Kagan ?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Kagan has an interesting take on the principal of "free-speech". Her idea makes sense in theory but I think it could be very dangerous in practice.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

in what way?

[Danzig]

i read the article and agree with kagan's thoughts. but i'm with god, what makes you think this could be dangerous in practice-especially rupert if you say it makes sense in theory?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i read the article and agree with kagan's thoughts. but i'm with god, what makes you think this could be dangerous in practice-especially rupert if you say it makes sense in theory?

Did you hear about this story last week? I guess Judge Kagan could take out her tarrot cards and figure out what the intent of the high-school principal was. Would the principal have behaved in the same manner if it was Latino students? I don't know the answer but I'm sure the expert mindreader Judge Kagan could figure it out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06...gs-cinco-mayo/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Did you hear about this story last week? I guess Judge Kagan could take out her tarrot cards and figure out what the intent of the high-school principal was. Would the principal have behaved in the same manner if it was Latino students? I don't know the answer but I'm sure the expert mindreader Judge Kagan could figure it out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06...gs-cinco-mayo/

i did hear about the story. when dipshit principals start writing this country's laws, you let me know.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i did hear about the story. when dipshit principals start writing this country's laws, you let me know.

the dipshits are writing the laws.

tho I dont disagree with your opinion on this subject, I just wanted to point that out.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Did you hear about this story last week? I guess Judge Kagan could take out her tarrot cards and figure out what the intent of the high-school principal was. Would the principal have behaved in the same manner if it was Latino students? I don't know the answer but I'm sure the expert mindreader Judge Kagan could figure it out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06...gs-cinco-mayo/

you guys are so good at changing the subject when you're called out.

throw some poo at the wall and when it doesn't stick, just throw some more.

you're incapable of defending your position. that's my takeaway from this pathetic intellectually dishonest distraction.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you guys are so good at changing the subject when you're called out.

throw some poo at the wall and when it doesn't stick, just throw some more.

you're incapable of defending your position. that's my takeaway from this pathetic intellectually dishonest distraction.

You are incapable of defending your position. That is why you have no answer to the real-life case that I posted the story to. Were the free-speech rights of these students violated?

Does it come down to the principals intent? How do we know what the principal's intent was?

I will give you my opinion. I think the principal's intent is irrelevant.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are incapable of defending your position. That is why you have no answer to the real-life case that I posted the story to. Were the free-speech rights of these students violated?

Does it come down to the principals intent? How do we know what the principal's intent was?

I will give you my opinion. I think the principal's intent is irrelevant.

is that really "nuh-uh, you are!".

well done, sir. i really don't have a defense for that nuclear bombshell of a debating tool. you're like a black belt ninja of stupid internet debate distractions.

if i answer this one, do you get to post another random link and insist i debate that non-relevant point also?

[brianwspencer]

Woman.

Liberal.

Rumored lesbian.

End of world as we know it.

Forced abortions and gay marriages for all in less than five years.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

is that really "nuh-uh, you are!".

well done, sir. i really don't have a defense for that nuclear bombshell of a debating tool. you're like a black belt ninja of stupid internet debate distractions.

if i answer this one, do you get to post another random link and insist i debate that non-relevant point also?

How is that story not relevant? It is totally relevant. It is a real life case that involves all the issues that are being discussed.

I think it would be impossible to ascertain the principal's intent. There is no way to know how the principal would have responded had the students been Latino.

But I don't think the principal's intent is even relevant. If these kids sue and the case ends up going to the Supreme Court, I think it would be a mistake for the Court to try to decide the case based on the principal's intent. Either these students' rights were violated or they weren't violated. I don't think the intent of the principal is relevant.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

in what way?

I can't believe you guys are even asking this question. You think it's ok to base law on guessing what someone's intent is? You're going to base the law on reading someone's mind? That would be very dangerous. I don't trust anyone to make decisions based on reading someone's mind.

[Danzig]

i think there's a big difference between deciding the govt's intent on suppressing speech and reading a mind.

for instance, what was the govts intent on banning child porn? protecting kids.

what would be the intent on banning kkk rallies? suppressing disagreeable speech that the govt (and many citizens) doesn't agree with. admirable? perhaps. reasonable? to most. a slippery slope? absolutely. so, the law is recognizable. the intent is the point. she's exactly correct in this regard.

[hi_im_god]

it's also entirely non-controversial and in the judicial mainstream.

interpreting law without interpreting intent would be a fairly radical departure. we could bring back poll taxes to disenfranchise the poor if intent weren't a fit subject for judicial review.