We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
More quotes from the Chris Wallace interview, at Shrinkwrapped. One example:
The freedom of speech. Do you know what it means? Basically. But you don't know its entire content, and it doesn't tell you itself. Those words, "the freedom of speech," "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech." Neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet.
Breyer is supposed to be a smart guy, ex-Harvard Law Prof and all. But that is the dumbest statement I have heard in the past week. I know that power corrupts, but it is the arrogance which concerns me, as I said yesterday. Doesn't Breyer's comment there imply that he might have some option for control of internet speech? Why else would he raise the issue?
Or am I missing a nuance?
When he says "It doesn't tell you its entire content," he is saying that a statement as unambiguous and clear as "Thou shalt not murder." is complex and full of nuance, that only someone like him can decipher.
No. His job is referee, by the rule book. It's not rocket science. The rules are very clear: they even permit Al Gore to make an absurd movie! And us to have a blog!
The arrogance, specifically, is the notion that "I am an expert in law, so I am an expert in life." Wrong. It is not his job to try to micromanage all of the outcomes in life in the USA. That sort of grandiosity on a court is indeed dangerous and, dare I say it - un-American.