Delay: "Judges shouldn't use the Internet--that's outrageous!"

[Shodan]

@John Mace

But the mods are, and should be, quite strict about the use of quotes. Had the title been: Delay thinks jduges shouldn’t use the internet, that probably would have been OK. You simply don’t put something in quotes, ESPECIALLY in the title, unless someone actually said those exact words.

Absent any intent to deceive, and since (as far as I can tell) no deception occurred, I respectfully disagree. MaxTheVool summed up my opinion rather well, so I won’t reiterate.

Not that it matters, nor should it. IANAM, nor wish to be, and the only one posting to this thread has said that LHoD is not known for doing this and it is “no big whoop”.

Regards,
Shodan

(on preview, I better scroll back and make sure I am quoting TVblen correctly.)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Shodan, John, Max, and others: thanks, I appreciate your comments. Veb responded to an email from me by saying (paraphrased) that she realized it was unintentional, but that because of problems in the past with intentionally misleading OPs causing all kinds of strife, she figured it was better not to let an unintentionally misleadng title slide.

And I’m okay with that: while I believe my OP was structured in a way that nobody who read it would be misled, I did use my punctuation marks in the title incorrectly. I think that brutus et al are disingenuous for jumping on this misuse as evidence of dishonesty, but whatever–if they want to provoke and win an argument on a technicality, I’ll give them the prize they want. And in the future I’ll certainly remember not to put stuff in quote marks that isn’t an exact quote.

(Unclebeer would be well advised to do the same thing: when you’re mocking someone for their misquoting, you shouldn’t alter the quote so that there’s no misspelling in it. But that’s neither here nor there.)

Now I’m off to see if I can google up an explanation for what DeLay was thinking…

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

(Unclebeer would be well advised to do the same thing: when you’re mocking someone for their misquoting, you shouldn’t alter the quote so that there’s no misspelling in it. But that’s neither here nor there.)

Damn you, Gaudere’s Law–why must you have corollaries?

When you’re mocking someone for their misspelling, you shouldn’t alter the quote so that there’s no misspelling in it.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Not exactly an unimpeachable source, but here’s what Bill Clinton has to say:

(I kid, I kid! It’s what an anonymous blog-respondent has to say)

As a judge I have to be very careful about going outside the “four corners” of the record before me in deciding a case. Clearly, some internet research is appropriate—Lexis-Nexis. But, if I tried to resolve a factual dispute in the record by doing my own research I believe I would overstepped the bounds of my ethics. That is the parties jobs and they have burdens of proof to meet. The judge is the finder of fact and is not supposed to be the developer of fact.

Especially appellant judges, who are to review the record before them as developed at the lower level. These judges are not supposed to be supplementing or developing the facts. A judges role is similar to that of a jury—to review the facts presented. It is improper for a juror to do research on factual issues and it might also be for a judge. Thus, a blanket condemnation of Mr. Delay’s comments is not necessarily appropriate.

Okay, in that context, his comment kinda makes sense: if this judge is right (that it’s inappropriate for the Supreme Court to resolve factual disputes with outside sources), AND if Kennedy said in open session that he was doing so, then I guess it’s fair to call him on it. He may’ve been hyperbolic with the “outrageous” comment, but hyperbole I can deal with.

Anyone know whether this anonymous blog-respondent is correct?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

On the other hand, even dyed-in-the-wool socialists like Rush Limbaugh were confused by DeLay’s comment:

DeLay was on Tony Snow’s radio show yesterday on the Fox Radio News Network, and basically DeLay said, ‘We got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution. That’s just outrageous, and not only that he said in session he does his own research on the Internet. That is just incredibly outrageous.’" Now, I’m going to be talking to DeLay this afternoon. I don’t know what’s particularly outrageous about somebody using the Internet themselves. I do it. But he’s got to have a reason for it and I want to find out what that is, and we will, and I’ll pass it on to you tomorrow if I get the answer.

So stay tuned: if Limbaugh can figure out what the hell DeLay meant, we should know by the end of the day!
Daniel

[manhattan]

@MaxTheVool

Sorry to come late to this party, but I have to disagree with the claim that the OP, and its title, are spreading ignorance, particularly intentionally.

I didn’t have anything to say about his use of the quote – you’ll have to take that up with Brutus and the administration of this message board.

I flamed the guy because he Pitted something without knowing what it was. Take your example. Suppose someone opened a Pit thread (not a GQ thread) about Bush saying that soldiers didn’t have camera phones. And upon reading it you came to realize that the Pitter had no fuggin idea whether Bush’s statement referred to in combat or generally, but if it was generally then by golly that would sure be stupid and Pittable! That guy would have a flame coming. So LHD, still looking like an idiot immediately above, wondering what he flamed or if it deserved the thread, got his flaming.

[UncleBeer]

@LHoD

(Unclebeer would be well advised to do the same thing: when you’re mocking someone for their misquoting, you shouldn’t alter the quote so that there’s no misspelling in it. But that’s neither here nor there.)

Spelling that word correctly was wholly unintentional on my part. But this now takes us into the realm of the absurd. I’m being castigated, it appears, for “misspelling incorrectly.”

[Shodan]

I hope you have learned your lesson.

Don’t misunderestimate LHoD.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@UncleBeer

Spelling that word correctly was wholly unintentional on my part. But this now takes us into the realm of the absurd. I’m being castigated, it appears, for “misspelling incorrectly.”

Yeah, it’s absurd–I was just amused that, while I was being taken to task for unintentionally confusing people by putting a misquote of DeLay in quote form, you were doing the same thing :). No big deal at all.

Daniel

[Shalmanese]

@manhattan

I didn’t have anything to say about his use of the quote – you’ll have to take that up with Brutus and the administration of this message board.

I flamed the guy because he Pitted something without knowing what it was. Take your example. Suppose someone opened a Pit thread (not a GQ thread) about Bush saying that soldiers didn’t have camera phones. And upon reading it you came to realize that the Pitter had no fuggin idea whether Bush’s statement referred to in combat or generally, but if it was generally then by golly that would sure be stupid and Pittable! That guy would have a flame coming. So LHD, still looking like an idiot immediately above, wondering what he flamed or if it deserved the thread, got his flaming.

FFS, manny the entirety of the CNN article dealing with Delay was this:

“Absolutely. We’ve got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That’s just outrageous,” DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. “And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.”

LHoD
a) Provided a brief synopsis of the relevant parts of the article
b) Acknowledged that CNN was generally a reputable cite and not some hick blog and, thus, this allegation might have some merit to it.
c) recognises that some articles might be imperfect/biased/“liberal” and that the true context that the quote might shed some more light on it and asked if anybody might be able to contextualise it to make it less ridiculous
d) Admits that he doesn’t have the time nor the resources to go crawling over the entire internets to find the source for the quote. Especially since it later turned out that it originally appeared on Fox Radio so he would have approximately fuck all chance of finding the source if Fox dont put their radio broadcasts on the web.

to suggest that any of these steps was in any way out of the ordinary for the standards of a Pit thread on the SDMB is, frankly, bizarre and seems like almost like an attempt to divert this thread away from the topic at hand which I must say, you’ve done quite admirably.

[manhattan]

Shalmanese, you and others seem to be implying that LHD opened this thread for some purpose other than “If you gotta flame, do it here.” (I think all parties can agree that he did not open it as a “complaint(s) and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB.”) If you believe that, you should report this thread to the moderators for having broken the forum rules. I do not believe that – I believe he opened it to flame Rep. DeLay based on a statement he made, which statment LHD has admitted on several occasions that he has no earthly idea what it means.

[Metacom]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Yeah, it’s absurd–I was just amused that, while I was being taken to task for unintentionally confusing people by putting a misquote of DeLay in quote form, you were doing the same thing :).

A spelling mistake and a “paraphrase” that changes the meaning are not the same thing…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Metacom

A spelling mistake and a “paraphrase” that changes the meaning are not the same thing…

As I have said, I do not believe my paraphrase changed the meaning substantially. If you think that my paraphrase did change the meaning, can you address my posts where I argue otherwise?

(Manny, obviously, IS that stupid, which is why I’m not engaging with him.)

Daniel

[Metacom]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If you think that my paraphrase did change the meaning, can you address my posts where I argue otherwise?

Compare:

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens–that’s stupid!”

with

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens while they’re taking a bath–that’s stupid!”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Metacom

Compare:

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens–that’s stupid!”

with

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens while they’re taking a bath–that’s stupid!”

Among the most legitimate purposes I can imagine for which a judge would use the Internet would be for the performance of research. (Equally legitimate purposes might include emailing their staff about scheduling issues and the like). DeLay was therefore, apparently, criticizing a judge for using the Internet for one of the most legitimate uses. It would be as if he said, “Cooks shouldn’t use toaster ovens for heating food,” and I shortened that to “Cooks shouldn’t use toaster ovens.”

If he’d said, “Judges shouldn’t use the Internet to play games during open session,” then your analogy would hold, and my paraphrase would have been substantially inaccurate.

Daniel

[Metacom]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Among the most legitimate purposes I can imagine for which a judge would use the Internet would be for the performance of research. (Equally legitimate purposes might include emailing their staff about scheduling issues and the like).

Or reading a newspaper, emailing friends and families, watching a funny video of a monkey scratching its butt, or viewing porn. All legitimate things a judge can use the internet for, if not necessarily while acting in their capacity as a judge.

[dropzone]

@Shodan

Methinks old dropsie has the right of it.

Well, I have been shipping a little extra water lately.

@TVeblen

(paraphrasing) because of problems in the past with intentionally misleading OPs causing all kinds of strife, she figured it was better not to let an unintentionally misleadng title slide.

A very valid point, but since I’m never one to simply agree with someone with whom I had previously disagreed and let the matter rest but will always try to force my original point anyway, I’d like to add that similar paraphrasing is common in newspaper headlines, which are even more pressed for space.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Metacom

Or reading a newspaper, emailing friends and families, watching a funny video of a monkey scratching its butt, or viewing porn. All legitimate things a judge can use the internet for, if not necessarily while acting in their capacity as a judge.

I am being charitable to Mr. Delay in construing his quote as criticizing Kennedy for conducting Internet research in his capacity as a judge. If he’s criticizing him for conducting Internet research in his off-hours, then it’s even stupider.

Daniel

[dropzone]

@Metacom

Compare:

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens–that’s stupid!”

with

“People shouldn’t use toaster ovens while they’re taking a bath–that’s stupid!”

Actually, since toaster ovens function poorly as either toasters or ovens and serve primarily as wedding gifts and places to pile the day’s mail, the difference between those statements is only in the degree of stupidity.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@dropzone

I’d like to add that similar paraphrasing is common in newspaper headlines, which are even more pressed for space.

Here’s I’m arguing against myself–it’s a crazy world we live in. While newspapers do indeed paraphrase, I don’t think they’d use quote marks around the paraphrase. That, as I see it, is where I erred.

Daniel