Comments on: Academic Round-Up

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:21:47 +0000

“If so, at least it isn’t the one where all the cases are on your side…”

That’s reality (well, just about all of the cases are on my side) – but remember, you’re in Fantasyland.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:19:51 +0000

If so, at least it isn’t the one where all the cases are on your side and Justice Souter is Justice Brennan’s doppleganger.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:48:50 +0000

LOL. No you haven’t. You’re living in a Fantasyland.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:09:54 +0000

LOL. I have. You’re just in denial.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:06:23 +0000

then how come you haven’t been able to do it?

the bet is on the table.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:15:09 +0000

My “side” is that your position is false. It doesn’t take much to show that.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:39:17 +0000

? someone who read your statement and nothing else would think you had just about all the cases on your side. Boy would they be fooled. :)

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:51:08 +0000

do you really have nothing left but to nit-pick

Do you really have nothing left but to deny that your position has no merit?

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:09:29 +0000

my gosh .. that case was raised and discussed long ago.

and anyway, do you really have nothing left but to nit-pick words like “all”? i guess so.

please take the bet ….

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:47:28 +0000

all the cases are on my side

FWIW, Justice Souter wrote a very good dissent to a very bad DP reversal in Stringer v. Black, 508 U.S. 222 (1992). Haven’t seen anything comparable from him in some time, though.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:27:19 +0000

Sheesh. I said my agreement with that summary was an oversight on my part.

Is this what you are reduced to?

Since all the cases are on my side, apparently so.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:26:22 +0000

My own words, from 8/16, contradict my ‘agreement’ with his summary of my position.

My own words contradict the summary of my position that I agreed with.

My own words contradict my position.

My position is self-contradicting.

I have no argument.

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:10:47 +0000

Me:

if we can safely presume that an absence of a written dissent or note indicating who dissented means that Souter voted to vacate the stay.

Jacques:

An inference is not an assumption …

Me again:

Later in the post, i said “if it is true that the absence of a written dissent ….”

By: steve jaros

steve jaros — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:09:37 +0000

ME:

Those were someone else’s words. I wouldn’t actually go that far.

Jacques:

Except you agreed with it, without qualification, and it’s been what we’ve been arguing about. Now you are backtracking. Again.

Me again: Jacques, i agreed with it in passing, because of course it’s not the totality of what we’ve been arguing about, are argument obviously predates it. My own words, from 8/16, contradict my ‘agreement’ with his summary of my position.

I never imagined you would latch onto it and try and make it a big deal. If i did, i’d have thought about “agreeing with it” more carefully.

As for 2006 … that’s just icing on a cake that goes back at least to 2000. Or if it doesn’t go back that far, neither you nor anyone else has come up with cases to the contrary.

By: Jacques McKenzie

Jacques McKenzie — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:05:05 +0000

Those were someone else’s words. I wouldn’t actually go that far.

Except you agreed with it, without qualification, and it’s been what we’ve been arguing about. Now you are backtracking. Again.