Author: Hoplite0352 (Page 22 of 27)

This is some Starship Troopers stuff!

Popular Science covers Space Marines.

With all apologies to the tyrant Lincoln, I prefer to celebrate the ushering in of sci-fi’s wet dream:  the Space Marine. (being offensive can be fun!)  Today is the 50th Anniversary of Col. John Glenn / USMC becoming the first American to orbit the Earth.

I’ve been a pretty vocal opponent of the telephone game that we call the common law, but I’ve yet to mention the psychosis and suspension of reality necessary to make the common law work.  One of the questions we often end up being asked in law school is, “How did the court justify their holdings in Case A and Case B?”  Just as often as not the real answer is that you cannot reconcile the holdings of the Court because they are opposed to each other.  But that answer is unacceptable, so a hundred of us cast our eyes to our books to avoid the professor’s gaze and we squirm in our seats until someone can actually come up with an answer.  That answer is generally a strange and obscure matter that differentiates the two cases.  And that answer is the actual LAW by which we live our lives.

The Supreme Court aids in this absurd fiction by their insistence on using the term “we” to reference opinions of Courts past, present, and future.  Here are a few examples from the recent U.S. v. Jones 565 U. S. ____ (2012):

“Thus, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), we held that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on the public streets did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because ‘[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants,'”

“Our later cases, of course, have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach. In Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967), we said that ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” and found a violation in attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth.'”

So, like one of Xerxes’ Immortals, the Court has always been one unit, with one mind.  By referring to themselves as “we”, it lends credence to the idea that there was ideological consistency to the decisions as if it were the same people making the decisions from Marshall to Roberts

How is this like James Bond?  Well, despite deviations in character and behavior, we’re expected to believe that these are all the same guy:

Now I don’t know about you, but I struggle to imagine Sean Connery’s Bond wielding an AK and mowing down Soviets.  There’s a reason that if you get a group of men together drinking eventually an argument will erupt as to who the REAL James Bond is.  (answer: Sean Connery)  There’d be no reason to argue over who the REAL Bond was if Bond acted the same with each new actor.

My final draft of the Constitution is up.  Mind you, there will likely never be a true final draft, but this is what I’m turning in to the law school.  I suppose when you ask for 20 pages double spaced and I give you more than 30 1.5 spaced, you’d best not complain!

You aren’t going to read it, so I shouldn’t reward you, but here’s possibly the greatest Marine Corps recruiting ad ever:

Note to self: When going to see Ron Paul speak on campus, 45 minutes is not early enough to arrive to even get standing room.

I just hit 1000 page views! My mom must have been up hitting refresh all night long.

Some of the things I’ve learned about myself:

I wish I were more religious.  I’d make an incredible preacher.

I’m an absurd softy.  I end up choking back tears when I see a person I can connect with in trouble.

I’m more of a builder than a punisher.

I’m not sure telling someone to research the effects of marijuana is a good idea if you’re trying to convince them to NOT smoke marijuana.

Pointless post requires video: