Saturday Links

Saturday, June 12th, 2010

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

56 Responses to “Saturday Links”

  1. #1 |  matt | 

    The funny thing is clean good coke isn’t really that bad for you. It’s out of your system within 24 hours so not even a test can find it. Meth on the other hand is a terrible substance that should probably never be legalized but with the legalization of other drugs meth usage would drop (based on surveys of my local meth users).

    Paul actually a lot of the drugs that are illegal were legal less then 100 years ago. After the end of prohibition the politicians had to find something to send their cops to bust for headlines. I suggest you recheck the world as “drugs” are not illegal in almost every country on the earth. De-criminalization and such are becoming in vogue as people stop toeing the USA drug war line and start implementing realistic policies that work.

    Catinthewall : I did LSD more then once as a youth and I found it to be a very eye opening experience. You must make sure you’re of a sound and stable mindset with a good stable environment with a sober keeper to avoid a bad trip (I’ve never had a bad trip but I’ve got a strong mind that can overcome the hallucinations).

  2. #2 |  Mattocracy | 

    Police brutality is such a huge problem. I don’t understand why there aren’t more journalists covering this issue. There is so much material out there for several careers to made on this shit.

  3. #3 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    “make it easier for all of us to carry a gun”

    They’ll let you carry. But, if you use that gun in self-defense you are going to prison after they take everything you have as you fight through court. Unless you’re a cop (then you skate with no questions asked).

  4. #4 |  la Rana | 

    I don’t think you understand what judicial activism means, Radley. Thought, to be fair, Richard Epstein doesn’t appear to either.

    Though I am glad to see someone else finally realize that Scalia is simply a very good fraud.

  5. #5 |  Radley Balko | 

    I don’t think you understand what judicial activism means, Radley.

    Please, la Rana, educate me then.

  6. #6 |  la Rana | 

    Holdings in derogation of precedent, constitutional guarantees, or governing law in pursuit of prefered public policy or political outcomes. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade; Bush v. Gore. Scalia is the true master, able to very nearly conceal his policy preferences amid a persuasive legal argument. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, Babbit v. Sweet Home (dissent); Lawrence v. Texas (dissent); Raich v. Gonzales (concurrence).

    Holdings that are consistent with the text of the constitution can never be judicial activism. Epstein is misusing the term to mean disregarding precedent that does not accurately reflect constitutional guarantees. By their nature, libertarian legal positions almost never constitute judicial activism. When Thomas says over and over that the constitution dictates the reversal of almost every commerce clause case since Wickard, he is not preaching judicial activism, but reversal of the same.