I agree with much of what has been said here.  Asking if children make one happy or unhappy is missing the point.  Children give life meaning.

It reminds me of this scene.

I thought Scalia's point was simply that AZ went about it wrong.  Other states have gotten the feds to allow them to add a citizenship requirement to the form by asking for a modification.  AZ did not do that and just added the requirement unilaterally.  If AZ asks for a modification, and the feds reject it, AZ may then have a case that the feds are getting in the way of its ability to establish the Qualifications of Electors.  Until then, it's just a question of the Manner.

As a lawyer, I like to point out that, "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," is uttered by "Dick the Butcher" leading a group of criminals fantasizing about a revolution that would put them in charge.

Elected representatives doing what the people who elected them want?!?  It's an outrage!

Lightsaber.  On this there can be no debate.

A man walks into a doctor's office and says, "Doc, I think I'm a moth." The doctor says, "I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think I can help you. You need to see a psychiatrist." The man replies, "I know, but I was just passing by and your light was on."

You're almost certainly correct.  I've just never heard the reason why.

"CoveredUp

Here's my stab at the problem.  Just ask yourself, if you were a judge, how would you rule on it?

Either you agree with PJ's premise and you say that random audits are illegal or you say that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.  If you were to ban random audits, you'd essentially make the income tax work on some sort of honor system (more than it is now).  There would be a lot of cheating and the government wouldn't be able to feed itself -- death by 320 million cuts.  I'm sure there are a lot of you who are enamored with that notion, but I think in real life, it probably wouldn't work out so well for us."

I don't think you need random audits to enforce the tax laws.  We can debate what probable cause should be here, but shouldn't the IRS have at least some evidence of wrongdoing (e.g., a suspiciously low percentage of income being paid as taxes) before they can search your papers?  Where do they get off drawing names from a hat?  

There's also the self-incrimination issue under the Fifth Amendment.

That occurred to me, but the amendment continues "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . ."  So if you tell them to pound sand and go get a warrant if they want to see your documents,  how do they assert probable cause?

Don't know why the body of my post didn't show up, but the title is really the point. I've long wondered that and never heard a good explanation.

The proper course here (following polite requests) is to make a loud scene:  "Madam, put away your phone!  Are you not aware that there are others trying to enjoy the theater?"  etc. until she puts it away or the usher comes.  Then the usher walks her out, not Kevin.

I do agree, though, that sometimes societal norms may be enforced through what otherwise would be unacceptable physical contact.  For example, I wholly agree with Jonah Goldberg that those Westboro Baptist funeral protesters should get beaten up by a group of men from the funeral (and that the cops should look the other way).

But rudeness at the theater doesn't rise to that level.

PJAM here.  Looks like I pulled out a squeaker,* with three folks just one point behind.  Congrats to the other winners, and thanks to Ricochet for the prizes.  Though, if Obama were in charge, we'd all get t-shirts and mugs without any increase in the deficit.

*Add this to the list of expressions that sound dirty but really aren't.

Thanks.  It sure was close, with the next three (including you) tied just one point back.

I've never come close in one of these things before either.

Reminds me of the classic Penn & Teller effort to get liberals to sign a petition banning water.

As I read the "What Ifs," PJAM (which is me) will win if Louisville wins, INMATEPROF will win if Syracuse beats Louisville in the final, and ETHOMPSON will win if anything else happens.

Nate Silver thinks I have a 55% chance of winning.  So do we really even need to play the games?

Good luck to all!

I consider respect incidental.  If I'm doing it right (whatever "it" may be, job, caring for my family, etc.), I'll be respected, but that's not why I want to do it right.