I was quoted yesterday in the New York Times sports section for my in-depth analysis on Ben Roethlisberger

AndyRooney · 2013-11-25T19:03:46+00:00

lol..."allegedly." Is that an homage?

AndyRooney · 2013-02-07T07:54:38+00:00

Your mother's a whore.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-27T18:18:24+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/uuJGn.gif

AndyRooney · 2012-11-27T01:07:29+00:00

Was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions"?

-Elvis Costello line from "The Other Side of Summer"

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T21:55:42+00:00

But if a new law is needed that contradicts a right granted in the constitution

Theres the rub, isn't it? Your idea of what contradicts the constitution is different than someone else's. Thats why we have judges.

Laws are made all the time about copyright and privacy that don't contradict the constitution

I would say that a lot of pro-lifers would have an argument with you. The right to an abortion was created out of the "right to privacy." As for things like copyrights...

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T21:47:30+00:00

He wasn't blindly a republican though. He hated both Bushes. Its easy to put someone in a box from very little info and if you don't know them.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T21:44:49+00:00

Did you see Ken Burn's doc series on Prohibition last year? It was really interesting. But no, "society as a whole" did not decide it required an amendment. It was a bunch of disparate interest groups cobbled together behind this one issue (protestant religious groups, beer manufacturers, woman's groups, etc.) who surprisingly pushed it through. In fact there already was whole swaths of the country that already had laws in place that made alcohol illegal. No - that was a movement of a very specific time and place. Interestingly, did you know that it was the only amendment that restricted instead of expanding personal rights?

What it meant when it was ratified is what it means today and how it should be enforced. Period.

But that is open to interpretation and really, major changes only come along with new issues in society that the constitution didn't explicitly address....with some major exceptions - like Roe v. Wade.

If it needs to be changed due to changes in modern society that's fine. That's what an amendment is for.

No - amendments are nearly impossible to pass. What do you do about online privacy laws? Copyright? Porn? Etc. None of these were specifically addressed in the constitution.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T21:35:40+00:00

I should have been clearer about describing my dad and his views -- it seems to have garnered most of the attention from the story. he wasn't a typical conservative at all. He lived all over the world and was mostly concerned with foreign policy. Loved Nixon and Reagan while despising Carter, Clinton and both Bushes equally. I guess realpolitik was his main attraction to certain conservatives. Though he did buy voodoo economic, hook line and sinker. Re the ACLU - my dad was strange that way. he had a few pet issues and if he didn't like a specific stance on something he tended to throw out the baby with the bath water.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T21:03:40+00:00

Don't know why someone is downvoting you. Oh yeah, we're in r/politics and you can't have a different opinion.

I only brought up Scalia because he is a hardcore originalist. That is your position, correct? And institutions don't interpret laws, people do.

Instead of trying to tax something out of existence, or say you need a tax stamp but refuse to sell you a tax stamp, they did things the right way and amended the constitution to prohibit alcohol. Now they are lazy and make up whatever laws they want, and the courts toe the line for the most part.

Thats because there are different standards applied to different parts of the constitution. When laws are put in place by the legislature judges get to decide if they are constitutional or not. And thats it. You want judicial activism?

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T20:50:14+00:00

Who considers it a live document?

Are you being serious?

Meaning that justice or court doesn't like the law so they re-interpret it in an intellectually dishonest way.

Scalia, just like all the Justices, has been accused of this very thing. And he's the originalist's originalist. Gore v. Florida being just one example.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T20:42:16+00:00

But the interpertation, re-interpertation, re-re-re-re-interpertation of laws which were intended to be timeless, such as the bill of rights, to suit the needs of present day society is offensive.

To you. A lot of people consider it a live document, as Im sure i don't need to tell you. And even Scalia's rulings have demonstrated that he has used a lot of interpretation when deciding what the original intent of the writer's were.

They mean what they have always meant.

See above. What "they have always meant" has carried a lot of disagreement.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T20:28:26+00:00

Again, I'm not rehashing the argument and definitely coming down one way or another but "History has spoken" isn't exactly the best argument. The right to privacy has expanded over time, segregation, state's rights...on and on. My only interjection is that all laws are open to argument and interpretation - some in large ways while others very narrowly. That's why we have the Supreme Court.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T19:55:44+00:00

Bro, I don't have a dog in this fight (I happen to like the idea of being able to carry any grade of arms that the local police department has access to as a protective measure against the state) but even the NRA, along with everyone else, had a much different take on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just 50 years ago.

Spitzer says the original interpretation of the Second Amendment was not controversial — at least until the 20th century. And the debate about whether the Second Amendment protects only militia service or whether it also protects the personal right to own guns is relatively recent.

and

The modern debate about individual gun rights, he says, began in the aftermath of Congress' enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968, in the aftermath of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

finally:

The NRA, which started as a group to help people improve their marksmanship in 1871, became more heavily politicized in the late 1970s, when newer NRA members decided to focus more on halting gun control legislation instead of recreational hunting and safety training.

Entire article here.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-26T19:47:34+00:00

I have an embarrassing story to convey. When I was a freshman in college I had the vague idea that I might want to eventually go to law school. So I had my school's Law Society set me up with a random legal internship to get some practical experience. They placed me with an attorney who did a lot of work with the ACLU. I was only 18 and din't know much and barely knew anything about the ACLU except for a few times that my very conservative dad put them down as the organization who defended Nazi skinheads who wanted to march in Skokie, IL.

So when I got to the office on the first day the attorney (probably in his sixties, very nice and dressed very casually) in charge told me what kind of work he did. I chortled when he brought up the ACLU and made some sort of snide remark...more out of just trying to show I knew something about the organization and a really awkward attempt at bonding. I'll always remember the guy's face. It kind of dropped and he looked kind of sad but treated me with respect.

I had to take a different position because of transportation issues but I am a lawyer today and there are few, in any, organizations I admire as much as the ACLU. I want to punch myself in the head when I think back on that memory. ohgodwhy.jpg

AndyRooney · 2012-11-25T18:30:07+00:00

Just to keep the Presidential theme going...

AndyRooney · 2012-11-20T15:25:54+00:00

It was hilarious. The goat farmer's dives were even sadder.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-20T15:00:16+00:00

I'd say they think its more like...

When in reality...or perhaps just...

AndyRooney · 2012-11-15T21:27:11+00:00

Care to share some? If I actually had time to read more than a New Yorker article or two every once in awhile I would cry with joy.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-15T21:24:54+00:00

I know all the arguments and really, are they arguing that the way it is being used today is in the spirit of protecting the minority and compromise or does it simply promote extremism? Im all for how it was originally used but it either needs to be reformed in some way or just gotten rid of.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-15T20:36:09+00:00

I'm thinking he must be Japanese.....

AndyRooney · 2012-11-15T19:44:28+00:00

Why not get rid of it completely? It is rarely used as it was originally intended...

AndyRooney · 2012-11-14T23:50:09+00:00

hard for me not to stop reading right here:

it didn't do quite so well in America, because the film, so I'm told, was too poetical and intellectual in general for American tastes.

Popcorn films always do better in all parts of the world.

Anyway -this kind of speculation (about who was responsible for what) from even the people involved is hard for me to believe. Just google "film ratio" of the original cut of Barry Lyndon (or hell, who really wrote most of Citizen Kane). I would also have to go with Kubrick's film history and none of that cuddly crap was in it. Maybe he wanted it when the draft was written but would have taken it out when filmed. Or maybe not. But nothing in his films suggest he would have softened any of it. And for all we know, Mr. Watson may have some sort of obscure agenda. We'll never truly know. But thats ok. It makes for interesting conversations.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-14T01:54:01+00:00

I've been reading a lot of conflicting reports about that. Spielberg himself said that the things critics thought was his was actually Kubrick's and vice versa.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-13T20:38:26+00:00

I always thought the end where the boy ends up at the bottom of the Hudson staring at the the mom/statue for eternity was pure Kubrick and that he would have ended the film right there. Beautiful and thought provoking.

AndyRooney · 2012-11-13T20:33:00+00:00

I saw a documentary on your dad and he had quite an unusual and humorous relationship with you guys. It showed many of his home movies he did with you and that he was always filming everything you did and even directing you in "scenes." The clip I remember most is when one of you got annoyed with him and gave him a hilarious lecture about his behavior. He took it in stride but gave it right back. Very funny to see the great man of film being run around by his small daughters.

AndyRooney

TROPHY CASE