U.S. Politics - Netanyahu and Boehner OTP

[aceluby]

98% Green Party here. I really, really wish the Green Party would go the route of the Tea Party instead of having their own party with zero representation basically throughout all levels of govt. They should be pushing Democrats to the left and actually go after some of these districts that are already 'safe' for those on the left and try to get in during primaries. Not really sure why they haven't gone that route given the last 10 years or so.

[Ramsay Gimp]

That's pretty disingenuous. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I am annoyed by it mainly when they or their supporters insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that they're the second coming of Libertarian Jesus -- which both do -- routinely. It doesn't matter to me directly, since I don't support him, but it bugs me that he hoodwinks so many of you muppets and puts him dangerously close to executive office. For that matter, it annoys me that he successfully hoodwinked, and continues to hoodwink, enough morons to put and keep him in legislative office. He's an out-and-out fraud, which matters to me when he makes national policy.

This makes no sense. Why should Paul annoy you more than any other Republican?

[TrackerNeil]

This makes no sense. Why should Paul annoy you more than any other Republican?

For myself, I am usually more irked by people who pretend to be something they're not than by those who own what they are, no matter how odious. For example, I wish Mike Pence would just admit that the new Indiana law is about allowing and even encouraging discrimination against gays, instead of cloaking this intent in the language of freedom. If he were honest then we could have a conversation, but as it is he won't even admit there's a conversation to be had. So maybe it's like that for Inigma vis a vis Rand Paul.

[Swordfish]

92% Libertarian

83% Green Party

69% Democrat

[Lightysnake88]

Oh, hey, Paul claiming that religion and government shouldn't be separate. Funny for such a strict constitutionalist.

“The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government… I open the Senate each Wednesday morning — and we open it every day — with a prayer. So you have prayer in government. Religion is part of our daily life and a part of our government. Always has been.”

[Fez]

For the first time in what seems like quite a while, the Supreme Court has decided against expanding the first amendment. Although this was about individuals and not corporations, so I guess they don't care as much.

Basically, the court declined to hear an appeal from some students who were ordered to turn inside out their t-shirts with the American flag on them that they wore to school on Cinco de Mayo. The school was concerned about inciting hostility, which apparently had happened in a previous year. The students sued, courts sided with the school; and the Supreme Court decided to not get involved, which upholds the lower court ruling.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Oh, hey, Paul claiming that religion and government shouldn't be separate. Funny for such a strict constitutionalist.

“The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government… I open the Senate each Wednesday morning — and we open it every day — with a prayer. So you have prayer in government. Religion is part of our daily life and a part of our government. Always has been.”

It's really not that absurd position from a strict textualist (not that I think Paul is really much of a strict textualist). The First Amendment says, in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of[.]" Take a fairly minimalist, plain language reading of the Establishment clause (only the first clause) and what it restricts is fairly minimal - Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. A state court judge puts the 10 Commandments in his courthouse? That's not Congress making a law. The US Congress deciding to start each day with a prayer? That's not Congress making a law. Having a National Prayer Breakfast? That's not Congress making a law. Etc and so on.

Also, keep in mind that at the time the Constitution was written, the protections afforded to individuals in the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to State governments. State governments were free, for example, to have official state religions.

[Galactus]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of[.]"

It largely depneds on how you interpret "respecting" in this. (IE: It shall pass no law with respect to establishing a religion, or it shall pass no law acknowledging an establishment of religion)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

For the first time in what seems like quite a while, the Supreme Court has decided against expanding the first amendment. Although this was about individuals and not corporations, so I guess they don't care as much.

Basically, the court declined to hear an appeal from some students who were ordered to turn inside out their t-shirts with the American flag on them that they wore to school on Cinco de Mayo. The school was concerned about inciting hostility, which apparently had happened in a previous year. The students sued, courts sided with the school; and the Supreme Court decided to not get involved, which upholds the lower court ruling.

The US Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for cases to be reviewed each year, and only grants certiorari to about 80 per year, meaning they hear less than one percent of the cases they are asked to hear each year. It is absolutely not uncommon for them to decline to hear cases dealing with all aspects of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Here are some other examples of student free speech cases the Court has declined to hear over the years.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It largely depneds on how you interpret "respecting" in this. (IE: It shall pass no law with respect to establishing a religion, or it shall pass no law acknowledging an establishment of religion)

1. I actually don't see how that matters at all to the examples that I gave in the post that you quoted, since "Congress shall make no law" is not implicated in either of the three examples.

2. Laurence Tribe, of all people (a noted Constitutional scholar and outspoken liberal), has written that "[a] growing body of evidence suggests that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform two functions: to protect state religious establishments from national displacement, and to prevent the national government from aiding some, but not all, religions."

Which would be kind of a weird spot for the Establishment Clause to be in if anybody of any real importance cared that the Framers intended it to protect state religious establishments from being displaced on a federal level (which, of course, nobody does, and that purpose of the Clause is effectively dead letter at this point).

[Fez]

The US Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for cases to be reviewed each year, and only grants certiorari to about 80 per year, meaning they hear less than one percent of the cases they are asked to hear each year. It is absolutely not uncommon for them to decline to hear cases dealing with all aspects of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Here are some other examples of student free speech cases the Court has declined to hear over the years.

Oh I'm well aware that they receive tons of petitions and hear very few of them, but this one had made it all the way to the federal appeals circuit so it had better odds than most.

[Swordfish]

Oh, hey, Paul claiming that religion and government shouldn't be separate. Funny for such a strict constitutionalist.

“The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government… I open the Senate each Wednesday morning — and we open it every day — with a prayer. So you have prayer in government. Religion is part of our daily life and a part of our government. Always has been.”

I don't think you have a very good understanding of the concepts at play here.

[Inigima]

This makes no sense. Why should Paul annoy you more than any other Republican?

Because it annoys me that his confidence game is working, and because the evidence that he's full of shit is right in front of your eyes and you still defend him. If he tricks enough of you into believing he's something he's not, I'll have to live with the consequences.

But you're right, I believe most of the current conservative darlings are hucksters, and they annoy me for the same reasons.

[Commodore]

For myself, I am usually more irked by people who pretend to be something they're not than by those who own what they are, no matter how odious. For example, I wish Mike Pence would just admit that the new Indiana law is about allowing and even encouraging discrimination against gays, instead of cloaking this intent in the language of freedom. If he were honest then we could have a conversation, but as it is he won't even admit there's a conversation to be had. So maybe it's like that for Inigma vis a vis Rand Paul.

Considering similar laws have been on the books for twenty years and never been used for that purpose, Pence is right.

This was driven by the Hobby Lobby decision, where people were concerned about being forced by HHS to pay for abortion or contraceptives in violation of their religious faith. All RFRA says is there must be a compelling government interest to deny someone the right to practice their religion. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the courts found that the government does not have a compelling interest to force people to pay for abortifacients if they feel it violates their religious beliefs.

[Commodore]

That's pretty disingenuous. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I am annoyed by it mainly when they or their supporters insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that they're the second coming of Libertarian Jesus -- which both do -- routinely. It doesn't matter to me directly, since I don't support him, but it bugs me that he hoodwinks so many of you muppets and puts him dangerously close to executive office. For that matter, it annoys me that he successfully hoodwinked, and continues to hoodwink, enough morons to put and keep him in legislative office. He's an out-and-out fraud, which matters to me when he makes national policy.

Paul is as libertarian in his positions as the electorate will allow. Nothing wrong with that. Just as Obama would be as far left as the electorate would allow if he were a politician in a different country.

When you are a representative, the policies you would advance and what you personally believe are not the same (and should not be).

[TerraPrime]

 

Considering similar laws have been on the books for twenty years and never been used for that purpose, Pence is right.

 

 

 

Well, a grapefruit is similar to an orange, but the two are not the same. From The Atlantic

 

 

 

There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law.  ...

 

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes.  If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

 

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

 

From Think Progress on the Texas law:

 

* Texas’ RFRA, enacted in 1999, contains similar — but not identical — language. The Texas law, however, also specificly exempts civil rights protections from the scope of the law.

 

Naming the Indiana law the same name as the federal and other statutes is probably deliberate in order to obfuscate the issue, and it seems to be succeeding in some sectors. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

hmmm...

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_us_ob5

Dratted thing told me I was a member of the Green Party...though its not exactly a strong fit.

I like these test. Wish they had been around much longer. I might have become smarter sooner :P

98% Green

95% Dem

65% Socialist

46% Libertarian

3% Rep

Don't think I could ever call myself a Green...to many fringe elements...and I still have a few (but a lot fewer than my cold war days :P) hang ups with Socialist

Some of the older borders might remember this, but when I first joined up I was so very very stupid about politics and had been a registered Republican since I turned 18 (1982) and I used to stupidly vote straight party lines.

Even though I was already leaning a lot more about politics, had become very open minded, had ALWAYS been pro-choice, Obama (2008) was the first Democrat I ever voted for.

2 things happened:

1) I learned so much, and had my horizons broadened by this board

2) The Rep Party became very religious, something I never could stand

I honestly don't think even in my stupid days, I would have gotten more than 50% Republican...I was a lot more pro military (I was in the military) and pro guns and pro few taxes back then...but that was basically it

[Shryke]

This makes no sense. Why should Paul annoy you more than any other Republican?

Well, I guess he's no more terrible then any other Republican.

Personally I just enjoy rubbing his avowed stances in the faces of people who think he's a libertarian.

[aceluby]

Paul is as libertarian in his positions as the electorate will allow. Nothing wrong with that. Just as Obama would be as far left as the electorate would allow if he were a politician in a different country.

When you are a representative, the policies you would advance and what you personally believe are not the same (and should not be).

This doesn't make any sense. When you are a representative, the policies you advance absolutely should be the same that you believe in. You should run on those beliefs, get hired on those beliefs because your constituents share them, and then advance policy that is in line with that. That's exactly what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy.

I also read the bolded statement about 12 times and have zero idea what it means. Are you also claiming that Obama isn't far left because of his electorate? His electorate first elected him on what you would consider 'far left' policies. His electorate isn't the issue, just as Paul's issue isn't his electorate.

[The Once and Future King]

This doesn't make any sense. When you are a representative, the policies you advance absolutely should be the same that you believe in. You should run on those beliefs, get hired on those beliefs because your constituents share them, and then advance policy that is in line with that. That's exactly what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy.

I also read the bolded statement about 12 times and have zero idea what it means. Are you also claiming that Obama isn't far left because of his electorate? His electorate first elected him on what you would consider 'far left' policies. His electorate isn't the issue, just as Paul's issue isn't his electorate.

Sometimes a representative has a different opinion on a particular issue rhan his constitutes. If he wants to keep his job he votes as they please not as he does.

Rand Paul is as Libertarian as he can be.

Obama is as far left as he can be.