Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Judge Posner expresses his thoughts on the quality of the work of the Board of Immigration Appeals:

http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/j23immig.html

"In an opinion bristling with judicial indignation, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sharply criticized the Board of Immigration Appeals in two cases involving asylum seekers, suggesting the board find some new judges."

S_A_M

[ETA: "It was pretty surprising," said Blagoev’s Chicago-based attorney, Justin Burton, when asked about the appeals court’s critical language. "I don’t think it is necessarily the fault of the immigration court. I think it is more the fault of a system where the attorney general of the United States puts case completion goals ahead of the quality of adjudication, thus compromising the due process rights of applicants seeking relief."]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If you save the excellent Godfather refs for after 9 am pacific time I for one will shower you with praise. Although that doesn't seem to be what you have linked to as your best post.

How could the others not get the Godfather? Is there truly a point in trying to teach here, when the basic education they should have before every stepping into this arena is lacking?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


I think the areas that those who believe the fetus is a human being have the most difficulty with are in the case of rape and severe birth defects.

First (to save posts), there is a middle ground. What happened to viability? It's as principled as conception or birth for a bright line.

Second, why does conception by rape make the fetus (once born) any less human (or less human, or fetal, before being born)? For birth defects, sure, one could argue isn't viable anyway. The difficulty comes in denying either as a justification. Again, it's where you draw the line. One can say no abortion at all; others can say no abortion as a form of birth control. Well, then abortions after rape are okay.

So what's the point of all this arguing? (late the game).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
He isn't. Had he any other choice, he would have never done it.

I respect your cynicism, but I would suspect that there are many politicians that are too self-important to ever do what Dean did, even if their campaigns "had no choice."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How could the others not get the Godfather? Is there truly a point in trying to teach here, when the basic education they should have before every stepping into this arena is lacking?

You mean the movie? The pizza shop? Grandpa Luigi?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How could the others not get the Godfather?

Movie references are lost on me. Would've thought Ty would've gotten it, though.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
First (to save posts), there is a middle ground. What happened to viability? It's as principled as conception or birth for a bright line.

But the point of viability changes with advances in medicine. In 1974 no 24 week old fetus was viable outside the womb. They are now viable. So according to those who would draw the line at viability, 30 years ago a 24 week old fetus wasn't a human being but now he or she is?

Anyone else see the intellectual dishonesty in a society that would spend $600,000 to save the life of one 24 week old fetus in the neonatal intensive care unit but would dispose of another in a red bag labeled "biohazardus waste" and bases its distinction between the two simply on the whether the mother wants the child?

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Second, why does conception by rape make the fetus (once born) any less human (or less human, or fetal, before being born)?

It doesn't. That was my point in saying that the pro-lifers have a hard time with the children conceived by rape. On the one hand, everyone recognizes the horrific trauma forcing her to carry a child conceivec by rape would cause the mother. On the other hand, allowing the abortion would punish the child who comitted no crime. That is a hard choice for the pro-lifers.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For birth defects, sure, one could argue isn't viable anyway.

Depends on what you mean by severe birth defect. I consider Down's syndrome a severe birth defect and those kids are viable at the same point as a fetus without Down's.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So what's the point of all this arguing? (late the game).

We are avoiding real life by choosing to argue here instead. Or we just like to see our words in print. One of the two.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

I can't be the only one who sat through the almost two-hours of Democratic Q&A (called a 'debate" for some reason) last night. It was my first exposure to the group of them -- Indeed, it was my first exposure to FNC in many a moon - and I seem to have contracted no diseases. I must say, however, that listening to the "post-debate" commentary from Kondrake & Barnes about who "won"/or looked good seemed a bit odd given that neither of those gentlemen would vote for the Dem. candidate on a bet.

My own incomplete thoughts:

(1) John Kerry looked/sounded strong -- and despite his sepulchral demeanor came across with a couple of well-chosen and/or inspiring answers. I think he can do better in the South than a lot of people think.

(2) Kucinich looks like he has less water in his body than humans are supposed to.

(3) Line of the Debate -- by (as expected) Al Sharpton. "I wanted to say to Governor Dean: Don't be too hard on yourself, Governor Dean, for that hooting and hollering you did the other night. If I'd spent that kind of money in Iowa, and only got 18%, I'd STILL be hollering! It's OK, Howard."

(4) Sharpton also gave a very good, inspiring answer on not letting the GOP seize the advantage on "family values" -- along the lines of how jobs for the father, rights for the mother, and education for the kids are all "family values". Man doesn't know a damn thing about the Fedeeral Reserve or monetary policy, though.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I would suspect that there are many politicians that are too self-important to ever do what Dean did, even if their campaigns "had no choice."

I cannot think of one in recent times, but I might just need more caffeine. I am open to suggestions.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I can't be the only one who sat through the almost two-hours of Democratic Q&A (called a 'debate" for some reason) last night

It frustrates me to no end that I cannot watch such events because broadcast TV doesn't carry them here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
But the point of viability changes with advances in medicine. In 1974 no 24 week old fetus was viable outside the womb. They are now viable. So according to those who would draw the line at viability, 30 years ago a 24 week old fetus wasn't a human being but now he or she is?

sure, if your principle is viability, that's completely consistent. If the fetus could be born today and survive, that makes it sufficiently human to be protected; if not, then not. The gestational duration is irrelevant to this question, other than to set a time for purposes of the law.

Not a direct comparison, but we've changed the drinking age and the voting age (only one in the right direction), as well as, in many states, teh statutory rape age. Why should we feel bound to retain the old ages when we believe that in current society the revised age is more appropriate?

We are avoiding real life by choosing to argue here instead. Or we just like to see our words in print. One of the two.

Sure, but there are some intractable arguments in life. Abortion is one of them. MOst of what gets argued about here otherwise is not.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Judge Posner expresses his thoughts on the quality of the work of the Board of Immigration Appeals:

I gotta find this opinion. I (usually) love reading Posner.

But, the reference by the defatty to this being the fault of the prosecutor sort of threw me. Don't the judges control their courts? How could the prosecutor control docket speed? Don't you just go to the court and say "their proposed schedule is too fast"? I would blame that on the judge, not the prosecution - the court is supposed to protect the due process rights.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I can't be the only one who sat through the almost two-hours of Democratic Q&A (called a 'debate" for some reason) last night.

You weren't. I watched it, too. I would vote for Lieberman if I lived in NH and was a Dem.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
listening to the "post-debate" commentary from Kondrake & Barnes about who "won"/or looked good seemed a bit odd given that neither of those gentlemen would vote for the Dem. candidate on a bet.

Not true. Kondrake's wife has late-stage Parkinson's disease and he is a staunch advocate for embryonic stem cell research. He would vote for a Dem based on that alone. He like everyone else who votes, votes with the interests of himself and his family in mind.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
John Kerry looked/sounded strong -- and despite his sepulchral demeanor came across with a couple of well-chosen and/or inspiring answers. I think he can do better in the South than a lot of people think.

Especially if Edwards is the VP.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Kucinich looks like he has less water in his body than humans are supposed to.

Less fat, IMHO.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Line of the Debate -- by (as expected) Al Sharpton. "I wanted to say to Governor Dean: Don't be too hard on yourself, Governor Dean, for that hooting and hollering you did the other night. If I'd spent that kind of money in Iowa, and only got 18%, I'd STILL be hollering! It's OK, Howard."

I thought Shapton's commentary on state's rights was funnier.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
But the point of viability changes with advances in medicine. In 1974 no 24 week old fetus was viable outside the womb. They are now viable. So according to those who would draw the line at viability, 30 years ago a 24 week old fetus wasn't a human being but now he or she is?

Although I generally prefer not to join the abortion debates on here, this does make me curious. You ask this question as if it is outlandish to say yes (well, as far as I can tell from reading the words on the screen). Is that your position, that because viability has been extended to a fetus just 24 weeks old, that viability itself is an inherently flawed dividing line?

To put it another way, if RvW was updated to be keyed to current medicine's ability to make fetuseses viable, would it still be intellectually dishonest?

It doesn't. That was my point in saying that the pro-lifers have a hard time with the children conceived by rape. On the one hand, everyone recognizes the horrific trauma forcing her to carry a child conceivec by rape would cause the mother. On the other hand, allowing the abortion would punish the child who comitted no crime. That is a hard choice for the pro-lifers.

Why is it a "hard choice" for the pro-lifers but "intellectually dishonest" when the pro-choicers draw a similarly difficult line? I don't think it's dishonest to take note of the vast numbers of children in poverty in this country and to say to oneself that we're not going to add to those numbers by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child (subject to certain limitations). I think many find that to be a "hard choice" as well, esp those Catholics I know who find anguish in weighing the church's historical social teachings against the church's pro-life doctrines.

Please note that I too find those that see abortion as just another form of birth control as totally beyond the pale. Just as I hope you see those that would send letter bombs to abortion docs the same way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't think it's dishonest to take note of the vast numbers of children in poverty in this country and to say to oneself that we're not going to add to those numbers by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child (subject to certain limitations).

Grandma's kind of a pain, too, and her meds are getting expensive, and the kids really want that new four-wheeler . . .

Yeah, I know that's facile, but I don't think it's dissimilar from that particular justification. I think there does need to be some bright-line test, not subject to whim or vaguary. I have no idea what that test should be, of course.