Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 03:34
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Fix'd
Pssst. that's not how logic works:
[INDENT]
CCCToad: ~A is True
RBJ: Actually, A is True. So, ~A is false.
CCCToad: Well, then ~(A v B)
RBJ: Yer kidding me, right?[/INDENT]
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 03:37
Actually, you said that its true, but that it doesn't matter that its true.
Would you mind going back to Worshipping yourself?
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 03:45
Allow me to make your logical slip-up clearer:
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
CCCToad: ~A is True
ie.[INDENT]
Quote Posted by CCCToad
The cause for a tantrum here is that there doesn't seem to be any compelling government interest at stake to justify the bill.
[/INDENT]
RBJ: Actually, A is True. So, ~A is false.
(implied by my link below)[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
CCCToad: Well, then ~(A v B)
(created by adding an additional "...or _____" to your initial statement.)[INDENT]
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Fix'd
[/INDENT]
It ain't that big of a deal, but your "fix" was anything but.
/edit. It's not actually going to be a "compelling interest test" under any constitutional analysis, but try to stay away from phrases that have specific meanings unless that's actually what you're arguing (In which case you should probably stop altogether. but I digress)
If you're going to use "compelling interest" in layman's terms, then yeah, I agree, there isn't one. But if you're trying to say that there's no rational basis for congress to pass the law, then precedent would dictate otherwise. Regardless, implying that that was a fix, is still a logical flaw.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 03:53
Quote:
If you're going to use "compelling interest" in layman's terms, then yeah, I agree, there isn't one.
I don't really see how correcting in inaccurate statement is a logical flaw.
And its true that there is neither a compelling government nor a layman's compelling interest. Neither of those is particularly relevant because they won't (and wouldn't) be challenged on those grounds. We've also established (never really contested) that the fact that there's no good reason to pass this law doesn't stop Congress from doing it, so whether or not there's a good reason for congress to pass the law is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to what we've talked about so far.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 04:41
To be clear - "compelling interest" questions aren't "grounds." That is the test that is applied once the grounds for challenging the law are established.
Regardless, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that to the extent you were challenging the constitutionality by stating that there's no "compelling interest" you meant "rational basis," since as you correctly pointed out, your statement would be irrelevant otherwise. In doing so, I interpreted
[INDENT]"there doesn't seem to be any compelling government interest at stake to justify the bill"[/INDENT] to mean [INDENT]"there doesn't seem to be any rational basis to justify the bill"[/INDENT] and replied accordingly, pointing out a very similar situation in which Congress acted and for which there has been (rightfully) no opposition (ie. there is a rational basis). Expanding your initial statement would not change this contradiction.
If you persist in stating that you truly meant that there is no compelling interest, then I gave you too much credit in imputing meaning to your initial statement. You are correct that there is no logical flaw, but it is meaningless. Either way, I'm not sure what you gain.
This does point out the difficulty in dealing with this sort of thing where one participant continually misuses terms of art because of an underestimation of their true meaning. "Compelling interest" carries a lot of weight and should not be thrown around lightly.
____________________
And I really can't help but worship myself when someone like AR Master is shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - that I may actually have expertise in the law, since it is in fact my profession, and that I would have the audacity to suggest that my expertise does in fact trump the musings of a dilettante.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 05:35
I think we're communicating at cross-purposes.
What I meant is that the law probably wouldn't pass a compelling interest test if used, then proceeded to state that is irrelevant because the law won't ever be challenged under that test.
And I understand that it applies to challenging the law, not the basis for establishing the law. However, its the challenge that really counts because any law on the books is going to be valid until either challenged(with injuctive relief granted) or its overturned. Failing to mention that I'd jumped to musing about possible challenges is my bad.
Quote:
I would have the audacity to suggest that my expertise does in fact trump the musings of a dilettante.
Pretty big difference between that and the general pattern of abusive, self-righteous behavior I was referring to.
demagogue on 13/12/2009 at 08:05
Quote Posted by CCCToad
the term pork doesn't describe any aspect of this bill.
Pork is the term they use for any bullshit they throw into a bill, or a bill itself, just to pander to parochial interests with no deeper political value. It may be in 50 states, but politically speaking I have no doubt that each congressperson individually is throwing a bone to the rabid football-savants in their individual districts -- I did this for Ole Miss, God bless her -- so it still works like pork. Unless you have a better theory about the high-minded universal political values involved. Anyway, I was just using the term loosely to say this is about pandering to local yokels and you don't really need much more explanation than that; don't get side-tracked by the term itself.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 17:16
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I think we're communicating at cross-purposes.
What I meant is that the law probably wouldn't pass a compelling interest test if used, then proceeded to state that is irrelevant because the law won't ever be challenged under that test.
And I understand that it applies to challenging the law, not the basis for establishing the law. However, its the challenge that really counts because any law on the books is going to be valid until either challenged(with injuctive relief granted) or its overturned. Failing to mention that I'd jumped to musing about possible challenges is my bad.
The problem is that you're speaking in half gibberish because you're misusing terms - even here. This is not a trivial thing when you're performing any sort of legal analysis.
Quote:
Pretty big difference between that and the general pattern of abusive, self-righteous behavior I was referring to.
Don't be such a sensitive flower. Telling you that you don't know what you're talking about isn't abuse when it is simply stating the obvious truth.
ercles on 13/12/2009 at 17:49
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I would have the audacity to suggest that my expertise does in fact trump the musings of a dilettante.
Although I obviously can't follow all the detail of these sorts of debates, I do find it fascinating to read, and I enjoy seeing you fuck people up with the law as much as the next guy RBJ, but you do end up sounding like a douche sometimes.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 18:28
Wah, wah, wah. I'm a "douche" because I'm not humble about the fact that I know what I'm talking about, especially when dealing with those that don't. There's not much else I can do: I can't reason with gibberish.
He's the one that hasn't learned his lesson, and this isn't the first time that he's convinced himself that he somehow has these brilliant insights superior to actual, earned professional knowledge (yes, I've worked on Supreme Court cases - one of which actually had commerce clause issues).
I've been pretty patient with him on this one, but why should I should pretend that his relentless overconfidence in half-assed, baseless opinions has any merit, especially when I know better.
