Tempra Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I'm honestly not sure we want the Court to be more Democratic. While the idea of these kinds of term limits has some appeal, I think there is a real danger to the political system in the idea of 18 year term limits. Most significantly, given how quick the potential turnover would be, I think there's a real danger of politically charged issues - like abortion and gay marriage - being subjected to wildly different Supreme Court determinations based on the make-up of the Court. Could you imagine if every four to eight years, a new round of challenges to gay marriage were filed, and there was a very real possibility of the Court actually changing its mind on this issue based upon which party happened to have control at that time? The danger of a Court reversing itself every election cycle or two on these hot-button issues is kind of frightening. Agreed. I think minimum and maximum ages are a better method of limiting tenure on SCOTUS, though I am sure there are some unforeseen consequences that alteration as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire: "But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together." This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close. In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go." Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012: "The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, Trump would sue every State to get his name on the ballot. Is there any precedent for that? Also, Trump is kinda bad at suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I'm honestly not sure we want the Court to be more Democratic. While the idea of these kinds of term limits has some appeal, I think there is a real danger to the political system in the idea of 18 year term limits. Most significantly, given how quick the potential turnover would be, I think there's a real danger of politically charged issues - like abortion and gay marriage - being subjected to wildly different Supreme Court determinations based on the make-up of the Court. Could you imagine if every four to eight years, a new round of challenges to gay marriage were filed, and there was a very real possibility of the Court actually changing its mind on this issue based upon which party happened to have control at that time? The danger of a Court reversing itself every election cycle or two on these hot-button issues is kind of frightening. That's a potential danger. But that's a potential danger now as well. If Obama gets a replacement for Scalia confirmed, or if Clinton wins and she gets a replacement through, the court is almost certain to hear challenges from liberal groups on any number of recent issues and reverse itself completely. And if a Republican then wins in 2020 or 2024 and Ginsburg finally retires during that person's term, the court will end up being 5-4 the other direction again and probably reverse itself again back to its original ruling. The court has already become extremely politicized and in almost all contentious cases its very obvious how 6 of the justices will rule (7 when Scalia was alive). Its just a question of how Kennedy, or sometimes Roberts, will swing. I don't think term limiting it this way will make it worse. If anything it will increase stability, preventing a situation like a one-term President naming 3 or even 4 justices (which, if Scalia's seat stays open, the next President may very well do) and completely shaping the court in their imagine for 30+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Is there any precedent for that? Also, Trump is kinda bad at suing. At the risk of psychoanalyzing someone I've never met, he seems like he absolutely hates anyone looking down on him, laughing at him*, or getting anything over on him. So when he sues, it's often just to lash out and possibly waste the other party's time and money. He doesn't care what his lawyers say about whether he has a case or not. *look at how much "They're laughing at us" shows up in his speeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: At the risk of psychoanalyzing someone I've never met, he seems like he absolutely hates anyone looking down on him laughing at him*, or getting anything over on him, so when he sues, it's often just to lash out and possibly waste the other party's time and money, regardless of what his lawyers say about whether he has a case or not. *look at much "They're laughing at us" shows up in his speeches. My guess is you're right. After all, he did try and sue Bill Maher for 5 million dollars over a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Fez said: That's a potential danger. But that's a potential danger now as well. If Obama gets a replacement for Scalia confirmed, or if Clinton wins and she gets a replacement through, the court is almost certain to hear challenges from liberal groups on any number of recent issues and reverse itself completely. And if a Republican then wins in 2020 or 2024 and Ginsburg finally retires during that person's term, the court will end up being 5-4 the other direction again and probably reverse itself again back to its original ruling. The court has already become extremely politicized and in almost all contentious cases its very obvious how 6 of the justices will rule (7 when Scalia was alive). Its just a question of how Kennedy, or sometimes Roberts, will swing. I don't think term limiting it this way will make it worse. If anything it will increase stability, preventing a situation like a one-term President naming 3 or even 4 justices (which, if Scalia's seat stays open, the next President may very well do) and completely shaping the court in their imagine for 30+ years. I honestly don't think it's very likely at all that the Court is going to reverse itself on any major decisions of the past 10-15 years regardless of who ends up replacing Scalia. Even if Scalia's replacement ends up being very liberal, I strongly doubt that the Court is going to reconsider any of its prior rulings, including the liberal bogeyman of Citizen's United. From a system-level perspective, the possibility of some fluke presidency in which a one-term president ends up naming 3 or 4 Justices (which would be very unlikely anyway) that shapes the Court for years to come is much, much less concerning than the idea that the Court might regularly start overturning itself on political grounds every 4 to 8 years because the law demands turnover on the Court. A bad ruling, or just a ruling you disagree with, does not in and of itself challenge the integrity of the system. But repeated flip-flops on controversial issues will certainly undermine the Court's authority, which is a much, much larger problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 5 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I'm honestly not sure we want the Court to be more Democratic. You got a mouse in your pocket, Queen Victoria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I honestly don't think it's very likely at all that the Court is going to reverse itself on any major decisions of the past 10-15 years regardless of who ends up replacing Scalia. Even if Scalia's replacement ends up being very liberal, I strongly doubt that the Court is going to reconsider any of its prior rulings, including the liberal bogeyman of Citizen's United. From a system-level perspective, the possibility of some fluke presidency in which a one-term president ends up naming 3 or 4 Justices (which would be very unlikely anyway) that shapes the Court for years to come is much, much less concerning than the idea that the Court might regularly start overturning itself on political grounds every 4 to 8 years because the law demands turnover on the Court. A bad ruling, or just a ruling you disagree with, does not in and of itself challenge the integrity of the system. But repeated flip-flops on controversial issues will certainly undermine the Court's authority, which is a much, much larger problem. Yeah - I think Bush v. Gore did way more to undermine the Court's authority than any flip-flopping might do. I think you are inventing counter-factual to further a narrative. Did the court lose or gain credibility when the reversed Plessy vs. Ferguson? I would say no. YMMV On the other hand, the court loses much more credibility when it's decisions are seen as political. Don't believe me? Go ask John Roberts what he thinks...... There is a whole Repub meme they have created around it. Sorry for the double post, but the quoting system suks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Yes, and no. I see where Nestor is coming from and I agree with him to a certain extent. Continuity is somewhat important to court rulings. So a liberal justice won't overturn any past verdicts. A new justice would be more an investment into future rulings. And minor rulings might erode some horrible decissions like Citizens United. You had a conservative majority on the SCOTUS for quite a while, but they have not overturned Roe vs Wade straight away. Probably for the same reason, to show some sort of continuity. That's something no judge will discard that easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Poll results galore: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ Not that surprising really. Clinton is ahead of Sanders in most places, with some shockingly yooge leads. Excluding super delegates, Sanders and Clinton are tied right now with 51 delegates, but HRC will start to really pull away over the next few weeks. I doubt Sanders stays in the race past April, unless Clinton's email scandal gets worse. Trump also is ahead in most places, but his leads are a lot smaller (not surprising considering the number of candidates). I wouldn't be surprised if he lost a number of places in which he current leads, but it's hard to see Cruz's or Rubio's path to victory. So it looks like we'll likely get the much craved Clinton-Trump debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I am curious. What happens if Sanders drops out at some point likesay in April, and Clinton's e-mail server blows up in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, Notone said: I am curious. What happens if Sanders drops out at some point likesay in April, and Clinton's e-mail server blows up in June. Wide spread alcohol poisoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Notone said: I am curious. What happens if Sanders drops out at some point likesay in April, and Clinton's e-mail server blows up in June. If it's before the convention, like in June, there is still time to nominate someone else if Clinton withdraws and releases her delegates. If it's after that... say hello to President Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 So after the convention, there is no way for the Democrats to run to Sanders or Biden to replace her? And if it's in June, will they turn to Sanders as the last running rival or to Biden or someone like that with stronger party ties than Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: If it's before the convention, like in June, there is still time to nominate someone else if Clinton withdraws and releases her delegates. If it's after that... say hello to President Trump. Why wouldn't Clinton be able to withdraw and have whoever was her VP pick run in her stead (if he defeat was certain)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think her VP pick would be burnt, too. The poor VP pick would be in a worse situation then McCain in 08, when he was also running against Dubya. So Democrats would really need someone as far away from that toxic candidate as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Why wouldn't Clinton be able to withdraw and have whoever was her VP pick run in her stead (if he defeat was certain)? If Clinton is nominated, on the ballot, and it's too late to change (the rules are very different state by state, I'm sure), it would be a very, very tough sell to tell voters that who they're really voting for as President is the VP nominee. And if your nominee goes down in scandal it is just generally devastating to the party's image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 22 hours ago, Fez said: Worst fucking quote feature ever. Seriously.... What happens in the inexplicably BELOW scenario is, the democrats lose the election. Quote What happens if Sanders drops out at some point likesay in April, and Clinton's e-mail server blows up in June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I gotta say, I have serious doubts about the whole email issue being anything more than a sad GOP attempt to follow up on their silly screams of "BENGHAZIE!!" Clinton's use of a private server was certainly allowable and was only subjected to a retroactive security rules after she left office. She's not under a criminal investigation of any kind. It's a desperate smear job, and if they actually had anything, they would have dropped that bomb months, if not years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.