at least spend 20 minutes, or so, looking for an answer at the SCOTUS transcript site. It’s quite apparent you have lots of time on your hands. And who knows, you might find by dumb luck what you’re looking for. Instead of just looking dumb.
That was my interpretation, too. And, frankly, I find it encouraging that such a senior member of the government is comfortable enough with the information resources available to the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD to state it openly. I mean, as long as he wasn’t getting ‘briefed’ by Hotlegalchicks dot com (I ain’t spelling making that an URL in case it’s real) then the Internet is a hugely useful tool for getting information.
But John Mace is right that this is less about Kennedy and judges than DeLay fighting for his life. He knows he needs to get his base (and other elected Republicans) in his corner fighting the ‘outrage’ or his long slide into private citizenry is going to continue. The sharks are circling and he’s trying to offer then an alternative meal.
I don’t think it’ll work. But that’s what he’s trying.
While I think y’all are probably right, SURELY there’s a better meal out there he could’ve offered them?
I wonder if he screwed up a prewritten comment, and if the prewritten one would’ve made sense.
Daniel
Yeah, it’s basically one jump ahead of “He’s a practicing homo sapiens and his sister is a thespian!”
Not in the Pit certainly. However, if manhattan’s guess that LHoD merely wanted a liberal wankfest was correct (as is becoming more and more apparent given the growing quantity of time he’s spending in this thread), LHoD definitely “needed” to start a thread. And he started it in the correct place.
Then why the several protestations that you were genuinely seeking an answer when you got jumped for spreading ignorance? Allow me also to render my quite insincere apologies for offering an actual resource you might use (which is far more worthwhile—and in keeping with the stated motto of the StraightDope—than 99% of the other “contributions” to this thread) to answer your question when you’ve made it quite obvious you had no real intention of seeking an answer.
The take a few minutes and go look for an answer instead of farting around in this stupid thread. I hear tell of this Internet thing that’s available now where all manner of knowledge may be sought. Goddamn, boy.
Since UncleBeer and Manhattan seem to have missed it, I thought I would quote LHOD’s posts and the reasons for the pit placement. I also think the term “liberal wankfest” has been used enough in this thread.
On the topic, I think DeLay used the “shotgun filled with buckshot” approach on purpose to stir up as much outrage as possible and be as defendable as possible. If he made a specific point, it could be countered or he could be corrected. If he makes a broad statement, then it becomes about the interpretation of the quote and not about the actual facts.
I also don’t think DeLay was saying Kennedy was surfing the Net instead of listening to legal arguments.
But I can’t figure out what else he might mean.
Assume that he is circling the wagons, and trying to rally every group to his side, and that every statement he makes has this end. In that light, I can see complaining that a Justice is using Dutch law (or whatever) to make decisions, especially about the death penalty.
But what group is he trying to rally by accusing the Justice of doing research on the Internet? People who object to the existence of the Internet because Al Gore invented it?
Unless he was objecting that “he based his decisions on sources besides the Constitution, which he got off the Internet”. Nothing else makes sense.
I suppose we will never know. Even if he explains what he meant, none of his enemies will pay any attention, and the press would rather have a scandal.
Regards,
Shodan
Silly boy, he’s trying to stir his core constituency who, as a group, believe the internet consists solely of pornography and pederasts. He couldn’t care less what people who can’t (most of the world) or would never (a minority of Texans) vote for him think.
Duh.
Snork. Anybody seen DeLay’s official website?
http://tomdelay.house.gov/
Nice work.
In defense of my fellow Texans, please note that it is a relatively small minority. Delay won his last election by getting %55.16 percent of the vote–nothing to brag about for an incumbent majority leader. In fact, that was the second lowest percentage of any elected Republican US Rep in Texas!
This post brought to you by the “Texas: We don’t suck quite as much as people think.” campaign.
Does DeLay’s remark have anything to do with Kennedy’s ruling that a duck’s quack does not echo (and the court expresses no opinion as to why)?
Don’t forget the liberal wankfests!
I’m dumbfounded by UncleBeer’s attitude regarding this discussion. The question is essentially “What did Delay mean by this?” It seems perfectly legitimate to open up to discussion, because I often find that in conversation, other people suggest different interpretations than I have thought of that make perfectly good sense. Sometimes these interpretations are arrived at in an interative process, based on multiple contributions. It seems that he is suggesting that LHOD go off to google “What did Delay mean by this?” or alternatively scrutinizing the transcript from the Supreme Court for some explanation for Delay’s comments. (Perhaps something like this “JUDGE THOMAS: Well, I think it is important to recognize that Tom Delay is going to go on Fox and make a really stupid remark about the internet. Before people get in a tizzy, they should know that Delay really means…”) Or maybe LHOD will find clarity in the portion of the transcript that says “JUDGE KENNEDY: I realized an important aspect about determining the proper ruling in this case when I was searching CollegeFuckFest for blowjob pics. As an aside, I gotta say Man, those chicks are hot!”
UncleBeer generally seems a bright enough fellow. His take on this discussion seems pretty fucking stupid.
For the record, I agree with the suggestion that Delay was trying to gin up outrage by intentionally making it seem like an activist judge was finding questionable support by looking through inappropriate resources for legal material.
I myself use the internet for psychology research every day. It doesn’t mean I am using Psychology Today to support my interpretations of data. Rather, it is because many, many scholarly publications are now available on the internet, and it is a hell of a lot easier to find a PDF copy of an article online in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology than it would be to shlep six blocks to the psychiatry library, find the journal and then the article, photocopy it and get on back to my office to read it.
Kennedy didn’t say it. DeLay is lying.
I might be way off here but the use of International Law has no standing in a US court case.
His use of the “internet” might further that train of thought. He shouldn’t get bogged down with the “mostly useless information” or Otoh even worse the biased information? Maybe he Delay was saying If he is going to base decisions on international (rather than Constitutional) laws, he shouldn’t use the internet as a tool to further that cause.
Personally, if he’s deciding something vs. how it stands in the Constitution, what does he need the internet for anyway?
Again, this is all just Monday Media Quarterbacking going on.