Re: DOGE report

On 5/9/2025 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/9/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:

>
>
What could go wrong?
>
https://wlos.com/news/local/volleyball-player-injured- after-transgender- opponent-spiked-ball-at-her-speaks-out

 Oooh, look! An anecdote!  ;-)
 

I thought about this on my refreshingly pleasant ride this morning. It's just a joy in warm sunlight finally.
One might say, and I will, that Torah, English Common Law, the huge body of US case law and much of western culture generally are comprised of outlier anomalous anecdotes to establish various limiting principles.
This is not to say that every instance ought to set a new standard; far from it!  But it's very human to reason from exceptional incidents to define limits, that is, 'to here, but no further'.
For us, Dred Scott, Kelo, Koramatsu/Kabayashi/Yasui and Dobbs have import.  They are important because they are outlier incidents and establish limits. Those limits, being considered correct or not by one person or another at various times and contexts, are crucial.
For example, Mr Eisenhower, Mr Kennedy and Mr Johnson read Brown v Board and reflected, "My, that certainly is nice." Mr Nixon however enforced it, vigorously and thoroughly at great political, social and financial cost.  The particulars of Brown did not change. The decision by SCOTUS did no change. The application, however, was a tumultuous and revolutionary change.
Due to a gruesome and well publicized hanging in the Wisconsin Territory, the State of Wisconsin has never allowed capital punishment, even in the exceptional case of Jeffrey Dahmer. His fellow inmates, however, saw the case differently and acted accordingly.
So you may make your own decision in your own way by your own standards but one ought to consider what is the limiting factor, where are the limits and why by reflecting on the outliers.
p.s. Think about The War of Jenkins' Ear versus the USS Pueblo incident.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971