Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!

[Guard Dog]

15 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

ps so is clear, how predictable a Justice decides liberal or conservative is Not The Same as is how predictable is the Justices' decisions. sotomayor is most likely to decide liberal on so-called liberal scale. kagan, a s'posed liberal Justice, is less likely than sotomayor to decide predictable along the funky liberal v. conservative breakdown, but her decisions is amazing consistent given even a passing awareness o' kagan's philosophy and her past decisions.

probable is no more clear.

 

This is more what I was getting at. The liberal justices, except Ginsburg, could not always be counted on to reason their way into a "liberal" ruling. Even Sotomayor, probably the most "liberal" justice on the Court now, has conistently applied 4th Amend protections in the broadest way. That is, IMO, a decidely "illebaral" position. Illiberal in the American definition of the word at least. Ironicly the American definition of liberal is almost opposite it's actual definition. But hey, screwing up the language is part of our charm.

Anyway, before I wander off point again, the appeal of textualisim IMO is it does not require adherence to any philosopical orthodoxy. Merely the ability to read, compreheand, and the willingness to go where that leads. With a few exceptions all of them do that some of the time. I wish more did that all of the time. 

[Guard Dog]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

@Guard Dog

one point we tangential spoke to but is possible gd and others is unaware, so am gonna address brief. 

questions which come  before the Court is ordinarily novel in at least some important way. the democrats and more liberal media has done a fantastic job o' selling Americans on the notion that acb on the Court is a death knell for roe, griswold, obergefell and even loving. is not an unjustified position as multiple Justices has expressed a desire to overturn and so too does acb based on past articles.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the affordable care act is what the democrats were hitting hard during the acb hearings, and is far less clear acb would vote to strike down obamacare based on the case coming before the Court. while it is true acb criticized the roberts decision upholding the aca, the current case is dealing with a novel legal question only tangential related to the previous aca case. the current aca case deals with a question o' law acb has addressed previous and her previous decisions actual suggest she would vote to preserve the aca insofar as the current case is concerned.

'cause people do not know the law, politicians may spin issues such as acb and her threat to the aca. am thinking mcconnell efforts to get acb on the Court will backfire. as we noted previous, getting acb sworn in before the election means is no longer a voting issue, so no motivation to get apathetic conservatives to vote. however, the fear democrats managed to drum up insofar as the aca being in danger during a pandemic may just result in one and possibly a couple republican senators losing their seats. 

long term the acb appointment may be a gain for conservatives, but if republicans lose the senate, it will be at least in part 'cause democrats adept used the hearings to create a whole lotta anger 'bout doomed roe and aca and the truth is the aca is looking anything but doomed from our pov.

HA! Good Fun!

Even if Roe were overtunred abortion would still be legal because nowhere is it illegal. Some state legislatures will be quick to act I think. Alabama and Utah most likely.  But most will have zero desire to punch that tar baby. They will make noise and talk the talk but nothing will materalize. Of course Congress could pass a law by next March that Biden (presumably) would no doubt sign. A law that in broad language prevents state governments from interfering in medical procedures where public assitance it not used to pay. I know 9 lawyers in Washington who would likely be very happy if they did. 

Even if they rule the individual mandate is not severable and strike the whole law down (and I agre with you that won't happen. They had their shot) whatever deficinecies existed in the ACA can be fixed by the legislature. That is in fact their purpose. The criticisim that the Congress is relying on the SCOTUS to keep them from having to do their job is pretty well grounded in reality from what I see.

ACB's confirmation, and Goresuch's, and Thomas's, and Bork's is a perfect example of H.L. Mencken's notion of using imaginary hobgoblins to keep the public alarmed. Unfortunately too many folks have no clue how their government works and are too stupid to know when they are being manipulated. Just look at any Trump rally. Or any Senate confimration hearing when a Democrat is speaking. 

[Malcador]

Given Bork's role with Nixon, was sort of strange to put him up for a Supreme Court Justice.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1245065

I guess Trump decided covid-19 wasn't killing off his base fast enough.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

Given Bork's role with Nixon, was sort of strange to put him up for a Supreme Court Justice.

not strange given the time. 

is impossible to communicate the difference 'tween pre and post bork SCOTUS appointments. relative apolitical. qualifications and character o' the nominee were subject to review, but not philosophy or imagined politics. of course republicans would choose a nominee who they believed would make republican agenda more successful. of course democrats would choose a nominee more sympathetic to their aims. senators reviewed character and competency and politics were almost irrelevant... as hard as that is to believe nowadays.

bork were qualified. bork were not having character issues making him unsuitable. shoulda' been a slam dunk.

HA! Good Fun! 

[Malcador]

Just now, Gromnir said:

bork were not having character issues making him unsuitable

His servility to Nixon would be one, given that the two guys ahead of him resigned in protest, don't you think ?  Well and I guess doing it for a SCOTUS nomination Nixon promised him also doesn't reflect well.

[Gromnir]

29 minutes ago, Malcador said:

His servility to Nixon would be one, given that the two guys ahead of him resigned in protest, don't you think ?  Well and I guess doing it for a SCOTUS nomination Nixon promised him also doesn't reflect well.

bork s'posed carried out the order 'cause the guys who did resign asked bork to stay... and the supreme court position bit from nixon at the time were hardly a meaningful offer and nobody, including bork, took serious. the writing were already on the wall for anybody to read... save for nixon and nixon voters.

even so, am admitting it were a bad look to be the guy who didn't resign. similar, some folks suggest audrey strauss shoulda' resigned when barr "fired" geoffrey berman, but berman told her to stay. woulda' been unfortunate if ms. strauss and a bunch o' other attorneys from the sdny office resigned. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

https://www.mediamatters.org/infowars/militia-leader-stewart-rhodes-says-his-group-will-be-polling-locations-and-ready-kill

Well I'm sure the FBI won't do anything with this.

[HoonDing]

Drump sure got all the tough people

[Gromnir]

22 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.mediamatters.org/infowars/militia-leader-stewart-rhodes-says-his-group-will-be-polling-locations-and-ready-kill

Well I'm sure the FBI won't do anything with this.

am actual less concerned 'bout the fbi

FBI agents urge Biden and Trump not to fire Christopher Wray

william barr and donald trump will try and minimize and marginalize christopher wray and fbi efforts, but am believing wray and the individual fbi offices 'round the nation is trying to carry out their mandate.

is a reason fbi were not used when troops were sent by barr to portland and elsewhere, and is fbi investing giuliani and bannon. 

am knowing some folks cannot bring selves to trust the fbi and that is fair, particular in these times. personal, fbi is one o' the fed organizations 'bout which am least concerned.

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

It is always good when supreme court does check facts before they make ruling

 

[Gromnir]

would be reassuring if the only problem with the kavanaugh opinion were sloppiness.

Brett Kavanaugh Just Endorsed A Radical Legal Theory That Could Cause Election Chaos

am knowing we have said before that the Constitution does not actual recognize a citizen's right to vote for President. am gonna assume such an observation do not carry the weight it should.

trump, barr and other political opportunists is a serious threat to the legitimacy o' the election.
 

[MedicineDan]

Good God, man!  The hypocrisy!  lol  Okay, just thought I would pop in and say I still think this is Biden's race to lose.  I think he's got the definite edge.  Of course, I thought that about Clinton in 2016.  The polls are starting to more mirror the ones in 2016, but I have a couple reasons not to take it the result will be the same.  Well... maybe three.  One, the polls are a little better for Biden still.  Not a whole lot, but the last election was decided by tiny margins in a small number of states.  Two, the pollsters are being more careful.  At least, there are more polls, but of course the general public still foolishly focuses on national polls that are more ubiquitous.  Three, a *lot* of early voting has already occurred.  With that in mind, assuming the early vote mimics the early polls within the margin of error, that's bad news for Trump.  A Biden administration will be a nightmare, but what can you do.  The low information voters (I *might* actually pop in to see if that got a rise out of highly educated/low information lecturers in these parts) will hate on Trump for his personal foibles, but Biden is a flesh golem enthralled to the forces of the left, and the worst thing about them isn't a socialist agenda.  It's a self-loathing hatred of the very country that has afforded them the opportunity to attack it.

[Hurlshort]

All of that sounds very vague and hyperbolic. I watched the 60 Minutes segment today and learned that both Trump and Biden are unlikeable and creepy. Pence came across alright and Harris just seemed happy to be there. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bar-rescue-host-jon-taffer-223220477.html

This is probably the closest thing I've seen to a rationale endorsement of the Trump administration. You've got a hospitality expert focused solely on policy in respect to his industry. I'd love to see more of that instead of all this stupid hyperbole and bluster. None of these people are great saviors or flesh golems. They're just politicians with agendas. My interests are better represented by Biden at this point. Betsy Davos is a poor representative for public education and I can hold Trump responsible for that. End of story, that is my main interest.  

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

None of these people are great saviors or flesh golems.

you clearly are not watching fox news or listening to far right radio.

almost forgot, and speaking of hypocrites:

muslim ban

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 29, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

A second Trump term facing a Democratic controlled House and Senate would certainly be entertaining. 
 

A Presidential election decided by the House of Representatives would also be a lot of fun. 
 

yep... I just want to watch it all burn!

[Pidesco]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

A second Trump term facing a Democratic controlled House and Senate would certainly be entertaining. 
 

A Presidential election decided by the House of Representatives would also be a lot of fun. 
 

yep... I just want to watch it all burn!

That will almost certainly not happen though. Votes for Senate seats and President correlate fairly strongly. In any case, I'm not sure if Trump wouldn't get tricked into going along with everything the Dems wanted. Remember when Schumer and Pelosi met with Trump at the beginning of his term, and he basically got manipulated into going along with them?

[ComradeYellow]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

A second Trump term facing a Democratic controlled House and Senate would certainly be entertaining. 

This is probably the best case scenario to be honest.  (Yes, the bar is that low).

I'm not sure which seats are up for grabs this cycle but I know that Dems did not blowout the senate elections in 2018 because a lot of the seats were unavailable to them.

We'll see what happens.

Edited October 29, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Malcador]

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-wisconsin-elections-641a8174e51077703888e2fa89070e12

Quote

Hitt said the hackers manipulated invoices from four vendors who were being paid for direct mail for Trump’s reelection efforts as well as for pro-Trump material such as hats to be handed out to supporters. Invoices and other documents were altered so when the party paid them for the services rendered, the money went to the hackers instead of the vendors, Hitt said.

The hack was discovered after someone noticed that an invoice was generated that should not have been, he said.

Hitt said it appears the attack began as a phishing attempt and no data appears to have been stolen, said party spokesman Alec Zimmerman.

Bastards, beat Jared to the punch.

[Maedhros]

16 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

but Biden is a flesh golem enthralled to the forces of the left, and the worst thing about them isn't a socialist agenda.  It's a self-loathing hatred of the very country that has afforded them the opportunity to attack it.

Are we in the the Breitbart comments section? I'll ignore the good ol' socialism scare, but why do certain people always think wanting to change a country for the better has anything to do with hatred? Criticising your country isn't the same thing as hating it. To advocate positive change is the patriotic thing to do.

[Guard Dog]

18 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Are we in the the Breitbart comments section? I'll ignore the good ol' socialism scare, but why do certain people always think wanting to change a country for the better has anything to do with hatred? Criticising your country isn't the same thing as hating it. To advocate positive change is the patriotic thing to do.

Whether a change is for the better is strictly a matter of opinion. It sounds awesome when you hear they are giving everyone a free house. Less so when you hear they are giving away YOURS!

Just an example. I'm not seriously suggesting they are taking anyone's house away. You gotta clarify s--t like that areoudn here lately! 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just an example. I'm not seriously suggesting they are taking anyone's house away. You gotta clarify s--t like that areoudn here lately! 

We have to claify it here because none of the politicians seems capable of it. Seriously, our banter on this forum is absolutely tame compared to the massive overstatements that our politicians are prone to today.

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

We have to claify it here because none of the politicians seems capable of it. Seriously, our banter on this forum is absolutely tame compared to the massive overstatements that our politicians are prone to today.

Communist

[Maedhros]

18 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Whether a change is for the better is strictly a matter of opinion. It sounds awesome when you hear they are giving everyone a free house. Less so when you hear they are giving away YOURS!

Just an example. I'm not seriously suggesting they are taking anyone's house away. You gotta clarify s--t like that areoudn here lately! 

Yes, of course, it's a matter of perspective. THEY think they're fighting to change it for the better. All I'm saying is it's silly to say someone hates their country just because they want to change it, and because their opinions differ from yours.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Maedhros

[Zoraptor]

19 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Are we in the the Breitbart comments section? I'll ignore the good ol' socialism scare, but why do certain people always think wanting to change a country for the better has anything to do with hatred? Criticising your country isn't the same thing as hating it. To advocate positive change is the patriotic thing to do.

Attacking other people's patriotism is a simple yet effective rhetorical device. "If you like ___ so much, why don't you move there?" is perhaps the staple reflex question when suggesting somewhere else does something better, and has been forever. It's a worthless rhetorical device designed to attack the arguer rather than the argument, and shift the argument's subject. Should be noted though, that type of argument is hardly coming only from the R side of the 'debate'. 99% of accusations of people shilling for Russia are exactly the same, attempts to attack the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. A solid number of anti Trumpers are 100% convinced that anyone who supports him has to be a 'traitor' and think the- utterly unsubstantiated- peepee tapes etc are gospel.