Thanks Frib, I just wanted to show that this nominee has shown an tendency to rule in favor of less personal freedoms (be it First or Second Amendment, so far).

Is it a good idea to have a nominee for the Supreme Court that has a history of ruling to limit personal freedoms?

Personally I think her ruling in the school case is more damning than the gun case. Why? Although ANY erosion of fundamental rights is a tragedy, the gun control debate has long been established with well defined lines and strong members fighting on each side to a handy stalemate. Our Freedom of Speech has been reducing more and more, putting a judge on the SC that agrees to having more defined limitations of that is not a good sign.

Students have nothing even closely resembling "free speech" in school. It's always been that way.

Fribur, the way I understand the case the 'free speech' the school 'punished' the student for was a statement on his not-school-associated blog.

Frib, the student did not make the comments at school, using school property, or on school time. There are limits to what the school can, and should be able to control.

There are so many assumption made on either side the whole thing does get muddled up. The slippery slope does exist. Pointy knives have come up as a weapon for potential banning, in England granted, but generally what happens elswhere does came around.
Why do people pretend that the military will blindly follow their leaders when it comes to bombing their own people?

Why do people even argue for hunting uses? Someday I may want to use the gun to kill someone. That is the main purpose for ownership. Unlike Fribur I don't have a issue with killing, murder is a different matter. I don't really think the government is going to come after me, but I feel it is good to err on the side of caution. No, I'm not paranoid and don't live in a bunker. To me it is very much like free speech. Oh yeah, I hunt also and eat what I hunt. Not that that has any relevency to this whole discussion. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

People use guns for suicide sometimes. Ok. Not sure what to say about that, it happens. Last time I looked this up, the statistics in Canada weren't conclusive one way or another about how having a gun affects suicide rates. People can accidently shoot themselves or others even if their house doesn't have guns, they visit people who own guns. There have been studies about gun safety and its importance. Even if you don't allow guns in your house you would do well to send your kid to gun safety.



I'm not a fan of this nomination mainly because I think there are plenty of more qualified people out there. We need the best people on the SC. If you watched Roberts get grilled and how easily he handled the questions during his nomination and what a good Justice he has become I think we have the benchmark. I don't really care about her heritage. We don't need another Thomas up there.

Agreed. But to play Devil's Advocate here, the matter was in relation to a school employee. And allowing a kid who had an obvious disrespect of school staff to run may have sent the wrong message.

_________________

What wrong message? That dissenting against authority will get you punished?

Nope. That freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences of said speech.

That's not what happened here though.

The school basically said, "Oh? We'll show you, you little brat." and used what power they had over the kid in a mostly inappropriate manner.

It's rather like if a little kid calls an adult a name and the adult comes over and breaks one of their toys...sure, you can say to the kid, "Oh, there's the consequence to your words!" which is true, but the adult was also way out of line in their reaction.

It's even worse than that, actually, considering that the school is in a position of some authority and clearly misused that authority.

Actually, a far better analogy would have been if you criticized the police department in some way, then they came and started harassing you and gave you unwarranted tickets or arrested you on some bogus charges or something.

....but I just liked the visual of a pissed off guy breaking some kids transformers toy.

That didn't make sense. I said allowing the kid to run would have sent the wrong message. Your response should have been "that dissenting against authority has no consequences?" Because that's what would have been inferred.

Not that this is really about dissent. I don't know exactly what the kid said, but calling someone a "douche" is more about disrespect than dissent. And I honestly think that a kid who deliberately disrespects a teacher on a public forum is likely not the best candidate for a student body office.

_________________

Actually, it's more as if that happened and the adult said "alright, no dessert for you tonight," or "okay, if you're gonna call me names, you're grounded." Taking away a privilege in response to disrespect or poor behavior in general is appropriate.

_________________

Sure, and that's ok if it's a parent doing that sort of punishment. But not some other third party acting outside the scope of their actual authority. Especially a third party as close to a "governmental" position as a school.

Agreed. So what was the third party acting outside the scope of its authority? I'm interested. I'm also interested in whether you think its appropriate for an employer to discipline an employee for something said on a public blog or forum, and whether there's a correlation between the two. In addition, I'd like to know whether you think a teacher's relationship with a student is personal or professional. And finally, I'd like to know what you think is the proper response to a student disrespecting a teacher in a public fashion, and at what point it becomes something outside the school's authority.

_________________

The school deciding they had free reign to punish students for anything they say/do outside the scope of the school.



We've talked about this before, and I think it depends on a few factors. For example, if a teacher directs students to their MySpace page for whatever reason, then yes - anything that is said there becomes fair game for the school to take action against the teacher.

On the other hand, if a student just randomly happens upon something that a teacher said on some random board somewhere out in cyberspace...no, I don't think it's fair if action were taken against a teacher in that case.

Overall, no, I don't think it's appropriate/fair when an employer takes action against an employee for something in their personal lives. Unfortunately, I know it's something they can do.



I'm not entirely sure how that relates to the issue at hand, but I think it's a professional relationship with a certain unavoidable amount of personal elements tossed in.



The proper response? Ideally, nothing at all. The school has no business coming down on a student for something they say about a teacher outside of school property, school time, school resources, etc. Otherwise, we would ALL have been punished for shit that I know we ALL said outside of school about teachers we didn't like.

The problem with things like this is that it becomes - like I said - a case of the school starting to say, "Well, we'll show you, you brats." for whatever reason they like, related to school business or not. Hell, if nothing else, adults in positions of authority shouldn't be taking out their personal vendettas against children using official channels.

But you've said yourself that the relationship between a teacher and a student is professional. I don't see how you can at all consider it a "personal" relationship. It isn't. They don't have any kind of relationship outside of school. They aren't friends. So when a student disrespects a teacher, even off of school grounds or after classes are done, they're disrespecting someone whose sole relationship is a professional one.

This is about enforcing a standard of conduct when dealing with the professional relationship between student and teacher. If the teacher had called a student a douche on a blog, you damned well bet your ass that teacher would face some severe consequences, no matter if the blog was one that he linked to students or not. In the student's case, they lost a privilege, nothing more. In the real world, they'd likely lose their job for unprofessional behavior.

_________________

The teacher is - and should rightly be - held to much higher standards than the students, obviously. That shouldn't even need explaining.

And this isn't akin to an employee and employer. It's more like a citizen/government relationship than employee/employer.

Outside of their authority? Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not other people or institutions (as a general rule obviously). The school was well within their LEGAL right to do what they did. Was it silly from a PR perspective? I'd say so, but they're allowed to do it.

A right to free speech is not a right to be stupid or ignorant, on EITHER side. If Cakvala decided that he disagrees with your stance on toe sucking, hypothetically, he's free to shut you down on this board, or decide you can't come to his party or be on the board of his toe-sucking charity foundation and not infringe on your right to free speech. He's not the government, nor acting as an agent of the government.

Is it fair? Maybe not. That's where personal responsibility comes into play. The interesting thing about the founders and the framework of this country is that it was geared to place the burden of responsibility on the citizen, and not the government.

oh, and some mod get rid of blackburrow lover and put "Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side" back as my avatar thingie the way it used to be ;P

Danke in advance!

Cak wouldn't be, but the school is. They are - at least in part - attached to the government. They even take taxpayer money.

And yeah, you gnoll lover!

Yes, and they do the job they are paid to do. The student wasn't suspended or expelled for their actions. If that had happened, then your arguments would have some merit. A privilege was taken away (and an appropriate one, since allowing a student, who has a history of publicly disrespecting staff, to represent his fellow students on a council is going to send the message that it's okay to be disrespectful to teachers). Extra-curricular activities are a privilege, not a right, and the school can impose any requirements they like on those activities.

As an aside, did you know that many school districts punish students for fights that occur off campus?

_________________

So, since we are often told that "driving is a privilege, not a right" should the government be able to take your drivers license away if you say that Obama is a dickhead?

That's the thing. They're not. Numerous entities accept taxpayer funds and can take various action with regards to their constituencies.

Once again, you're drifting away from the topic and back into the bounds of governmental interference based on speech. Don't present a separate argument and attack that in the guise of analogy. It's a poor one. In this particular instance, this student's right to free speech was NOT violated. He's free to call the school administration dickheads all he wants. Nothing is preventing him from performing that action. He has no right to attend this function that is being denied him as a result of his speech.

You're a smart guy, Bov. I can't see how you're not separating a first amendment violation from a petty administrative action.

Perhaps my view stems from an inaccurate view of how the school system interacts with government, then.

Given the taxpayer money, the elections to school boards, and other such "official" interactions between government and schools, I drew the conclusion that they are intertwined at least a little.

If that's incorrect then yes, most of my argument becomes entirely invalid. Even so, I'd still want to slap the administration of the school for such a petty action.

I'll give you a good example where that DOES apply.

You have the right not to incriminate yourself. You CAN refuse a breathilizer test if caught drunk driving. That is your RIGHT.

And you will lose your license if you do so.

The DMV can't take away your rights, but they can penalize you if you insist upon them. And rightfully so, since agreeing to waive that right makes us all safer from drunk drivers.

_________________

No, I was not being sarcastic.

All Fribur could muster was an "lol".

Point is - look at Iraq. We bombed the living shit out of those people, destroyed everything they had, and yet they are able to frustrate and defeat our government.

Armed citizens may not storm the White House and bomb the Pentagon. But, they greatly reduce the ability of the government to impose its will. Again - look at Iraq and Pakistan if you have any doubts.

And really, this is going to come across as a slam on Fribur and it isn't meant to. But ultimately, he has a teacher's mindset. He manages children. That means, you set very strict rules and do your best to enforce them. If the children break the rules, you punish them, but leave lots of room for forgiveness. I feel he extends this to his view of governemnt - put strict rules in place to protect us (the children). And, when it comes to crime, leave lots of room for forgiveness.

Personally, I prefer a different approach - give lots and lots of freedom. If people commit a crime, punish them severely. White collar crimes should carry stiff penalties. Gun crimes should carry horribly stiff penalties (and for the record, they do).

I made the case before - if 1 in 10 Americans carried a gun and guns were allowed on planes, 9/11 would not have happen

Sometimes I think people forget that no matter how much government we have or how comfortable we think we are, every day is a fight for survival where the strong will always try to eat the weak.

I didn't really take that as a slam.

I "only mustered a lol" because you were pointing to Iraq as a positive example of the value of an armed populous, when I would point to Iraq as a negative example of the value of an armed populous.

Hence the lol.

Personally I think some of you are focusing way too much on some epic, theatrical view of a singular event where you and a ragtag bunch of patriots fight off some oppressive government shadow men and their puppet military....and are completely ignoring the real, day-to-day consequences of your dreams of being John Connor.

Ahh, but that swings both ways. You're both correct from your own point of view. Given two routes, I'll take the least restrictive.

I'm still wondering why that would be a negative example if the point trying to be made is that a weaker force with weaker weaponry can actually hole up and stage an insurgency against a far superior and more technologically advanced force.

I mean, it worked, didn't it?

It's not as if history hasn't had other examples as well with primarily small arms used.

I often wonder how gun-owners plan on purchasing ammo when the revolution comes.

_________________

Being surrounded by Texas gun nuts on all sides, I can assure you...they stockpile it. In large amounts.

_________________

Because everything counts in large amounts.

(Please don't ask why I felt the need to post that. It's 4am here. I'm a bit loopy.)

_________________

Thing about ammo is, you tend to go through a shit-ton of the stuff. What was it like 50,000 or some other outrageous number of rounds per kill in Vietnam?

_________________

That sounds more like LAPD

_________________

You may be missing the point as to why Fribur thinks it's a negative.

Again, not everything in regards to this topic is based around the idea of fighting off the government.

I thought it was our rules of engagement and the fact they know 100% they're safe inside churches, schools, or behind human shields that holds back our forces. Not their superior skill with less advanced weaponry.

Let's stay on our own shores here. Look at the American Revolution. A bunch of rag-tag, un-organized farmers were able to defeat the most powerful military of the time with muskets and rifles. We won very few individual battles but we were able to win the war because the British could not continue with that type of war.

Trying to get back on topic...

So we have a nominee that has made rulings to limit the 2nd Amendment, made statements that indicate that she thinks it does not apply today; made rulings that can be interpreted as more limitations of free-speech; has a history of having her rulings overturned by higher courts; is considered a terror on the bench by her colleagues; has made some inflammatory comments involving race, and we haven't even gotten to the confirmation hearings yet!

If anyone but Obama had nominated this person would they still be getting this free-pass?

Put a fork in it man, it's a done deal. It's such a done deal it's not even worth getting upset about. It's a hugely smart political move. I don't like these people getting these posts for life, and I don't think she's the ultimate number one best choice, but she's not the worst. And her being the first hispanic, a woman and in general, pretty unoffensive means she is untouchable.

Finally, Obama team does a good job picking someone. It took them a while.

It could be worse. I think her impact with Souter leaving is a wash overall. I don't think it gets markedly more liberal, I think it stays the same.

Of course, consider the technology gap wasn't that wide at the time and that the British were half a world away from their home versus the Americans who were right here.

And we had a bit of help, too!

We had the Last of the Mohicans on our side.

Well, that was what the original example was aiming at, so it's hard to see it as a negative example in terms of proving the specific point that large governments can be resisted with inferior technology and guerilla tactics.

And France...

I would expect this from you, but still...

These statements ignore reality in many ways.



If this is true, good. I'm happy to hear it, and it makes me even more happy to have her on the bench.



You could interpret it that way, if you wanted to. Of course, you can make all kinds of "interpretations" about all kinds of things, and people as rabid red as yourself will always interpret Democratic nominees as evil in some way.



This is just bullshit, if you go to her actual colleagues and ask them. Plus, if she were a man....



No idea what you are talking about here, so can't comment.

Yes, but if I could be so bold, I have to point out that - again - the scope of the topic reaches far beyond just the fantasies of some rednecks fighting against the evil government, and that Iraq - while being a great example of some guerrilla (and other, as described by Jeka) tactics - is also a great example of what can go wrong when every nutjob has big weapons.

It can, but if that point is being made there should be some indication that it's separate from the point being responded to. The claim made with regard to the example given was specific(that superior government resistance can work), but the response has to do with something else entirely. It's like my saying Vitamin C is good for you and it worked when Hitler ordered his troops to take it, and your saying that it's a negative example. Sure, that particular use of Vitamin C wasn't great, but you'd completely ignore the claim being made.

Orme mentioned that Frib only mustered a lol precisely because the point went unanswered, regardless of what other points of interest this thread may have to offer.

Beyond that, I'd say that the idea of gun-loving(or... freely armed) societies being more prone to violent hellholes such as what spawned in Iraq is a completely separable aspect of such a society. We have a pretty sizable amount of freedom to bear arms in this country, and we haven't quite turned to chaos as that country has even with our formidable population and innumerable large cities. Countries in general with large amounts of guns in possession vary greatly. Just take a look at Switzerland. Granted that many people there undergo some form military training and guns are associated a little differently(that's more of a cultural/perspective issue than anything IMO), but you still have a good number of guns in many private households there with few gun laws and very few gun crimes.

read here:



and read here:

Godwin'ing the topic in an attempt to keep any discussion from deviating away from one of the few "positive" points you've been able to muster is not an effective debate strategy.

I'm still trying to figure out where I sign up for this easy-street cakewalk life that I'm apparently supposed to be leading just because I was born white and male. Did I miss the free gold being passed out at birth or something?

oh don't be bitter Bov. Hate to tell you, but whether you acknowledge it or not, being white is easier than being non-white in this country, on average.

That said, she didn't say in that comment that ALL white people have it easy-- that's what you added to it in your mind.



NPR had a story about this, yesterday. They pointed out that generally most people did NOT have this to say about her. One of those interviewed also pointed out that he thought that if she were a man, "nasty" and "terror on the bench" from those few making such accusations would possibly turn into, "tough questioner" and be a positive comment.

I know I won't convince you, krby-- since a Democrat nominated her, there is no way she will ever be a good candidate for you.

Sad thing for you is, Bushie the elder nominated her too for a bench, and I don't remember you saying a thing then.

Totally true. She included white men who have lived the life of a latino woman. Big demographic, that one..

It's funny how you make the comments about being white above and then go ahead to quote the, "Negative comments must be sexist!" stuff. <3



Yeah, it's a big up-and-coming one, didn't you know?

Thought this might be a noteworthy contribution to the discussion.

_________________

Actually, even if a Republican had nominated this person I would not be rubber-stamping it. I don't like people that have a history of ruling for limiting personal freedoms and rights.

When H.W. Bush nominated her (and he had a thing for nominating some more left-of center judges) she didn't have this track record. Honestly, I'd have to say that I was not for her -nor- against her then because I had not heard of her.

It is interesting to see how you justify the other items because she shares your idea of further restricting the 2nd Amendment. I honestly wonder how many other freedoms and rights you would be willing to surrender to have the 2nd Amendment eliminated.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out what big advantages I specifically have over anyone who is non-white or non-male.

I guess you could say that I don't have to deal with racist jerks, but there's still plenty of other jerks that I get to deal with anyway. (Including jerks who don't like whites or men, but I don't get to call that racism/sexism because apparently it's something else.)

Like I said, maybe I missed the bag of gold that got handed out at birth to all us white males. If you guys got yours, could you send me a little?