Fundamentalist activist loon susepnds federally funded embroyonic stem cell research

[Eulogy]

Judge Lamberth surprisingly interpreted Dickey-Wicker to prevent the use of tax dollars to support researchers who do any work using hESC lines as an input. One might at least plausibly argue for this result based on the principle that underlies Dickey-Wicker: that is, if Congress’ goal is to avoid dirtying the federal government’s hands with complicity in the destruction of embryos, perhaps research that relies on embryo destruction somewhere upstream should be ineligible for funding. But Lamberth claims that his result is supported by the unambiguous language of the Amendment. I find this argument utterly unconvincing.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Shocking Stem Cell DecisionÂ*

Lamberth’s focus is on the word “research.” First, he relies on regulatory and dictionary definitions to establish that research is a “systematic investigation.” So far, so good. But from this he concludes that any research that relies on upstream embryo destruction is part of the same “project” as the destructive activity itself and therefore ineligible for federal funding. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premise.

The key language here is not the word “research,” but rather the phrase “in which.” That is, Dickey-Wicker does not prohibit federal funding of research that is “related to,” “associated with” or “has a connection to,” or “builds upon the fruits of” embryo destruction. It only prohibits funding of research “in which” embryos are destroyed.

[Eulogy]

i'm starting to think you really are just truly dumb.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I can't believe you're still trying to act as though I'm struggling to make a distinction that is right there in black and white.

Each step of the research process very likely receives different funding from different places. If the federal funds don't go toward destroying the embryos (hint: they don't), then this doesn't apply, and the judge is wrong.

I'd say that I think you're smarter than this, but that would be a lie.

I posted the law for you to see. It doesn't say "the destruction of embryos will not be funded," or anything like it. It says "research in which embryos are destroyed..." will not be funded. Hence, if embryo destruction plays any part in the research, it falls under this law.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

he wasn't wrong in saying it's "unambiguous?" can you at the very fucking least admit that?

Again, where is the ambiguity?

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i mean if the intent of the law was to disallow this kind of funding, why doesn't it say "research in which embryos are destroyed or research that uses destroyed embryos that were destroyed for research purposes?"

You're going to tell me that the people who drafted this couldn't see this kind of thing coming if that's what they were aiming for? They didn't know that someone could privately fund the destruction and then hand the cells off so researchers could receive public funding?????

seriously?

Do you really think that if the kind of people who tucked this provision into unrelated spending bills did think of such a scenario that they would be okay with it? The law can always be more specific and more clear. Elected officials are by and large incompetent, so you can hardly expect them to tailor language that conforms to every possible scenario. That's why the courts have to come in and interpret sometimes. And really, there's nothing in the law itself that supports your interpretation of it, and I bet if you asked the intent of the legislators who passed it, they wouldn't support it either. Again, unless you can point to something specific that proves this judge is wrong in interpreting this pretty simple piece of legislation, then turning it back over to Congress is going to be the best and only solution, because I don't see the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overturning if the plaintiffs win the case on the merits.

[Eulogy]

How else can I prove it?? You're the one making assumptions and reaching into a realm where the words on the page don't even fucking matter.

[Eulogy]

Lamberth’s focus is on the word “research.” First, he relies on regulatory and dictionary definitions to establish that research is a “systematic investigation.” So far, so good. But from this he concludes that any research that relies on upstream embryo destruction is part of the same “project” as the destructive activity itself and therefore ineligible for federal funding. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premise.

The key language here is not the word “research,” but rather the phrase “in which.” That is, Dickey-Wicker does not prohibit federal funding of research that is “related to,” “associated with” or “has a connection to,” or “builds upon the fruits of” embryo destruction. It only prohibits funding of research “in which” embryos are destroyed.

for good measure. you're like a brick wall.

[Corganist]

Really, does anyone think that there's some clearinghouse that creates embryonic stem cell lines solely and completely for the use of others? And that no one who does ESC research derives their own stem cells? Maybe I'm off base on this one, but that seems to be a highly inefficient and less than scientifically rigorous way to work if that's really how it is done.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

How else can I prove it?? You're the one making assumptions and reaching into a realm where the words on the page don't even fucking matter.

All I've fucking talked about is what is in the law! I posted it for you and challenged you to point out for me specifically where the so-called ambiguity is. Think for yourself for once and just make your own argument instead of throwing the opinions of the first newspaper writer or blogger that you can find who agrees with you at me.

[Eulogy]

you're, shockingly, missing the point.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

All I've fucking talked about is what is in the law! I posted it for you and challenged you to point out for me specifically where the so-called ambiguity is. Think for yourself for once and just make your own argument instead of throwing the opinions of the first newspaper writer or blogger that you can find who agrees with you at me.

I found that blog after I'd already made the exact same argument he did because it's so fucking obvious you stupid piece of shit.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

"Research using stem cells that resulted from privately funded derivation [that entails embryo destruction]" =/= "Research in which embryos are destroyed."

That's me talking about what's in the law. But then you told me "lol the law CLEARLY doesn't mean what it says!"

[Eulogy]

but right, why in the hell would i want to reinforce my opinion with that of a third party that agrees with me and who has better credentials than either of us? how fucking silly of me!

it's so much more effective the way you just spew out nonsensical shit and expect everyone to bow to it like you're the supreme being of the politics board.

[Future Boy]

you guys keep this up dudehitscar will never come back.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

That's me talking about what's in the law. But then you told me "lol the law CLEARLY doesn't mean what it says!"

What you're saying the law says doesn't comport with the actual language of the law. There's absolutely nothing in the law's language that suggests that it doesn't mean "research" in a broad and (overly) inclusive way. There's simply no way to read in your magical exception where the derivation of stem cells is somehow completely separate research than the research into the cells themselves. That strains credulity to the extreme.

If embryonic stem cells aren't created for the express purpose of research, then what exactly do you think they are being created for? It's not as though there's some person out there making stem cells right now who doesn't know exactly what they're going to do with them, is it? And if they are created expressly for research, then it has to be that the "research" on the cells starts at their derivation...meaning that any subsequent research on the cells is going to be research in which embryos are destroyed. Simple as that.

Why can't you just say "Yes, it would be a great idea for Congress to get rid of this stupid law or at least clarify it," and then we can move on? I don't see why you feel the need to argue with me on this when at the core of things we're on the same side.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

What you're saying the law says doesn't comport with the actual language of the law. There's absolutely nothing in the law's language that suggests that it doesn't mean "research" in a broad and (overly) inclusive way. There's simply no way to read in your magical exception where the derivation of stem cells is somehow completely separate research than the research into the cells themselves. That strains credulity to the extreme.

If embryonic stem cells aren't created for the express purpose of research, then what exactly do you think they are being created for? It's not as though there's some person out there making stem cells right now who doesn't know exactly what they're going to do with them, is it? And if they are created expressly for research, then it has to be that the "research" on the cells starts at their derivation...meaning that any subsequent research on the cells is going to be research in which embryos are destroyed. Simple as that.

Why can't you just say "Yes, it would be a great idea for Congress to get rid of this stupid law or at least clarify it," and then we can move on? I don't see why you feel the need to argue with me on this when at the core of things we're on the same side.

How do you not see that the bolded is blatantly contradictory? Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language would be able to see very clearly that, at the very least, the judge calling this an "unambiguous prohibition" is stupid and/or disingenuous.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

you guys keep this up dudehitscar will never come back.

that's the idea

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

How do you not see that the bolded is blatantly contradictory? Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language would be able to see very clearly that, at the very least, the judge calling this an "unambiguous prohibition" is stupid and/or disingenuous.

It is unambiguous. The law could be cleared up a bit to deal with particulars, as any law can, but the language is simple and there's really only one way it can be read when giving the words their plainest meaning (which judges are required to do). As such, "research" is all inclusive and means everything from its beginning to its end. There's nothing in the law that suggests that the piecemeal interpretation of it should be given any credence.

And really, which interpretation really makes the most sense to you?

1) Research begins. Embryos are destroyed. Stem cells are derived.
2) Research continues, stem cells are experimented on.
3) Research ends.

or

1) Research begins. Embryos are destroyed. Stem cells are derived.
2) Research ends.
3) New, completely separate, research begins immediately after the stem cells are derived, using the direct byproducts and data from the previous research, and probably performed by the same people.
4) Research ends.

I think whether you admit it or not, you have to know that the second scenario is nonsense, and that someone would only put it forth to get around the plain language of this law.

It sucks that this law is holding things up as far as ESC research is concerned, but assailing this judge for his opinion is tilting at windmills. There's just not much there to criticize on his part. A judge is not going to fix this situation one way or the other.

[Eulogy]

I can't phrase what I've said a hundred times any differently. You just don't get it.

Research projects do have different segments, funded by different sources. Federal funds don't go toward the destruction of the embryos. Period. If you want to keep upholding the idea that it's "unambiguous," then I have to continue to think you're just stupid.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I can't phrase what I've said a hundred times any differently. You just don't get it.

Research projects do have different segments, funded by different sources. Federal funds don't go toward the destruction of the embryos. Period. If you want to keep upholding the idea that it's "unambiguous," then I have to continue to think you're just stupid.

The law says "research," not "research segments." And no plain reading of the word "research" gets you to "research segments." To say it does is just a weak attempt at getting around the law.

And the fact that you keep thinking that who funds the actual destruction of the embryos matters in the least just shows that you're the one who doesn't get it. The law doesn't say the government only refuses to fund embryo destruction itself. If that's what they meant they would have said that. Instead, it says they're not funding research in which embryo destruction occurs, period, which is by design a much broader and more inclusive proposition. The law unfortunately just isn't as narrow as you or I would like it to be, and we can't pretend that it is in defiance of what it plainly says.

[Eulogy]

So since in a particular field of science, every new piece of knowledge is at least in part founded on knowledge that came before, it's really all just one piece of research, right? Who are you to make that sort of distinction?

If private funds derive and destroy embryos, we are not led logically to the conclusion that public funds can't go toward funding research of the resulting stem cells. Does anyone else in the country aside from the judge writing the opinion agree with your analysis here? I know you think citing other people is a sign of weakness, but judging you on your posting history, I'm not inclined to accept the idea that you know what you're talking about.

[Eulogy]

A crazy judge throws out Obama's stem-cell policy—and Bush's. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

[Eulogy]

i found one for you

RealClearPolitics - Inconvenient Facts About Stem-Cell Research

But other than "lol the judge wasn't buyin' it!" there's not much in the way of an actual argument against the interpretation that actually looks at the words being used.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

So since in a particular field of science, every new piece of knowledge is at least in part founded on knowledge that came before, it's really all just one piece of research, right? Who are you to make that sort of distinction?

If private funds derive and destroy embryos, we are not led logically to the conclusion that public funds can't go toward funding research of the resulting stem cells.

But again I ask, if deriving stem cells (and thus, destroying embryos) isn't done expressly for the purpose of research on the cells themselves, then what is it done for? To pretend that the derivation of the cell line is somehow only remotely related to the research on the cells borders on disingenuous. And even if the law was somehow broadly interpreted to ban research that only uses "knowledge" that came from the destruction of embryos, then that's still merely a shortcoming in the law and a reason that Congress should act hastily to clarify it. It's not an invitation for a judge to somehow read in limitations that aren't there in the words.

Does anyone else in the country aside from the judge writing the opinion agree with your analysis here? I know you think citing other people is a sign of weakness, but judging you on your posting history, I'm not inclined to accept the idea that you know what you're talking about.

I'm sure that eventually someone from National Review or The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Times will eventually come out in support of the ruling (if it hasn't happened already), but really, what good would citing any of that do? Probably no more than you using the NYT and Slate to back your view up. I'm not really interested in taking a poll of bloggers and talking heads and using it as some kind of litmus test for this judge's opinion. We're both reasonably intelligent people, and we should be able to look at the ruling, look at the text of the law, and be able to discuss both reasonably without any such appeals to authority.

If you disagree with the judge on this, if you disagree with my support of the judge, fine. But everything's been set out in black and white. Everything you need to make your argument is right there in the text of the law and in the text of the judge's opinion. But right now, all it seems you have to hang your hat on is that a couple liberal writers somehow think the word "research" doesn't mean what it means.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

It's not an invitation for a judge to somehow read in limitations that aren't there in the words.

That's exactly what this judge did.

[Eulogy]

Federal funds are not gong toward the destruction of embryos, which is, like it or not, the obvious point of the law. This is the basic point you do not seem to be grasping. It does not matter where the stem cells came from because federal funds were not involved. Three administrations and multiple sessions of Congress have acted in the way that is indicated by my reading of the law. Clearly, the intent of the law is not what the judge says it is. And luckily, the language of the law doesn't back up what he says either.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

That's exactly what this judge did.

The only way your interpretation works is if you add in words that just aren't there. ("Pieces," "segments," etc.) But there's absolutely nothing inherent in the word "research" under its plain definition that opens the door to such a limited, compartmentalized interpretation of it. And there's nothing else in the law that suggests it was supposed to be limited or narrow either. If there is, show it to me.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Federal funds are not gong toward the destruction of embryos, which is, like it or not, the obvious point of the law. This is the basic point you do not seem to be grasping. It does not matter where the stem cells came from because federal funds were not involved. Three administrations and multiple sessions of Congress have acted in the way that is indicated by my reading of the law. Clearly, the intent of the law is not what the judge says it is. And luckily, the language of the law doesn't back up what he says either.

The intent of the law =/= what the law says. And at the end of the day, especially in the courts, what the law says is what the law is. And the judge's interpretation of the law is 100 percent in line with the language in the law. It doesn't mean you have to like it. It doesn't mean that it's exactly what Congress intended. It just is what it is.

And again, I highly doubt that when this law got tucked into spending bills that it was done merely for the purpose of keeping the government's hands clean from the nasty business of embryo destruction. It was clearly meant to eliminate federal incentive for any embryo destroying research (which again, is why the law specifically mentions the broad category of research and not just embryo destruction in particular). Otherwise, what's the point?

[duovamp]

Guy who has to express himself a lot meets guy who wants people to think he's smart. Fifty posts later...

[Eulogy]

The only reason I brought up intent was because you tried to use it against me on page 1. As if I needed any more proof that you're a disingenuous shmuck.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

The only reason I brought up intent was because you tried to use it against me on page 1. As if I needed any more proof that you're a disingenuous shmuck.

What's disingenuous about it? I was only pointing out that your reading of the law's intent simply doesn't make sense considering the kind of people who proposed it. The guy who the bill was named after (Jay Dickey) is from my state, and he was the biggest kind of GOP fucktard there is for his one term of office. It just isn't plausible that this asshole crafted this piece of legislation merely to prevent federal funding of embryo destruction only to turn around and allow research on the products of that destruction to be funded freely. That makes no logical sense in any context. Legislative intent still doesn't matter for too much, but it works against you even if it did.

The fact that the executive branch has gotten away with interpreting the law loosely these past few years was fortunate, but it isn't dispositive of anything in a legal sense. Clearly no one in Congress felt the need to clarify or repeal the law until now because until this point it wasn't a real impediment to anything. Now that it is, I don't see how the amendment makes it into future bills in its current form. It's very likely that Congress will look at the issue and fix it long before any kind of trial decision can be made on the merits of this case, and the whole thing will end up moot anyway.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Guy who has to express himself a lot meets guy who wants people to think he's smart. Fifty posts later...

Guy with nothing to say chimes in with post 51 and says nothing.

[duovamp]

Suck my cunt.