Vyce

Okay, isn't this enough to prove he truly is a joke? I mean, seriously. He believes the actual hype that Saddam put out about himself. Please, can't we just ban him and feel smarter? Of COURSE he's a joke. It's not as if he hasn't proven that time after time. We don't ban him because he's a joke. No one takes his rantings seriously. Or at least I hope they don't.

I'm shocked! That sound you just heard? Me falling out of my chair at the shock of your words. Someone get me som glycerine, I think I'm having heart palpatations.

It's a nice effort, but for every Muslim that hates Osama, there seems to be at least one (or more) that either a) likes the guy or b) is indifferent enough towards his jihad that they wouldn't lift a finger to do anything to stop him.

Didn't he kill a federal judge? Then he's fucked. If the state doesn't give him the death penalty, the feds can. Assuming that he isn't taken out before they have a chance to try him. Thank God he's of legal age, so that the law can kill him one way or the other.

You're making it seem as if he's advocating for the government to take some 16 year old convicted of a capital crime and putting a needle in his arm. The way the process runs, by the time a death row convict runs through all of his appeals, it's a good 10 or 20 years from the sentencing before he's executed. Mike's position is that it may be appropriate, depending upon the circumstances, for a minor to be given the death penalty, knowing that they won't actually be executed until they are truly an adult. It's something I think has some merit. I hate to bring up a cheap example, but I'll do so: suppose the Columbine killers had lived and were put on trial, and convicted of their crimes. Mike would likely be for the imposition of the death penalty in their case - or at least, he feels the option should be on the table to impose that sentence. And I would have to agree. It's why I personally disagree with this decision from a moral and ethical standpoint, regardless of my problems with the legal theories presented, etc. I think that there are certain cases where a minor offender is guilty of a crime heinous enough to be deserving of the death penalty, I think that in many of those cases there IS sufficient mens rea, and thus I think this "they're too immature to understand their actions" position is maybe the biggest line of bullshit that someone has tried to feed me in a good, long while. In some instances, perhaps - in many, not a chance.

Propaganda? Not that I believe this guy, but if such a thing DID occur, the only reason I can think of is that they would rather Saddam portrayed as cowering inside a "spider hole" from the big, powerful American military, rather than as a heroic figure (to the insurgency at least) bravely fighting off the American invaders.

If history is any indicator as to what happens to Edge and his relationships when he's around car, expect him to leave the event with Christy on his arm.

Do you REALLY believe that? I'm with Brian. He was caught; how he was caught concerns me not at all.

Roper v. Simmons Links to concurring and dissenting opinions are at the top of the page.

Excellent book. The man does have a lot of informative things to teach about the actual craft of writing. I just think his work as far as writing fiction goes suffered a hit. It's not as if his post accident work is rally BAD (with a few notable exceptions), some of it is just mediocre, or at least not up to the quality it was in years past. Some may disagree with me on this, but I think some of King's works (his earlier works for sure) will eventually go down in history as true classics of horror / suspense, much like Lovecraft or Poe before him. I haven't read any of the later Dark Tower books, so I have to ask, are they any good? I know some who were disappointed with the final book in the series.

Man, Wildbomb is on FIRE in this thread. I never really paid any attention to any of his posts before (no offense to him, he's just not as.....colorful......as some of the other CE posters), but I'm very impressed by his arguing skills as well as his absolutely wonderful and on point dissection of the law. Bravo, sir, bravo. I wanted to highlight this section, because I think it represents everything that I have a problem with in this SC decision. Well......I'm not keen on the Court's decision, period, but really.....it's HOW they came to the decision which irks me, and Wildbomb has done an excellent job of explaining the flaws in the decision. The justices aren't stupid; they're some of the most intelligent men and women in our entire nation, so it's not as if they failed to argue due process due to their own incompetence. Hence, I have to agree with Scalia when he argues (and I'm paraphrasing him here with my own colloquialism) that they're pulling this decision out of their ass. Not in the sense that they're offering NO legal theory for deciding the way they did, but rather they're conveniently ignoring one important aspect of the issue because it would potentially be adverse to them reaching the decision they wanted to in the case. And that, quite frankly, just pisses me off (it pisses Scalia off too, which is a big part of why Scalia's dissents are always so much fun to read).

This is amusing because it's somewhat irrelevant. As far as employment law goes, just moving someone from one position to another - even if they maintain the same pay, benefits, etc. - can possibly be considered an improper employment action and / or discharge.

Are you really that pretentious? Apparently he is.

I gave a warning back on page one! Better book than "Gordon", but ultimately, the book is just THERE. Not necessarily bad, but not really worth the effort either.

I've always thought that a lot of these young guys in the WWE have a sort of queer look to them. At the least, a lot of them are pretty metrosexual. I'm looking at you, Rene Dupree, and your frosted hair.

No, he's not, really. It's a normative vs. textualist argument. He agrees, much like I do, along the lines of Scalia's dissent. I'll recommend reading that dissent (which is about the 18th time that's been suggested in this thread) again, because Scalia, who is largely a textualist, argues quite capably why he feels this was the wrong decision to make. Why? Because the Court these days is more and more making rulings by pulling shit literally out of its ass without solid legal theory to back it up.

Sorry. Ted Kennedy jokes > your serious posts in this thread. We need a little levity now and then.

Hi there. I'm a student of constitutional law as well. You're right - when speaking about the Constitution, the 8th amendment IS applicable here. However..... SJ is completely correct. Just because the 8th amendment is applicable most emphatically does NOT mean that the majority came up with the PROPER interpretation of the amendment. And as a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you're well aware of the constitutional conflicts that arise when the court oversteps its duties and takes it upon itself to do the job of the other branches of government.

You're surprised? It's not the first time this has been done. By the justices of the majority's politcal persuasion. People dislike Scalia because of his political leanings. And people will disagree with my statement now BECAUSE they fall on that side of the aisle that dislike Scalia because of his political leanings. But Scalia is the smartest man on that entire Court. Which is saying something, given that you don't make it to the S.C. without being a brilliant legal mind, but Scalia is the sharpest of them all. His dissents, in particular, are always amazing. You may think he uses his talents for evil, but you can't deny his intelligence.

Query: Is this just for Cox DIGITAL cable?

I care absolutely nothing about this chick. I don't even give a damn about her as T&A material. She's pretty much the epitome of worthless.

Uh-oh. Something tells me this is not going to be a "fair and balanced" presentation.

Is Dusty Rhodes booking Smackdown now?

Man, on the off chance that this happens, I ask, nay, DEMAND, that Henry Rollins be made available for immediate comment.