Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[SoonerCoug]

Very boring. Being AP was the key to his apostasy.

In short, he was active as a child due to parents and an apostate once he got home. Yawn.

1) I went inactive about 13 years after I got home from my mission.

2) In response to others: I don't think scientists are morally superior to attorneys. What I'm saying is really quite simple. When All-American goes off with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo in an attempt to explain why Myriad Genetics should be able to patent a gene that could be sequenced in an infinite number of ways, it's just another lawyer is expressing an opinion and trying to persuade based on bad information. In reality, this is a matter of where a judge thinks a line should be drawn. Our society has decided to let non-scientists draw those lines on matters of science and non-doctors draw lines on matters of medicine. This drives me bonkers. If genuine scientists had drawn the lines, then Myriad wouldn't have ever had those patents.

When it comes to gay marriage, it's a matter of where the line should be drawn when balancing the rights of a minority, the interests of a state, and the interests of the federal government.

When lawyers stand in front of the supreme court, they make arguments for how the court could use precedent to make their decision and what the perceived consequences of their decision might be. Judges end up forming opinions based on a combination of what they think is right and what they think is defensible based on precedent and the constitution. Lawyers make arguments based on what their clients want or need. That is the nature of the process. It's all just a matter of opinion and persuasive writing that is often misinformed or partially informed. Am I wrong?

I am frequently disturbed by the certainty with which lawyers and judges express themselves on matters of opinion. I love Robert Shelby, but I'd respect him even more if he just wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal, so I am striking down this law. I think the US constitution is in line with with my opinion, and the supreme court has established precedent that gays must be treated with dignity (citation). So I'm going to make gay marriage legal by striking down this law. End of opinion.

Instead they feel some sort of obligation to write a novella. Then the appellate court writes their own novella, and so on. I like reading these novellas for entertainment purposes, but it's really just a bunch of goofy persuasive writing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

1) I went inactive about 13 years after I got home from my mission.

2) In response to others: I don't think scientists are morally superior to attorneys. What I'm saying is really quite simple. When All-American goes off with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo in an attempt to explain why Myriad Genetics should be able to patent a gene that could be sequenced in an infinite number of ways, it's just another lawyer is expressing an opinion and trying to persuade based on bad information. In reality, this is a matter of where a judge thinks a line should be drawn. Our society has decided to let non-scientists draw those lines on matters of science and non-doctors draw lines on matters of medicine. This drives me bonkers. If genuine scientists had drawn the lines, then Myriad wouldn't have ever had those patents.

When it comes to gay marriage, it's a matter of where the line should be drawn when balancing the rights of a minority, the interests of a state, and the interests of the federal government.

When lawyers stand in front of the supreme court, they make arguments for how the court could use precedent to make their decision and what the perceived consequences of their decision might be. Judges end up forming opinions based on a combination of what they think is right and what they think is defensible based on precedent and the constitution. Lawyers make arguments based on what their clients want or need. That is the nature of the process. It's all just a matter of opinion and persuasive writing that is often misinformed or partially informed. Am I wrong?

I am frequently disturbed by the certainty with which lawyers and judges express themselves on matters of opinion. I love Robert Shelby, but I'd respect him even more if he just wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal, so I am striking down this law. I think the US constitution is in line with with my opinion, and the supreme court has established precedent that gays must be treated with dignity (citation). So I'm going to make gay marriage legal by striking down this law. End of opinion.

Instead they feel some sort of obligation to write a novella. Then the appellate court writes their own novella, and so on. I like reading these novellas for entertainment purposes, but it's really just a bunch of goofy persuasive writing.

Oh my. I love to mock lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is getting embarrassing.

[SoonerCoug]

Oh my. I love to mock lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is getting embarrassing.

I'm not mocking lawyers. They are not really at fault.

I am mocking the process.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not mocking lawyers. They are not really at fault.

I am mocking the process.

Either way

[SoonerCoug]

Either way

I think Clarence Thomas would agree with me.

[SoonerCoug]

1) Rumor has it that Robert Shelby was a convert and is now an ex-Mormon.

2) Regarding legal opinions, just read the following:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=532&page=661

Just one paragraph of Scalia's dissent:

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf--and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point--then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a "fundamental" aspect of golf.

[Nakoma]

1) Rumor has it that Robert Shelby was a convert and is now an ex-Mormon.

2) Regarding legal opinions, just read the following:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=532&page=661

Just one paragraph of Scalia's dissent:

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf--and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point--then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a "fundamental" aspect of golf.

The first sentence of the next paragraph:

"Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question."

The paragraph you quoted was Scalia mocking the majority. But thanks for sharing your great legal insights, Clarence.

[SoonerCoug]

The first sentence of the next paragraph:

"Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question."

The paragraph you quoted was Scalia mocking the majority. But thanks for sharing your great legal insights, Clarence.

Um, I thought that was obvious... Good job figuring it out!

I was making a larger point about opinions and the process in general.

[Nakoma]

Um, I thought that was obvious... Good job figuring it out!

I was making a larger point about opinions and the process in general.

So, you wanted us to know Supreme Court justices can mock the legal reasoning of other Supreme Court justices. Brilliant point.

[All-American]

So, you wanted us to know Supreme Court justices can mock the legal reasoning of other Supreme Court justices. Brilliant point.

No, he wanted us to know that lawyers on the whole have not joined the unimpassioned search for objective truth which he himself began sometime after the church in which he never really believed stopped paying 150% of his tuition.

[Nakoma]

No, he wanted us to know that lawyers on the whole have not joined the unimpassioned search for objective truth which he himself began sometime after the church in which he never really believed stopped paying 150% of his tuition.

Is this what passes for a scientist's unimpassioned search for objective truth:

A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...lagPost/72711/

And all along Sooner's been telling us it is the lawyers who "make shit up as they go." I guess there are a fair number of scientists who want to be lawyers.

[SoonerCoug]

Is this what passes for a scientist's unimpassioned search for objective truth:

A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...lagPost/72711/

And all along Sooner's been telling us it is the lawyers who "make shit up as they go." I guess there are a fair number of scientists who want to be lawyers.

Yes, there is such a thing as scientific misconduct. What's your point?

When scientists do unethical things, their careers are terminated. They lose funding and lose their labs. It happens, but it's rare.

What happens when a lawyer is unethical? How common is unethical behavior by lawyers? They are disbarred, right? What is the standard to which lawyers are held? I'd like to know.

[SoonerCoug]

No, he wanted us to know that lawyers on the whole have not joined the unimpassioned search for objective truth which he himself began sometime after the church in which he never really believed stopped paying 150% of his tuition.

I paid my dues--2 years in siberia and plenty of tithing--much more than the cost of my tuition. I even paid tithing when attending church just a few times per year.

When they interviewed me for the Hinckley Scholarship, they asked me if there was anything in Mormonism that I could say that I know for sure. I answered honestly: "No, there isn't."

I openly criticized church leaders (specifically BKP, Joseph F Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith) in my interviews.

They gave me the scholarship anyway. They wanted me at BYU. My conscience is clear.

P.S. Remind me how SCOTUS ruled on Myriad. I forgot. Wasn't it unanimous against Myriad? What made you support Myriad so enthusiastically? Was the supreme court wrong?

[All-American]

My conscience is clear.

That doesn't surprise me.

P.S. Remind me how SCOTUS ruled on Myriad. I forgot. Wasn't it unanimous against Myriad? What made you support Myriad so enthusiastically? Was the supreme court wrong?

They upheld one patent and invalidated the other, admitting all the while that they didn't really understand the science (see Justice Scalia's dissent). Funny how the legal generalists for whom the science is foreign matter are actually the ones who agree with you.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

1) I went inactive about 13 years after I got home from my mission.

2) In response to others: I don't think scientists are morally superior to attorneys. What I'm saying is really quite simple. When All-American goes off with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo in an attempt to explain why Myriad Genetics should be able to patent a gene that could be sequenced in an infinite number of ways, it's just another lawyer is expressing an opinion and trying to persuade based on bad information. In reality, this is a matter of where a judge thinks a line should be drawn. Our society has decided to let non-scientists draw those lines on matters of science and non-doctors draw lines on matters of medicine. This drives me bonkers. If genuine scientists had drawn the lines, then Myriad wouldn't have ever had those patents.

When it comes to gay marriage, it's a matter of where the line should be drawn when balancing the rights of a minority, the interests of a state, and the interests of the federal government.

When lawyers stand in front of the supreme court, they make arguments for how the court could use precedent to make their decision and what the perceived consequences of their decision might be. Judges end up forming opinions based on a combination of what they think is right and what they think is defensible based on precedent and the constitution. Lawyers make arguments based on what their clients want or need. That is the nature of the process. It's all just a matter of opinion and persuasive writing that is often misinformed or partially informed. Am I wrong?

I am frequently disturbed by the certainty with which lawyers and judges express themselves on matters of opinion. I love Robert Shelby, but I'd respect him even more if he just wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal, so I am striking down this law. I think the US constitution is in line with with my opinion, and the supreme court has established precedent that gays must be treated with dignity (citation). So I'm going to make gay marriage legal by striking down this law. End of opinion.

Instead they feel some sort of obligation to write a novella. Then the appellate court writes their own novella, and so on. I like reading these novellas for entertainment purposes, but it's really just a bunch of goofy persuasive writing.

I thought you read lots of legal opinions? It's pretty apparent from this post that's probably not true.