Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all

 

 

 

Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

[Gromnir]

 

So are all the Trump executive orders illegal as well?

None of them are. Executive orders aren't illegal in themselves, they're only illegal if there's no authorization for them under law, or if they contradict the law.

 

 

...

 

*chuckle*

 

in any event, the first travel ban was, as Gromnir suggested, doa.  in particular, the procedural due process issue we described at the time were making the travel ban unconstitutional and thus, by definition, an illegal violation o' fundamental rights o' travelers.  the current travel ban is a watered-down version of the original travel ban, and SCOTUS only allowed a significant watered-down version to survive until they decide the merits o' the issue.  am knowing folks see this as a big win for the executive, but is less than advertised.  

 

just as with the first travel ban, the Courts is giving the executive a chance to get their act together.  first travel ban court presented the Executive with a kinda blueprint for fixing the obvious errors o' the executive order.  the SCOTUS ain't providing similar such color-by-numbers directions, but they is giving the President a chance to fix problems or let the whole thing die as issue will become moot unless something changes 'tween now and the fall.  smart thing for trump would be to make further adjustments to the travel ban (water-down again) and for the President to keep his gob shut 'bout the order as everytime he speaks he undercuts efforts to argue the Constitutionality of the order.  am doubtful trump chooses path of wisdom.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 27, 2017 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

"theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works"

 

How it is in contradiction of what I said?

Because it's something you just made up, not part of the dictionary quote you posted.

 

Edit:

The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.

"Likely to prevail" not "realistic chance to prevail". Big difference.

 

And @Gromnir, up to now that hasn't been any "due process right" for foreigners to enter the US. SC still held (for now) that the due process right was only for US residents/citizens related to those foreigners, which is still quite dubious to me, and contradicts earlier SC decisions.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

 

"theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works"

 

How it is in contradiction of what I said?

Because it's something you just made up, not part of the dictionary quote you posted.

 

Edit:

The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.

"Likely to prevail" not "realistic chance to prevail". Big difference.

 

And @Gromnir, up to now that hasn't been any "due process right" for foreigners to enter the US. SC still held (for now) that the due process right was only for US residents/citizens related to those foreigners, which is still quite dubious to me, and contradicts earlier SC decisions.

 

 

what is it 'bout law which makes everybody an expert?  regardless, already been through this.  on the positive side, it is kinda fun to watch val and wod explain Constitutional jurisprudence... pinky and the brain might have the edge for humor.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps @gd: the last thing we need is 8 more o' clarence thomas. fine judge but he will be quick forgotten as a Justice once he retires.  judges should be shaped by the law, but like it or not, Justices shape law, and J. thomas will leave behind little evidence o' his impact 'pon the law.  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Posner is probably more your guy

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/

[Guard Dog]

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps @gd: the last thing we need is 8 more o' clarence thomas. fine judge but he will be quick forgotten as a Justice once he retires.  judges should be shaped by the law, but like it or not, Justices shape law, and J. thomas will leave behind little evidence o' his impact 'pon the law.  

 

Gromnir, I have nothing but the highest respect for your intellect and opinion in most things but I'm going to disagree with you on this one. And I know we have discussed this before. Not to re-plow an old field here but Thomas has been the champion of the 10th Amendment and has been a consistent advocate for the Constitution as limiting government rather than empowering it.  I thought his separate concurrence in Citizens United was both brilliant and spot on. I understand your reasoning for saying that. As you have pointed out in the past he has rarely persuaded other justices to climb out on the limbs of his own brand of jurisprudence. And he has seldom if ever been a swing vote on anything.  But a man whose answers were right (factually and morally rather than politically) even if he couldn't get others to go along is worthy of being remembered. Maybe justices do shape the law rather than being shaped by it. Maybe that is how it is. That does not mean it's how it should be.

[Elerond]

 

"theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works"

 

How it is in contradiction of what I said?

Because it's something you just made up, not part of the dictionary quote you posted.

 

Dictionary quote that is posted was

 

""theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nothing about it being called a theory for the reason you stated though, just tells you what a scientific theory is.

 

Edit: Here's a key from your quote for why it's called a theory:

Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

It has to be falsifiable. Edited June 27, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

Posner is probably more your guy

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/

 

the internet is a dangerous place for lazy folks.  is incredible easy to find single outliers w/o bothering to read and understand why they is unique.  for instance, the POZ does believe two Justices is qualified to sit on the Court: ginsburg and breyer.  *snort*  as such am gonna find a few opportunities to use posner to admonish wod frequent/future legal misapprehensions.  

 

on the positive side, posner is a brilliant jurist and at least not a schizophrenic basement-dweller as has been at least one author o' your previous cited support. improvement. 

 

*hands wod a cookie*

 

positive reinforcement.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 27, 2017 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

Posner is only unique in that he's honest enough to openly admit his contempt for the Constitution, or any law he personally disagrees with, unlike the rest of his ilk.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all

 

 

 

Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

 

 

Touché

[Chilloutman]

heh, so EU wanted to ban weapons - we put our own 2nd amendment into constitution today. Good job EU xD

[HoonDing]

"heh, so EU wanted to ban weapons - we put our own 2nd amendment into constitution today. Good job EU xD"

 

you have to go back

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all

 

 

 

Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

 

 

Touché

 

Common Law is so ****ing stupid.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all

 

 

 

Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

 

 

Touché

 

Common Law is so ****ing stupid.

 

 

Elaborate por favor.

[Guard Dog]

Looks like Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat MO) is in hot water. In turns out in 2015 she attended a fundraising dinner at the home of Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The dinner was to raise money for some Russian-US cultural exchange thing. No big deal except.... she couldn't be bothered to pony up the donation. She stole... excuse me... misappropriated the money from a charity her husband administrates. It was like $800. She is making $180k a year with generous benefits, travel and housing allowances all paid for by people who work harder everyday for less money than she spends on pantsuits every year. And she can't pony up $800? She has to steal it from a charity?

 

She also failed to disclose this to the Senate which is an ethics violation but is small potatoes truth be told.

 

Politicians have to be the most disgusting vermin on earth. It's not enough that they are stealing your money in compulsory taxes which they squander without compunction. They also steal your charitable donations as well. And some of you guys criticize the Libertarians for wanting to take their power away? Some of you talk about how corporations can't be trusted but government can? 

 

 

Case in point: https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/tunedin/former-florida-rep-corrine-brown-guilty-of-stealing-charity-money/vp-BBB4edQ

Edited June 29, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

$800 is terrible and all, but it isn't quite the millions of dollars Trump has been taking through his charities.

[Guard Dog]

$800 is terrible and all, but it isn't quite the millions of dollars Trump has been taking through his charities.

I don't have anything nice to say about him either. If one roach ate a little of the bread and another ate all the cornmeal they are both still roaches

[Pidesco]

The difference between an arsehole and a genocidal maniac is more than just a difference of degree.

[Gfted1]

Do you work for the US press, Pidesco?

[Pidesco]

I haven't been offensively tweeted at by president man-child, yet, so probably not.

[Guard Dog]

The difference between an arsehole and a genocidal maniac is more than just a difference of degree.

Genocidal maniac?   Don't get me wrong. I love and participate in good hyperbole and melodrama to spice up forum chatter. But that is a stretch. Let's see, Trump has been in office for five months now. He has ordered one cruise missile strike that killed 15 people according to Syria. The LA Times thinks is was more like 4 but whatever. Of course the attack was in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed over 70 including children in a US backed rebel group. Not that it was any better than the others but whatever. By July 4 2009 Barack Obama ordered drone strikes that  killed over 241 in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Yemen (who we were not even at war with at the time. Of course we were not at war with Syria, Iraq, & Afghanistan either). 241 including non-combatants because air delivered ordinance does not know the difference. And he won a Nobel Peace Prize four months later! But Hitler and Arafat both had those in their trophy cases too so that does not mean much. By the end of 2016 the Obama Admin would order strikes that killed almost 4k people.

 

Just to compare, in the first six months the body count of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Regan, and Jimmy Carter was 0.

 

He is a buffoon and a fool no doubt. But genocidal maniac? Not even CLOSE! Obama came a lot closer. You liked him didn't you? But it's still early.

 

Almost forgot, my source material: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

Edited June 29, 2017 by Guard Dog

[redneckdevil]

What's up with California travel ban? They got 8 states so far, mine included.

[Gfted1]

What's up with California travel ban? They got 8 states so far, mine included.

 

Somethingsomething they wont fund business trips for CA state employees traveling to states with unfavorable LGBT laws and regulations.

[Chilloutman]

 

The difference between an arsehole and a genocidal maniac is more than just a difference of degree.

Genocidal maniac?   Don't get me wrong. I love and participate in good hyperbole and melodrama to spice up forum chatter. But that is a stretch. Let's see, Trump has been in office for five months now. He has ordered one cruise missile strike that killed 15 people according to Syria. The LA Times thinks is was more like 4 but whatever. Of course the attack was in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed over 70 including children in a US backed rebel group. Not that it was any better than the others but whatever. By July 4 2009 Barack Obama ordered drone strikes that  killed over 241 in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Yemen (who we were not even at war with at the time. Of course we were not at war with Syria, Iraq, & Afghanistan either). 241 including non-combatants because air delivered ordinance does not know the difference. And he won a Nobel Peace Prize four months later! But Hitler and Arafat both had those in their trophy cases too so that does not mean much. By the end of 2016 the Obama Admin would order strikes that killed almost 4k people.

 

Just to compare, in the first six months the body count of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Regan, and Jimmy Carter was 0.

 

He is a buffoon and a fool no doubt. But genocidal maniac? Not even CLOSE! Obama came a lot closer. You liked him didn't you? But it's still early.

 

Almost forgot, my source material: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

 

And he dropped MOBA IIRC