Kagan ?

[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.

[Danzig]

there is no way that particular case, which i also believe has no connection to what kagan wrote, will go to the supreme court. the school board disagreed with the principal on what he had done, and the kids returned to school. based on what action would this then proceed? the board couldn't fight a battle, as they already conceded the principal made a mistake. as for intent, you'd have to find where the principal created a rule in the first place. his intent was to discriminate, he failed. the law might have been to keep the peace, but the intent was incorrect. how is that hard to discern? how does a bozo high school principal bely what she wrote? or was your entire point to just bring up this particular case, and this was the only possible segue you could find?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no way that particular case, which i also believe has no connection to what kagan wrote, will go to the supreme court. the school board disagreed with the principal on what he had done, and the kids returned to school. based on what action would this then proceed? the board couldn't fight a battle, as they already conceded the principal made a mistake. as for intent, you'd have to find where the principal created a rule in the first place. his intent was to discriminate, he failed. the law might have been to keep the peace, but the intent was incorrect. how is that hard to discern? how does a bozo high school principal bely what she wrote? or was your entire point to just bring up this particular case, and this was the only possible segue you could find?

You are right that since the school board disagreed with the principal, this case is probably over. But what if they hadn't disagreed? Is that such a far fetch? I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that would have agreed with the principal.

I'm sure the principal would have said that his intent was to keep the peace, not to discriminate against the American students because he didn't like their message. The truth of the matter is, we don't really know what his intent was. It is certainly possible that the principal feared that the shirts would cause a fight and that he would have acted in the same way had the roles been reversed (Latino students wearing Mexican flags).

To answer your question as to whether this would be the only case that would be an example of why using "intent" would be a slippery-slope, I would say not at all. Any type of free speech case would apply. My fear would be that local governments and Courts would censor speech that they don't like and would claim that their intent was noble. Since it would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain their true intent, I think it's a very slippery slope.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Speaking of free-speech, did you guys see this clown? This guy is a teacher at my alma-mater UCLA. That is scary that this guy is a teacher. He is a member of La Raza.

This has nothing to do with Kagan. This post should have actually gone in the thread about the new Arizona immigration law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right that since the school board disagreed with the principal, this case is probably over. But what if they hadn't disagreed? Is that such a far fetch? I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that would have agreed with the principal.

I'm sure the principal would have said that his intent was to keep the peace, not to discriminate against the American students because he didn't like their message. The truth of the matter is, we don't really know what his intent was. It is certainly possible that the principal feared that the shirts would cause a fight and that he would have acted in the same way had the roles been reversed (Latino students wearing Mexican flags).

To answer your question as to whether this would be the only case that would be an example of why using "intent" would be a slippery-slope, I would say not at all. Any type of free speech case would apply. My fear would be that local governments and Courts would censor speech that they don't like and would claim that their intent was noble. Since it would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain their true intent, I think it's a very slippery slope.

their intent can be noble as hell, doesn't mean they'll be able to get away with censorship. it's why i mentioned the kkk, can anyone think of a group less tilted towards hatred? maybe nazi's...at any rate, the intent to suppress them would be considered noble, still hasn't happened, and won't. the law itself might sound reasonable (no hate speech), but the intent is to stifle any speech that is uncomfortable, or that you disagree with. not so noble after all.

and no doubt the principal had a good intent-it just wasn't good enough.

[SOREHOOF]

There is already way too many stupid-@ss lawsuits going around. Everyone should have a hot toddie and sleep on it. This broad may be ugly, but she may have a grasp of the constitution. How many times has a justice surprised their appointer and not quite ruled how they were thought to? I didn't expect O'bama to pick a conservative. He has no clue how she will rule on cases except what he knew of her in Chicago. I don't care what she does on Saturday night. She at least has played the American game of Baseball, as evidenced by her nice batting stance. That's a big plus in my book. $hit O'bama throws a baseball like he has never seen one in his life! O'bama throws a baseball like a Palistinian kid throws a rock! That's not a knock on his not being American.