Why O why won't Souter take Kennedy with him?
So glad someone has taken on this heinous ruling. Thanks, Ben.
I think we all know now who Obama should nominate to replace Souter.
That's what I've been saying, teo. I just don't know how to get his ear.
Haven't gone through the whole opinion, and IANAL, and from what I've read the opinion is crap, but if the issue is "intention", is there a case to be made that "intent" here differs from ordinary or philosophical intent, thus denying in effect double-effect? I thought that the sense of "intent" relevant in some parts of law was the sense covered by "intended to undertake the actions undertook" + some kind of knowledge condition not "intended to cause the effects that did in fact occur." (Thus, if we are angry fighting lovers, and I stab you with a knife, and you die, I can't defend myself by saying that I meant to stab you and cause you pain, but that I didn't intend to murder you.)
Well, my claim is really that intention is a side-issue. The fact that one can't, simply by saying, decide what the relevant characterization of one's action is, is not to be denied (people lie, for one thing), but I think not relevant, because it seems to me that "disposal" is a term that describes an effect's coming about, irrespective of whether it was intended. Stevens introduces intent in talking about "arranged for", and I think we can agree that Shell's arrangements weren't oriented towards spillage. But they are the ones who made the arrangements, and the arrangements resulted in a disposal. It's not at all obvious that intention is supposed to enter into the law's interpretation in the first place, and given that it would make the law have a comically limited range, the supposition that that is the proper interpretation seems absurd.
Plus, apparently Shell knew that spillage was happening, but they kept delivering the stuff. I mean, at some point you really should be held responsible for what you know, yes?
Except for using "negligible" instead of "negligent" and the last sentence, 8 seems like something I should agree with, not something that's a challenge.
8 and 10 sound oddly like the ToS talking about torts. Is this possible?
Oh, I don't think you sound that much like the ToS, adamhenne.
Oh, never mind then.
Also:
(to speak circumlocutiously)
ben, have you ever spoken otherwise?
12: Just the other day. Freaked me out, I'll tell you what.
||
"Shoop Shoop Song." So good.
|>
One of these days I'm going to understand a nosflow post title.
5: Yes. I don't know if nosflow is serious or not, because I am personally quite humorless, but the term "intentionally" does not generally in the American legal system incorporate the doctrine of double effect. Quite the contrary.
So much the worse for the opinion, then.
Well, "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" is a Pink Floyd song. I don't know what the complement is because I just don't have the energy to get through the post and article both, but I bet it's in there somewhere.
The complement is the complement of "arrange for", namely, "disposal".
Careful with that complement, Eugene, or one of these days nosflow will tear your argument into little pieces.
Your blog is just fantastic
That is really what I think
oh by the way
which one's fogged?
18 - ah, I only thought of "careful with that spliff Eugene" which is a line from a Half Man Half Biscuit song.
Relatedly, the Supreme Court decided that " knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" requires knowing that the identification belongs to another person, and not just knowing that you're using the ID without proper authority.
Intensionality all the way around.
Once again, ToS, the contents of your comments are irrelevant. Your comments get deleted no matter what you say. Now please go bother somebody else.