Guard Dog

Well, I have some homework to do catching up with this thread. It remains to be seen if what support Bush had will coalesce around Rubio. I'm hoping Carson & Kasich will understand both the futility of remaining in the race and the importance of an alternative to Trump being identified before Super Tuesday. If Trump has a big day there this thing is over. If it can be narrowed to a three horse race then maybe sanity can prevail. I heard an interesting theory that Obama may nominate Orrin Hatch to the SCOTUS. If he does the Senate leadership should take that and be grateful. He figures to be to the left of Kennedy but he is certainly no Kagan or Breyer. I would be shocked if Obama did that but it does make sense in a way. Hatch is 82 and Obama would be betting a Hillary win puts that seat in play again. Plus it all but submarines any kind of confirmation fight and removes the chairman of the judiciary committee that is holding up his other appointments in one swoop.

I just spent three days fishing at Greers Ferry Lake in Arkansas. I wanted to try out the new camper. It worked great. Plus I wanted to see how Sunny acts off leash. She needs a LOT of work. We started working on that together this weekend. I cannot overstate the help a well trained dog lends to training a untrained one. The lake was beautiful & the weather clear and cool but not too cold. I caught a lot of fish including a brown cut-throat trout which got it's picture taken then put back because it was out of season. The crappies ended up in the pan if they were big enough to fillet. Beer and fish were consumed, Frisbees chased and a good time was had by all.

Like I said before, the very presence of the law (however wrong headed it is) does not necessarily mean there will be abuse at some point but once the law is passed the potential is there. It comes down to this: do you trust the people in your government? Do you trust the people who will be in your government years down the road? In my mind the only rational, even sane answer is "no". From that point it is smart to keep your government on a short leash. Like I pointed out it is not an absolute right. If a man is on the street shouting "Rise up and kill the jews" that is protected. If someone listens to him and does it the criminal liability is on that guy but the man on the street is complicit in a civil action. If the man on the street walks up to a jewish guy and says "I'm going to kill you" that is assault. I've never liked the notion of hate speech laws or even hate crime laws. The reason why is unlike any other charge it is requiring the state to pass a judgment on motive. You can't know what is in a person's head. Judge them based on what they DID not what you assume they were thinking.

Just read an article about a guy in England who went into the hospital for surgery to remove a cyst from his testicles. They screwed up the paperwork I guess and removed his testicles instead. Yikes! How'd you like to be the doctor who has to explain THAT to him when the anesthesia wears off? I can't imagine he'd take it well.

I don't remember specifically but I do know it was about the Patriot Act. I was and still am against it. GWB was President then and he walked on water over there. Remember what I said about how people are willing to tolerate the worst kind of overreach as long as it is "their guy" doing it? It was in that vein.

You won't find any libertarians on Free Republic. That is all Republicans of the "neo-con" stripe. Libertarians are shown the door... to wit see above.

On one hand, I can empathize with that. On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA. To be fair, I'm pretty sure you could also see the army storming your place of residence and try to pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers at the orders of the government at the first opportunity said governments gets to enact such orders, so I'm not sure how well your nightmare scenarios stand the test of realism Be prepared for anything and you'll never be surprised by anything. Besides Senator Dian Feinstein from California has said she'd like to do that very thing.

Consider my curiosity piqued. About those sites or why I was banned from Free Republic? I just checked FR... I'm still banned!

Let's set aside for a moment the irreversible damage to the country if the Constitution were to be marginalized or outright set aside to the point that it's protections were moot. If the US were to adopt a law that allows criminal punishments for just saying something it does not necessarily follow that law will be twisted into "arbitrary punishment of people the government does not like". But if that were to happen step 1 is passing the law. Let's not take step 1 and you never have to worry about the rest. Now the freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a theater or incite a riot and tell them to lynch that Muslim looking guy down the street. There are limits. But if expressing an opinion ever becomes criminal you are really being punished for the way you think. If that is not Orwellian to you, it might be a good idea to re-read 1984. The freedom to speak your mind does not mean anyone else has to listen to you or agree with you. But they do NOT get to stop you! The left would have us believe people are only opposed to Obama's politics because he's black. Is it such a stretch to think that if the powers that be presume speech against the president is rooted in racism that political opposition BECOMES hate speech? I could see that happening very easily.

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias? If you live in a country where expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid, ill informed, or downright mean spirited lands you in criminal trouble then it's already too late. You ARE in an Orwellian dystopia.

Great article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/antonin-scalia-champion-of-the-little-guy/article/2583404

Taking off work today to go get my new camper. Well, it isn't new it's refurbed but it's new to me.

This guy is a virtual unknown. I know Obama's legal team objected to him being nominated for the DC Circuit because most of his litigation has been in defense of corporate interests. But I think it's asinine to challenge a jurist on the work they did as a lawyer, or the clients they worked for. A lawyer does not always get to choose their clients and will not even always agree with arguments made on their behalf. He has some qualities that look pretty good. He filed a brief opposing government surveillance in US v. Jones and went after the State of Indiana over voter ID laws. So he's all over the map philosophically. It gives me pause when I hear his judicial bent favors Marshall or Brennan though. Since being seated on the DC Circuit he has not had the opportunity to make any decisions of earth shattering significance that would indicate his philosophy on applying the law. It would take a through vetting by the Senate to sniff that out. In short he might be either a constructionist or a revisionist, or both depending on the situation. That is the reason Obama won't pick him. Obama is going to want another Kagan or Ginsburg. Someone who will rubber stamp anything the government wants to do. Maybe Srinivasan is that, maybe he's not. That's why it won't be him.

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated. BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization. Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property. Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing) Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is. And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now. And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it). Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars? I can't say about general leanings of judges in SC, but those court decision list above (except one about international treaties) seem to all favor liberalism (individual freedoms). Where conservatism is all about supporting traditional social institutions (of course liberalism and conservatism can drive towards same things when we speak about country that is founded on liberal ideologies). Ironically it's the other way around. In the US the liberals favor the power of the state over the rights of the individual or the Federal Government over the state governments. We're doing it backwards for some reason.

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated. BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization. Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property. Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing) Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is. And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now. And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it). Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars? First off, I'm not talking about Scalia, I'm talking about constructionists vs revisionists. Scalia wasn't even on the court for some of those. 2nd companies are made up of people. the are owned by people, managed by people and employ people. If a company lobbies the government or pays for advertising for pet causes it is no different than the when the ACLU does it. Either all of them can or none of them can. That is what FEC v. CU was all about. The US Constitution says what it says. These are the rules by which our country operates. The whole idea here is this: The constitution remands to the democratic process everything it does not specifically prohibit from the democratic process. That is the beauty of it. Everything is up to the determination of the people except the few things that are specifically protected. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly redress of the government, arms, property, the self governance of the states, etc. are so important that they cannot subjected to the whims of the day. That is the essence of originalisim. The liberals would have you believe EVERYTHING is fodder for the democratic process and nothing is held so inviolate that it can't be taken away. Bear in mind, the democratic process is not talking about the people it's talking about the legislature. And yes, the whole world could easily crumble if a liberal court awards the government more power. Take Kelo v. New London. the liberals decided it would be perfectly ok for the government to take your home away from you and sell it to a 3rd party if they 3rd party will pay them more in taxes than you are. And finally that last line you wrote is both condescending and insulting.

Now reading The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux and Ameritopia by Mark Levin

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated. BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization. Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property. Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing) Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

McConnell has already screwed this up. Although the Democrats have been hell bent against election year appointments in the past (let's face it politicians are all hypocrites; for it when it suits, against it when it suits). Obama does have a duty to nominate a justice if he wants to. And of course he wants to. Whomever he picks will be an absolute disaster for liberty and Constitutional protections against the whims of the government. You cannot stop him from doing it. But the Senate can stop any nomination he makes from ever being confirmed. And they should and will but for God's sweet sake shut the f--k about it. If you are going to torpedo the nomination DO IT. But for do it quietly. It can die in committee and never see a full vote. McConnell goes out there and makes a big f-----g deal about it and now it's a media firestorm. If he kept his idiot mouth shut the media would be distracted by the election and this could have been tied this thing up with minimal attention. He can prevent a recess appointment by just not going into recess. The SCOTUS already slapped Obama down once over that. McConnell is like a poker player shouting out "I got a Flush" before the river card is played.

Last week I finished a pretty good one "Neither Wolf Nor Dog" by Kent Neurburn. Prior to reading it I'd heard nothing but raves on how good it was. To tell the truth is was pretty good but not the "greatest ever " or anything like that. The gist of it is the author spends a few weeks with Dan and Grover, an pair of old Lakota men. They take a road trip through South Dakota and Dan spends it giving his take on life, philosophy, and American history from his perspective. It is a great read when the narrative is about Dan. He is a remarkable man. It fails when Neurburn injects his own angst and self loathing in it. It's being made into a movie too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4b1kkH7f9I

Actually if they want to slip Biden back in the thing to do would be to nominate Hillary Clinton. She is a lawyer. If she is losing the Primary it saves her and provides an alternative to Bernie. It would be a farce of course but it IS possible.

No you cant use the doomed prognostication again....remember Obama 2nd term and the buying of gold ....you said we were doomed then Yeah that worked out well to. Really well. That is a great American success story actually. Distrust of the political leadership led me to purchase a commodity at a low price. Common distrust of that same political leadership caused others to do the same which drove the price through the roof. I sold said commodity at the (artificially) high price and then used that to pay off my mortgage and start a business which I later sold for a profit. It is a strange thing that I should dislike Obama so. Through no help from him his very presence in the White House did work out well for me.

Scalia is gone. The balance in the SCOTUS is in jeopardy. The next president will be either Clinton or Trump. We're doomed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc

Bruce, anyone who is offended by something someone wrote on the internet needs to step back and take a deep breath (no offense ManifestedISO). There are folks around who are just a------s and post things to get a rise out of someone. We have them here. Qistina was a good example but there have been many along the way. I think she might even have believed her screed but whatever. You are not one of those so don't worry about that. If you start debating politics or social issues you are going to hear different opinions. Those opinions might be dearly held and arrived at through bitter experience so it is important to never be dismissive of them but it is also ok to challenge them. That is why we are participate in political/issues threads. It's why I do anyway. If I only wanted to hear my own opinions echoed I'd got to libertypost.org or freerepublic.com or something (well, I'm persona non grata at the latter). It is difficult to change someone's mind on an issue but if a belief is illogical or held based on a premise that isn't true then it is possible. I have had my own opinions changed participating on this very forum. But it is more likely that the result of the conversation will be the realization that you just don't agree and never will. And that is ok too. Take you and I for example. We are never going to come to any kind of agreement on Barack Obama and his performance in office. I know what you think, you know what I think and that's that. We've still cool afterwards. Disliking someone because of a disagreement in politics is no different than disliking over a difference in what sports teams you cheer for or whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars. It would be asinine. Your posting style is sometimes acerbic and sometimes condescending. Neither are good things but you don't do either all the time. Debate and do it vigorously and enthusiastically but also respectfully and understand that there are some mountains no lever can move. And that is not a bad thing. Just because someone disagrees with me does not make me right and them wrong or vice versa. They just arrived at a different conclusion. Nothing wrong with that. Just my $.02

Yes, I lost it when she went after service members. Tigranes immediately deleted me, and rightly, but I couldn't help it, my PT shorts became so twisted I didn't login for a week. Or three days, which is the same thing in internet time. But then I was all, WWSD. What would Shady do. He wouldn't hate, or react with anger. So I deleted my ignore list and it's been all namaste since. WWSD before every major decision. Of course!

None of that s--t would have happened if we hadn't forgotten the lessons of 1929. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley played instrumental roles in removing the protections built into the banking system in 1932 to prevent the very thing that happened in 2008. It's the kind of thing you could expect when voters send a collection of idiots who don' know s--t all about economics to Washington to make economic decisions. Of course they are going to f--k it up. How could they not.