Jump to content

Gaston de Foix

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gaston de Foix

  1. This shitty program has broken my heart, my joy, my youth did them depart, And blind desire of fanfic, who hastes to watch seeks to revert, of truth, circa Bezos crappissima.
  2. I'm sure in his view, transferring executive power over immigration/foreign policy to judges is not a win for the long-term interests of the Republican party/conservatism. Yes, they are political but not always reliably partisan, except for judges like Alito. And they do place a premium on consistency. But not invariably, and not over other allegiances like federalism and limitations on the commerce clause. Scalia was all for limited government and a narrow reading of the commerce clause, and then ruled for the federal government in Gonzales v Raich because it concerned marijuana. Thomas, to his credit, went the other way. When Obamacare came up, a lot of people me included thought Scalia had created a serious consistency problem for himself, because of Raich and it would tie his hands. Not a bit of it. Congress legalizing or prohibiting abortion is going to be primarily a debate about the scope of Congress' power under the commerce clause. That's something on which the Fed Soc offers a clear "right answer". Roberts already has adopted a narrow view of the commerce clause. Kav will do the same. The fact that in his Dobbs concurrence he virtue-signals towards possibly being open to congressional legislation is just the trick he's mastered throughout his career: finding gullible liberals to carry water for him. If you don't believe me, go read his concurrence in Ramos on stare decisis. It was clearly written with abortion in mind. Any faithful application of that analysis in Dobbs would have led him to uphold Roe. He threw it overboard when he changed his mind.
  3. Kavanaugh cares about the long-term agenda of the Republican party, not short-term results. Political power is to be used to generate change, not simply husbanded for its own sake. Getting rid of Roe has been the second-most important objective for the Republican movement and Republican voters (after cutting taxes) for the last 50 years. If he had gone with Roberts, he would not just have gotten the Roberts treatment. He would have been denounced as a traitor at a level that Souter and Kennedy never faced. Getting rid of Roe is why 48 senators risked their political necks to put a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the High Court. He was never going to betray them. His whole career he has been loyal to his mentors and promoters: Kennedy, Starr, Bush. Anyway, not overturning Roe, or just cutting it back, might also have been politically bad for Republicans. Many voters would be disaffected and stay home. Roberts didn't vote the way he did to protect Republicans, but to protect conservatism and the judiciary, and his own reputation.
  4. He said the opposite. "On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address." He said something similar at oral argument. What he said is, on one level, in line with existing SC precedent. The Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v Carhart. In that case, apprehensive that Congress would enact Roe into law, Scalia and Thomas wrote separately to suggest that they were not foreclosing the federalism questions about whether Congress had the power to do so. If Roe or something less than Roe passes Congress (which would require filibuster abolition for a start), you can expect Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett to strike it down on federalism grounds. To win, the liberals would need both Roberts and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh will reverse-ferret because he will never willingly oppose a long-term policy win for the Republican party. But even if he seems to stick behind his equivocal dicta in Dobbs, you can't count on Robert's vote either. For the very reasons he dissented in Dobbs, he may think there is unpredictability, and less litigation, if left to the states. And his cramped reading of the commerce clause power in NFIB, which everyone thought at the time a meaningless if not pyrrhic victory, will be vindicated.
  5. My wife (who admits she knows little about politics) observed that Graham seems to have presidential ambitions, and now I can't get the thought out of my head. Everything he has said and done since 2015-6 makes sense if you see him actively learning the lessons from his 2016 defeat. He's rationally gone where the power is in a Republican primary: Trump and the evangelical base. Of course, a 15 week ban could embody a new national consensus if it also allowed women to obtain abortions before 15 weeks a la Roberts. The weird thing in all this is the shadow-boxing over the eventual constitutional challenge in the SC. From a Dem perspective, it would be a mistake to enact national legalization. The conservative majority (possibly minus Roberts) would strike it down on federalism grounds. For such legislation to be upheld, the Dems would need them both and I seriously doubt that Kavanaugh will ever strike down major legislation enacted by the Republican party. By contrast, if the Republicans pass a 15 week ban (which obviously will not happen before 2025), it will pass a federalism challenge. And, hopefully, then after appropriate political reaction to this overreaching, the Dems will be able to legalize abortion up to 15 weeks, and with rape, incest, and health of the mother exceptions, throughout the country.
  6. So, tbh, I was watching on my phone so missed the eye-symbolism. The fireflies dying could be an ominous sign, but don't fireflies die anyway after a while?
  7. He doesn't break that Harfoot's foot. The scene of Elanor's dad's foot breaking is intercut with Elanor trying to help the Stranger to emphasize that Elanor wasn't around to help her dad, and he got hurt. And while Gandalf's magic powers are never clearly well defined nothing in canon suggests he can break a random foot a mile away.
  8. A good point. But that's why I was wondering whether are copyright issues. Wasn't there something about the Istarl in the Silmarillion? There definitely was in Unfinished Tales. That may be why they invented a new origin story for Gandalf. Also, FWIW, I agree with you that they should have done all five Istari, rather than just Gandalf. They could given us our first sight of Alatar and Pallando!
  9. Yes, and such an approach would represent best practice to link redistricting reform to symmetrical or nationwide efforts and not represent unilateral disarmament by Dems.
  10. Up to a point. I suspect the SC will undermine the (sporadic) limits that state courts have placed on gerrymandering in places like WI and NC by a full-throated embrace of the ISL doctrine. Those changes will play out in the 2024 cycle. And of course, the SC is all set to gut VRA-required majority-minority districts.
  11. For two reasons. First, scenario A has is extremely difficult to execute. Let's say you lend your $10 book to 100 friends, and each friend takes a week to read it. That's 2 years give or take. And if your friends are anything like mine, you'll lose track after friend 5 and then see it on their bookshelf 3 years later, followed by a sheepish apology . Whereas Scenario 2 can be executed with a few clicks of a mouse on the day of a book's release and it is lent not just to 100 friends, but as many strangers as want to read the book on the internet, immediately. Second, the law has to draw bright line rules that are not always perfectly congruent with morality. When you buy a physical book you have bought both a tangible object (the book) and the intangible right to read the book. It is possible to divorce the two, and for a book to be sold with only the right to read it oneself, but its not practical to enforce such a rule, and long-standing custom stands against it. E-books do come with such restrictions. The thing is that the law exists not just to protect moral rights or reflect moral customs, but also to create bright-line rules that encourage economic activity. It doesn't always maximise ethical values (which are frequently contested anyway).
  12. It's pretty clearly a young Gandalf IMHO. Amazon has tried do this in a paint-by-the-numbers way, and introducing favorite characters from the movies at younger ages is a crowd-pleasing choice which they hope will attract casual fans of LOTR.
  13. Celebrimbor himself is Feanor's grandson. So there's a lot of family history there. I'm curious why they ignored both those family legacies. IP issues? Maybe Theo's father was another elf?
  14. Does anyone know what is happening with Electoral Count Act reform? Are we waiting on the Jan 6 Committee to conclude its work?
  15. Rothfuss is capable of gorgeous prose, no doubt the result of painstaking effort. I'm skeptical it be easily reproduced.
  16. You didn't like the Born Queen? If you liked the first three books, what about the last book was so different?
  17. Midnight's Children is his greatest work. Haroun and the Sea of Stories is his most accessible. The Satanic Verses is probably the second-best, followed by Shame. Avoid the books written in the last decade, sadly. It feels unkind to speculate, but this should be the year for the Nobel Committee to do what they should have done a long time ago (and what Rushdie has desperately craved). His (earlier) work easily justifies it, as well as his championing of freedom of speech, and the cost he has paid all his life.
  18. I finished watching all 10 episodes. After some reflection, I decided not to read the comics beforehand. I'm glad I made that decision because it allowed me to come to the show with fresh and welcoming eyes. I enjoyed it, and I will watch the 2nd season. I'm also going to read the comics (when I finish the Boys!). I don't think it deserves quite as much praise as is being thrown its way. Likes: I thought episodes 4-6 were simply outstanding television, and more importantly, their sum was much greater than their parts. Episodes 1-3 were also great tv. The visuals, the acting, and direction, were for the most part superb. Dislikes: There were definitely times when the show felt a bit twee. Fiddler's Green, Morpheus-Lucienne interactions, the relationship between Unity and Rose, the rapport between the guests at the hotel and Rose, bringing Gaunt back as a dream. There was a certain amount of suspense lacking in the second half of the storyline. They should have done something to emphasize the stakes were real, and the damage Rose was causing irreversible. Agree with Calibandar that the show indulged in a particular kind of California woke. It's great to see lead roles given to African-American actors, but there is more than one kind of minority in the world. If they had done it a little less programmatically, it would have been more powerful. The overarching Desire-Dream feud needed more menace and space.
  19. I wouldn't count out a gay marriage bill. Tammy Baldwin says in this interview (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/us/politics/gay-marriage-bill-baldwin.html) 5 other Republicans (apart from the 5 who are publicly supportive) have committed to support the bill. One of them is likely Mike Lee, who has said he will support it provided religious liberty protections are included in the bill. I would hope Burr and Blunt as retiring Republicans will also support it. Paul, Romney maybe? Graham has come out against it, curiously.
  20. I don't know why the Democrats would want to change their brand from pro-democracy to win-at-all-costs for a single measly House seat. There's already a political party making a fetish of ruthlessness, and see what it's turned them into. Control of the House won't come down to this one seat the way, say, control of the Senate might.
  21. This is important if (but only if) it presages Fox News dumping Trump. I'm highly doubtful that will happen because of the risk to their bottom line. But one should pray for division amongst ones' enemies, and I do.
  22. Question for the hivemind: I've only read the first 20-30 pages of Sandman, but I have some general sense of the mythos/storyline. Should I read the graphic novels BEFORE watching the show, or wait?
  23. I was looking for a catchy hook! You've read Ryan's prose, but for the undecided, I would recommend trying two Ryan short stories, in the Hall of the Diamond Queen, and Fire wings. I believe the former is available for free.
  • Create New...