HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Judicial Interpretation vs. Legislation
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:39:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.050844.17179@IRO.UMontreal.CA> simon@saguenay.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
>I would be delighted to be proven wrong, of course; if Mr. Frank
>or anyone else can cite expressions of mainstream legal opinon
>explicitly opposing one or another seriously suggested approach to
>constitutional interpretation as being overly "liberal" (that is, as
>overstepping the line between "interpretation" and "legisation"), then
>I would be at least somewhat comforted.

Leaving aside Justice Scalia's recent attempts to formulate a jurisprudence
of interpretation:

Ronald Dworkin's book, "Law's Empire."  (also, parts of "A Matter of
Principle.")
Judge Richard Posner's books, "The Problems of Jurisprudence" and "The Federal
Courts."
Hart & Sacks, "The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application
of Law."
Justice Frankfurter, "Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes," 47 Colum L
Rev 527 (1947).
Judge Frank Easterbrook, "Statutes' Domains," 50 U Chi L Rev 533 (1983).
Bruce Ackerman, "The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution," 93 Yale
L J 1013 (1984).
William Eskridge, "Dynamic Statutory Interpretation," 135 U Pa L Rev 1479
(1987). 
Paul Brest, "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding," 60 BU L
Rev 204 (1980).
Blatt, "The History of Statutory Interpretation: A Study in Form & Substance,"
6 Cardozo L Rev 799 (1985).
Radin, "Statutory Interpretation," 43 Harv L Rev 863 (1930).
Hutchinson & Morgan, "The Semiology of Statutes," 21 Harv J Legis 583 (1984).

A good case on the issue is United States v Locke, 471 US 84 (1985).
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Judges "making" law [was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)]
Date: 23 Jan 1993 03:14:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>If I remember correctly, didn't the Commissioner's office (yes, it did exist
>then :-) ruled that failure to challenge a bat before the pitch was a waiver. 
>With the corked-bat accusations a few years ago things got a bit more difficult
>and rules were issued allowing a challenge system.

Speaking of baseball, and because this is misc.legal, does anyone know the
official bluebook form for citing the rules of baseball.

Oh, and how about the maroonbook form?  (so Ted won't feel left out... :-) )

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Judicial Interpretation vs. Legislation
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:48:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.185438.19181@IRO.UMontreal.CA> simon@brome.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
>One would have hoped that these same judges and legal scholars, after
>devoting such care and attention to the task of mapping out the
>complex subdivisions of the free speech/restricted speech spectrum,
>might also have made at least a token effort to draw a rough line
>between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation.  

What makes you think they haven't?  Read Edward Levi's "An Introduction
to Legal Reasoning," for example.

Or, better yet, Blackstone, who predates the Constitution.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Renegade Police and illegal tickets...REGISTER
From: cvadrgez@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:12:28 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadrgez

> .acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>>
>>I believe that you somehow missed the spirit of my post.  I do not care why th
> e
>>black man was firing at the Ford Escort.
> 
> The black man and the Escort was totally irrelevant to the author's query; 
> therefore, I beg the question.
> 
     I appologize for not fully answering your critism in my previous post.
I have a migrain headache at the moment, it fogs the mind a bit.
     What I meant to say earlier is that the black man firing a gun a mere 20
feet from where I was in the process of parking caused me a degree of fear.
This "Cowboy Cop (as I characterized him because he would fit quite well into
an old western movie) caused me a HIGHER degree of fear.  A NON-VIOLENT,
un-armed citizen should NOT experience fear for his/her physical safety when
dealing with an officer of the law.  I DID experience a reasonable fear for my
physical safety.

>>My problem with this Policeman is
>>that he issued me a citation for DOING WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO!  Please do not
>>make me out to be a racist, I am NOT a racist.
> 
> I never used the word "racist," the post spoke for itself, and the readers may 
> derive what they desire.
> 

     Then you mis-read my post.  I am not a racist.  I am glad that you
apparently agree that I did not deserve the ticket.

>>I Do have African, Asian,
>>Hispanic, and Mexian friends.
> 
> I have heard this many times before.  In fact, I know a member of Young
> Americans for Freedom, who happens to have ties to the Klan, say the same.
> 
>>Thank you Mr. Pollard for your observations...
>>
>>:)
From: harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:04:51 GMT

In article <13942@optilink.COM>,
Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) writes:

	I was horrified by the Bush policy, and irked that Bush
	was more interested in making the liberals happy by
	allowing the thugs that run Haiti to continue to do so
	without "U.S. imperialism" forcing them from power, than
	in correcting a horrendous abuse of human rights.

There is no basis for blaming Bush's Haitian policy on the liberal
establishment.  Most liberals and conservatives both tend to be
inconsistent in applying their values and solutions to world problems.
Most conservatives oppose military intervention against right-wing
dictatorships but support it against the left-wing variety, and most
liberals will reverse the two.  Most liberals are not true pacifists
who oppose military intervention in all cases, and most conservatives
are not war mongers intent on intervening whenever and wherever
democracy is threatened.

I suspect that former president Bush is a typical conservative and did
not see a need to treat Haiti in the same way that the U.S. treated
Grenada, for example, because Haiti is not in the "communist" camp.

Harry Katz

Xref: sparky misc.legal:23411 talk.abortion:58179 talk.politics.misc:70049 talk.religion.misc:27680
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 23 Jan 1993 03:29:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

>> 	True.  But you won't have to look very hard at all to discover that
>> citizens have a right to enter a legal place of business without being
>> assaulted or having their way physically blocked.  
>
>This statement could also be used against most people that are out on 
>*strike* when they are picketing their place of *employment*.

More interesting is to ask what is the difference between the following:

	1. Blocking streets and buildings to protest abortion.

	2. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a war.

	3. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a veto of a bill.

	4. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a jury verdict that
	you don't like.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Somethings Just Worry me....
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:02:15 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>> 
>> OK, I'll bite.  Me and drieux both want you to explain this, now.
> 
>hum.... worries me when anyone from anyplace
>listed as a 'zoo' supports me...

Oh, drieux, do do that voodoo that you do for us 'zoo dudes...

>cf. Asimov's discussion about 'proof and beauty'...

I must have missed that one.

>> Complete consistency is _easy_.  
> 
>hum....
>
>Haven't read any Godel, eh?

I didn't say I could _prove_ it was easy.

>ps: what I still have NOT been able to figure out,
>is why all these "Liberals" are "ProChoice"??????
>
>Clearly Keeping the Government out of the Personal
>Lives of the Citizenry has Traditionally been a
>Conservative Rallying Cry.....

No, you must have misunderstood.  When they say, "government should stay
out of the personal lives of men," they really mean _men_.  This is not
to be confused with the "men" in "all men are created equal," which
meant "white men."  Nor should you mistake that for the "men" in "the
best-laid plans of mice and men," which means, of course, "men and
women."  Got that?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 Modern dilemmas: "Why are so many people who claim to be 'pro-choice'
 against the right of an individual to use public money for their children
 to attend the school private or public of their choice."   - Craig Sivils
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23189 talk.politics.misc:69448 alt.president.clinton:1753
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Craig...
Date: 23 Jan 1993 14:52:41 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <1993Jan23.143728.3940@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1jmi2sINNk68@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu>, 
>csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) said:
>

>Craig, can you cite one posting by David Marc Nieporent in which he
>_denied_ that the congress spends irresponsibly?  If not, you're looking
>an awful lot like a desperate and/or incompetent attorney who tries to
>make the other side's expert witness look bad on the stand by asking him
>something like: "So, Doctor, you ADMIT that you've been practicing

[sarcastic continuation deleted]

That is irrelevant. Had the doctor been caught taking drugs from his own
pharmacy and claimed that it was the pharmacy's fault, surely a good
prosecutor would point to his background to discredit him. I was saying
that his pointing to congressional spending as irresponsible and the
house bank scandal as not irresponsible is absurd, since they are symtoms
of the same irresponsible attitude.

>And for all your yelling, you _still_ haven't explained how the House
>Banking "scandal" is symptomatic of anything,

I just did.

 or why it's a scandal, or
>where any taxpayer money was misused,

The money was not theirs to spend. [aside to the listening audience: Could
someone get the precidence out that clearly shows court decisions of the
money in the house bank belong to the taxpayers? Thank you!]

 or how it's irresponsible to write
>a check that you know won't bounce,

It is irresponsible to knowingly get a wink from the bank you run then claim
it is the bank's fault when you get caught.

 or how differences between banking
>services available to you and those available to congressmen constitute
>or are evidence of any sort of irresponsible behavior or wrongdoing by
>any congressmen.

The differences between banking services avilable to me and those available to
congressmen constituting irresponsible behavior: I do not run a bank, but if
I did I would not be allowed to provide freinds with unlimited amounts of
money from the bank interest free. This is due to federal banking laws. To
exempt the house bank from those laws is irresponsible and possibly criminal.

>Free advice from a third-year law student, Craig: don't ever try to
>become a prosecutor.  At least, not unless I get to be the defense
>attorney.

Free advice from a 40 year old computer consultant, Mr. Starr: keep studying,
and learn why a society that cares more about what is legal than what is 
just is doomed to decline.
-----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Chelsea and the Intif
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:22:09 GMT

In article <1562.1495.uupcb@pcohio.com> mark.schumann@pcohio.com (Mark Schumann
)  writes:
>
>Dennis B. Pollard writes:
>
>!A friend of mine told me that the D.C. mayor and Superintendent of Schools bo
th
>!have their kids in private schools.  If this is true, then certainly Mr.
>!Clinton cannot be "off the mark."
>
>The chairman of the Cleveland Board of Education has his kids in private
>schools.  I would question his qualifications for the job if he didn't.
>
I tell you, Mark, I don't know about Cleveland schools, but I wouldn't put a 
kid of mine in D.C. public schools if I could afford another system, and I am 
the product of a public system, K-law school.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:30:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.035728.25466@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.143807.4762@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>>Actually, I was thinking of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, and the
>>>effects, not the phrasing of the ruling.
>
>>And yet the reasoning of the decision lies in its phrasing, not its
>>effects.
>
>I'm assuming the Justices were rational enough to consider the effects
>of the ruling.

Wait a minute--you're saying you want the judges to anticipate the effects
of their interpretation of the law and use that in the decision, rather
than simply trying to interpret the law itself and deciding the case
accordingly?

That is just the kind of result-oriented judicial activism that people
like you condemn.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23089 talk.abortion:57292 talk.politics.misc:69135
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PINHEAD!  Thou art a PINHEAD!
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:27:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan19.230529.5454@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
> # Not to mention the fact that the free exercise of religion is specifically
> # guaranteed in the first amendment whereas the "right to abortion" was arrived
> # at by a series of extrapolations which first created a "right to privacy" and
> # then classed abortion under the umbrella of that "right".
> 
> That's correct.  We don't mention that because we don't consider any
> right to be any less fundamental simply on the grounds that it isn't
> explicitly referred to in the first ten amendments to the U.S.
> Constitution.
> 
> Of course, there are those PINHEADS that think that if it isn't
> mentioned explicitly in the Bill of Rights, it isn't really a right --

Actually, I don't think Mr. Page said that.  His point was that
free exercise of religion is explicitly protected, while the right
to abortion is an extrapolation from right to privacy, which is
in turn, an extrapolation from the Ninth Amendment.  Now, that
doesn't mean that there is no right to abortion -- but anyone that
insists that this right to abortion exists, should be even more
easily persuaded that the right to free exercise of religion
exists.  (Liberals, of course, have a very narrow notion of what
"free exercise of religion" means.)

> but, I assure you, history shows that the authors of the Bill of
> Rights certainly didn't.  These are generally the same PINHEADS that

Oddly enough, abortion wasn't completely free of governmental 
oversight at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.  See
Blackstone's _Commentaries_.  Laws against abortion were in existence
in the 1820s, though abortionists were seldom prosecuted, and even
more seldom convicted.

> whine about Roe vs. Wade and Griswold vs. Connecticut being classic
> examples of the Supreme Court `legislating from the bench' yet cheer
> like wrestling fans when the Supreme Court burns the doctrine of
> habeas corpus, savages the exclusionary rule, and shits on the fourth, 
> fifth, sixth and eighth amendments so that Justice can wage a stupid
> war on *illegal* drugs.
> 
> | J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday

This may be a surprise to Mr. Woodyatt, but there are a lot of
people in the U.S. who would consider "liberal" a vile insult,
and are horrified by the crimes being committed against the
Bill of Rights in the name of the War on Drugs.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Summary: Recklessness that causes death is manslaughter
Keywords: quarry
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:47:51 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <81867@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu 
(Richard Pitts) writes:

>Or is drawing the line "somewhere" like a hunter going hunting and
>shooting at anything that moves in the trees, even though he can't
>make out what it is?

>He could say, "well I don't know if what is there is a deer or not." Yet,
>I'd dare say the hunter would be HELD RESPONSIBLE for killing a man,
>who was in the trees.  [Richard Pitts]

Mr. Pitts is correct.  The following indictment was reported in the
newspapers, so I am free to talk about it:

Several men from southern Pennsylvania came to a quarry in northern
Harford County, Maryland, a couple of years ago.  They stood on one
edge of a flooded quarry, taking pot shots at objects in the water.
Most of them shot at relatively close objects, but one fellow decided
to shoot at a log 'way at the other end of the water.  The men were
standing in the sunlight, and the log was in the shade so it was not
that easy to make out, but this fellow shot anyway.  He missed his 
target with the first shot, then scored a perfect hit with the second.

What none of the men knew was that the day they picked to come 
south from Pennsylvania was the same day some other men had picked 
to come north from Baltimore City to go swimming at the other end 
of the quarry.  That was no log he hit; it was a man, and he 
killed him on the spot.

Anyone who has ever been taught how to shoot knows that you 
don't pull that trigger unless you're sure what you're shooting
at.  If you're not sure, and you shoot anyway, that's reckless 
behavior.  Reckless behavior that causes someone's death is 
counted as manslaughter.  So the grand jury indicted this fellow 
for manslaughter.

>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
>                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
>Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
>Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 

Somehow, those first two lines seem to be missing from Psalm 95:6 in
my Bible.  Maybe I have an old copy.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Renegade Police and illegal tickets...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:48:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.010352.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvadrgez@vmsb.is.csupomon
a.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.003556.18517@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dpollard@magnus
.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>
>I believe that you somehow missed the spirit of my post.  I do not care why th
e
>black man was firing at the Ford Escort.

The black man and the Escort was totally irrelevant to the author's query; 
therefore, I beg the question.

>My problem with this Policeman is
>that he issued me a citation for DOING WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO!  Please do not
>make me out to be a racist, I am NOT a racist.

I never used the word "racist," the post spoke for itself, and the readers may 
derive what they desire.

>I Do have African, Asian,
>Hispanic, and Mexian friends.

I have heard this many times before.  In fact, I know a member of Young
Americans for Freedom, who happens to have ties to the Klan, say the same.

>Thank you Mr. Pollard for your observations...
>
>:)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23039 soc.culture.soviet:12286
Organization: University of Maryland at Baltimore
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 13:40:27 EST
From: <CBOFFEY@UMAB.BITNET>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.soviet
Subject:    Russian Copyright Law

I recently heard that the newly created Russian Intellectual Property Agency
submitted a final draft of a new copyright law entitled "On Copyright and
Related Rights" to be considered by the Supreme Soviet sometime this month.
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this final draft?  Also, does the
Russian Intellectual Property Agency have an e-mail address?
                                             .
Thanks in advance,  Christopher Boffey  (CBoffey@umab.umd.edu)

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing
From: allyn@netcom.com (allyn)
Subject: Posting results of deciphering dBase files
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:41:39 GMT

I am curious. I have received some requests to post the results of my
efforts to decypther the structure of the data and index files 
that are created and used by the various dBase software products.

I know that the dBase software itself is copyrighted but I want to
know if that also applies to the format and content of the data files
(whish have my own data generated by dBase).

I have written som of my own software that accesses dBase files for 
a volunteer project for charity and I would like to post this code.

Do any of you know of any legal ramifications if I did this? The data
files do not contain any copyright information.

Thanks!

Mark
From: sstout@yukon.EBay.Sun.COM (Steve Stout, Mgr. Sales Negotiations)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Montana/Idaho
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:22:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: sstout@yukon.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: yukon.ebay.sun.com

Anybody out there on this alias in Montana or Idaho willing to answer a couple of
questions?

'Steve


Xref: sparky misc.legal:23067 talk.politics.misc:69097