Comments for The Question Presented

Comment on A Clever Ruse by The Question Presented - Largest Civil Procedure Rally in History

The Question Presented - Largest Civil Procedure Rally in History — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:55:14 +0000

[...] to the federal Constitution. In my mind, this is the “big fish” argument. I have written previously on the evolution of the 14th Amendment and how the United States Supreme Court has a long history of taking a results-oriented approach to [...]

Comment on Democratic Protest? by Christopher Meredith

Christopher Meredith — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:36:54 +0000

Greg, your response highlights many of the problems with moral relativism. First of all, you suggest we are “duty bound…” How? What binds us to such a duty? Next, what constitutes the protection of “the interests of minority voices?” This is an important question since the past 40 year or so have demonstrated an increasing propensity on the part of the government to treat the minority voice almost as a super-majority. The minority voice has become one of the strongest simply by the fact of its minority. Put another way, it is nearly the case that if you don’t agree with any given minority voice, you must be some sort of bigot. The implicit assumption is that there can be no valid objection to a minority viewpoint. Is that what you’re suggesting? Or is it that the minority nature of a certain opinion trumps any legitimate objections to it?

Also, your response seems to neglect that fact that we ARE a majoritarian government. That’s the entire point of a democracy: majority rules. Now there are many legitimate critiques of such an approach, but they do not change the fact that it is what we have.

Lastly, I don’t doubt the sincerity of the anger caused by this issue. It is certainly to be expected. But it makes my point, in a way. No one is happy about losing a vote. But to complain about the process after the fact, once you’ve gotten an adverse outcome is very much “sour grapes.”

Before Nov. 4, both sides campaigned. There were “YES” ads on TV, there were “NO” ads on TV. Both sides did their best to get their messages across. Then when one side comes out on the wrong end of the vote, they begin protesting, filing lawsuits that the measure is unconstitutional, and complaining about the process. Again, my purpose is not to say which side is right, but to ask whether there are any other examples (besides perhaps the 2000 Florida Recount) where the loser of a fair democratic procedure complained afterwards to this extent.

Comment on Democratic Protest? by Greg Spore

Greg Spore — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:36:12 +0000

“sour grapes”? surely you kid. In your effort to dodge social commentary you invite it all the same. perhaps you should revisit Plessy and then Brown. think constitutional democracy not majoritarian government. we are duty bound to protect the interests of minority voices. those protesting are justifiably angry. and I am angry too.

Comment on Attempted Murder in Mississippi? by porchia armstrong

porchia armstrong — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:59:38 +0000

I agree that this law should be passed. My sister had separated from her boyfriend and in a jealous psychotic rage he rammed her car head on while she was parked and never saw it coming. If that wasnt enough he then rammed her from the back which caused her transmission to lock up and she couldnt move. He then got out of his car and walked to hers and opened her door and hit her in the mouth with an AX. With the grace of GOD she survived with only a split top lip that required stitches but will leave a scar for life. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon — where’s the justice?

Comment on Big Brother Lives by The Question Presented - Connecting the Dots

The Question Presented - Connecting the Dots — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:14:49 +0000

[...] this, and then read [...]

Comment on Acts and Omissions by Sherpa

Sherpa — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:12:20 +0000

HA! Pretty big part of the statute to leave out there, Mr. Reporter.

Comment on Jackson in the Age of Paternalism by Virginia

Virginia — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:43:14 +0000

Yes, sometimes.

Comment on Jackson in the Age of Paternalism by Christopher Meredith

Christopher Meredith — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:01:39 +0000

You find my agitation amusing?

Comment on Jackson in the Age of Paternalism by Virginia

Virginia — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:59:56 +0000

“Meredith, J. dissenting.”

I thoroughly enjoyed this post. Because I could see your agitation while typing it, it made me laugh. Thank you, Chief Justice Meredith.

Comment on Jackson in the Age of Paternalism by Christopher Meredith

Christopher Meredith — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:44:06 +0000

Agreed. Although I can see an argument to be made for the speed limit. It’s more than just taking the choice from people. Around here, the speed limit is 70 (which means it’s actually 75). If I choose to drive 55, I cause a hazard to other motorists who are driving the speed limit.

That being said, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for Uncle Sam to stick his nose in, but it seems he doesn’t need much provocation these days.

Your comment also reminds me of the irony in the fact that we have such long lines at airport security checkpoints and the PATRIOT Act because the government wants to protect our freedom. Ben Franklin once said, “he who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither.” The same might be said for the activists who seek to criminalize any behavior they personally dislike.