Comments on: “Caylee’s Law” Is a Bad Idea

By: Casey Anthony Boycott Shows That The Caylee Anthony Crowd Is Made Up of Useful Idiots | Popehat

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:56:13 +0000

[...] Anthony think-of-the-children folks on Twitter, who (like many of her ilk) is outraged that some people think that the howls for “Caylee’s Law” are misguided. She says this: How can a law that protects children be WRONG? How can it be [...]

By: Andrew S.

Andrew S. — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:06:42 +0000

I have a new favorite comment, Radley. If that is your real name, CASEY!

Do not kid yourself.. .Casey Anthony probably wrote this piece. Caylee’s law is a good idea. And the author should be looked into…who lets a child swim at a lake where there appears to be no lifeguard/ adult supervisio n? In the example cited if a child swims without supervisio n and drowns the parents are at fault. Hopefully this author does not have children. I mean who is sleeping with children (under 12) playing outside? Sounds to me this is an adovcate for the poor parent.

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:47:37 +0000

I think we should start naming laws after people we wish were dead. First up: Nancy Grace’s Law.

I agree with Jennifer Abel: I don’t care whether she did it or not. If she causes Nancy the Crooked Prosecutor to have an aneurism*, I’ll send her twenty bucks.

*Preferably the kind of explosive aneurism that causes red jelly to squirt out her eye sockets, followed by her collapsing to the floor, frenetically drumming her feet, and shitting her pants.

By: abhisaha

abhisaha — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:27:03 +0000

I think Radley’s article got a much more favorable response on Huffington Post than might appear at first. If you click on the favourites (hearts) tab to order the comments by number of likes, you’ll notice that the most popular comments are all supportive of Radley’s position.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:43:43 +0000

That was the best satire I’ve read in months Matt. Thank you.

By: MountainTiger

MountainTiger — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:14:24 +0000

37: I can beat that.
1. Kids require food, clothing, shelter, etc.
2. Those things require commerce.
3. Commerce Clause!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:50:50 +0000

@Andrew S

There’s a bunch of people in the comments who are talking about Congress and this being a federal law. Commerce Clause?

I shall use Liberal Logic®™* to tie this bill to the commerce clause.

1. Kids grow up into adults
2. Adults usually have jobs and money to buy things
3. The now-adult kid will buy things with money earned from said job that were produced out of state
4. COMMERCE CLAUSE

When you come up with commerce clause excuses, I like to use the “Filburn Test”. Just think: is the excuse dumber then the reasoning expressed in “Wicker v Filburn”? If not, it will pass a court test. As I actually can’t imagine anything dumber then the logic expressed in “Wickard v Filburn”, everything goes.

*©

By: JS

JS — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:06:00 +0000

I totally agree Kristen! If I ever decide to become a dad I’m going to go move to another country before they’re born.

By: Andrew S.

Andrew S. — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:05:33 +0000

There’s a bunch of people in the comments who are talking about Congress and this being a federal law. Commerce Clause?

By: Kristen

Kristen — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:40:19 +0000

These types of laws make me very, very happy I never had kids. If you have young children these days, you’re risking your life & liberty in a big way. It’s just way too risky.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:28:01 +0000

Radley, not that I’m a supporter of Ben Shapiro at all, but my take on his column was not for abolishing the jury system, but a “revamping” of it. Big difference, and one I completely agree with. It’s a mess.

That said, Shapiro is still an assclown.

By: Zeb

Zeb — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:21:39 +0000

I’m glad you have a good job, and I suppose it is a good thing that you are getting wider exposure, but goddamn, HuffPo makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

By: Zeb

Zeb — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:16:44 +0000

Passing an overly broad law and expecting prosecutors to use discretion is suck crap. If any possible application of a law is unjust, the the whole law is unjust, period.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:42:44 +0000

Highway “The person responded with “No, I can’t believe a prosecutor would do something like that.””

Which is tantamount to saying “No, I don’t beleive the government would ever abuse their power.”

By: SusanK

SusanK — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:37:31 +0000

Why is everyone so content on relying on prosecutors to “not file the charge”? Do people not realize that police issue tickets and take people to jail? Do people really want to wait in jail while a prosecutor decides to not file charges?

By: MacGregory

MacGregory — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:08:29 +0000

#27 Highway
I’ve had similar discussions and responses from friends on FB. “Don’t be silly. A DA would never do such thing.” I am very quick to point to all the “zero tolerance” stories of school kids getting charged with dumb shit. Rulz is rulz.

By: Highway

Highway — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:55:15 +0000

I actually told someone in a discussion of this law that I would bet the first person charged under it would be a parent whose child died after putting them to bed, and they didn’t discover it until the morning. The person responded with “No, I can’t believe a prosecutor would do something like that.” Somehow, I don’t think anyone here would doubt that a prosecutor would do exactly that.

By: Maggie McNeill

Maggie McNeill — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:52:38 +0000

I don’t recall exactly when the “naming laws after dead kids” thing started, but I do recall that I though it infantile at the time (though I was probably quite young myself). Beyond all the other reasons for hating such laws (which Radley and others have eloquently enumerated), they make us sound like a nation of kindergarteners where everyone can be identified by a first name alone. Though I’m generally against more laws, maybe we need a law to prevent naming laws after people who didn’t write or sponsor them.

And don’t get me started on the Microsoft-driven tendency for half of all software to be called “My Something-or-Other”, evoking memories of constructions like “My School Box” or “My Childhood Memories” on a photo album. Gag.

By: MacGregory

MacGregory — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:44:38 +0000

I am the same guy who actually believed that SCOTUS would rule that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that some version of this reactionary, POS legislation will pass somewhere, somehow.

By: ClubMedSux

ClubMedSux — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:35:42 +0000

Here’s my favorite HuffPo comment:

“This article does raise some good points but Radley, you do know how our legislative system works…right? This is step one out of several. The description of what the potential law will be is not a formal bill. When it is submitted it will be edited and revised and edited and revised and edited some more. As much as Congress argues, I am confident in their ability to make this petition into a reasonable law” (emphasis added).

I honestly have so many snarky comebacks popping up in my head at once that I can’t pick one to respond with.