U.S. Elections: The Narcissist and the Nineteenth Amendment

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, Angalin said:

And speaking of FLOTUS: what a speech. People pop up and talk about her running in 2020 or 2024, but I'd prefer to see her and Barack free of the White House to do their own things.

My wife and I watched it together. It was amazing. I wish we could have her in elected office somewhere but I also don't think she particularly enjoys being in politics.

I know she is a regular human like the rest of us but sometimes she seems to me like a political boddhisattva, spending time in this realm of pain to show the rest of us miserable shits a better way.

[OldGimletEye]

It is the finding of the court that in order to proceed on a libel suit, the plaintiff must have, like, you know, an actual reputation to protect. Mr. Trump has no such reputation.

Case dismissed.

Quote

Libel claims are based on “the protection of one’s reputation,” Mr. McCraw wrote, and nothing in the published article had the slightest effect on Mr. Trump’s reputation, which Mr. Trump had created by, among other things, repeatedly bragging about touching women without their consent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/donald-trump-vs-a-free-press.html?_r=0

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Will Torch the Supreme Court
Conservatives hoping Trump will be better than Hillary on SCOTUS are fooling themselves.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/12/trump-will-torch-the-supreme-court-not-r

Interesting. I assume it's the kind of thing people I know who are staunchly Trump will dismiss out of hand then?

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It is the finding of the court that in order to proceed on a libel suit, the plaintiff must have, like, you know, an actual reputation to protect. Mr. Trump has no such reputation.

Case dismissed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/donald-trump-vs-a-free-press.html?_r=0

Uh-oh! I hope that judge is a blonde haired blue eyes direct descendant of Ein Fhurer or there will be hell to pay!

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Interesting. I assume it's the kind of thing people I know who are staunchly Trump will dismiss out of hand then?

Perhaps not. It's from a libertarian publication. But then if they are truly hardcore Trumpites, they are kind of the direct opposite of libertarians.

[LongRider]

I've seen it mentioned that Trump's Access Hollywood tape wasn't in the locker room, but in a workplace.  He was there as a hireling for Access Hollywood and the soap opera.  He was working!  This type of talk is prohibited in the workplace as it creates a hostile work environment.  Hadn't thought of that myself till now, but it is a valid argument. 

 

4 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Interesting. I assume it's the kind of thing people I know who are staunchly Trump will dismiss out of hand then?

I had something similar show up in my FB from a friend res-posting from a fundamental Christian woman who was lamenting that Trump couldn't be trusted to pick the judges he said he would pick.  She was all about anti-abortion concerns, but still interesting that people of widely different beliefs/politics don't feel they can trust Trump on the SCOTUS like he tries to convince them.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Will Torch the Supreme Court
Conservatives hoping Trump will be better than Hillary on SCOTUS are fooling themselves.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/12/trump-will-torch-the-supreme-court-not-r

Judicial Deference is the norm here, of course, and we're not going to hell in a handcart quite yet. Frankly, I don't think Trump has given much thought to the Supreme Court at all. 

[Ariadne23]

18 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I've seen it mentioned that Trump's Access Hollywood tape wasn't in the locker room, but in a workplace.  He was there as a hireling for Access Hollywood and the soap opera.  He was working!  This type of talk is prohibited in the workplace as it creates a hostile work environment.  Hadn't thought of that myself till now, but it is a valid argument. 

The statute of limitations ran long ago. But also - who is being sexually harassed by comments they never heard? If a puss-groping comment falls in the workplace forest, and nobody offended is there to hear it, does it make a discriminatory sound? Obviously, right??? But who would file the case? Raises some interesting problems in sexual harassment law. People just aren't aware of most of the discrimination they are subjected to.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Will Torch the Supreme Court
Conservatives hoping Trump will be better than Hillary on SCOTUS are fooling themselves.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/12/trump-will-torch-the-supreme-court-not-r

Quote

Trump would be FDR on steroids.

LOL. Wasn't FDR the guy that appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. And wasn't Hugo Black the guy that fought harder than just about anybody to get the Bill of Rights incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

Libertarians, aka neo-feudalist, can be awful funny sometimes.

And didn't FDR also appoint William Douglas to the court?

[LongRider]

Just now, Ariadne23 said:

The statute of limitations ran long ago. But also - who is being sexually harassed by comments they never heard? If a puss-groping comment falls in the workplace forest, and nobody offended is there to hear it, does it make a discriminatory sound? Obviously, right??? But who would file the case? Raises some interesting problems in sexual harassment law. People just aren't aware of most of the discrimination they are subjected to.

There were more men on that bus than Trump and Bush and employees of AH had to process the tape.  It was a workplace, not a locker room.  The point being this is an egregious example of Trump creating a hostile work environment.  We don't know if the other employees of Access Hollywood were offended by his talk, but I would not suggest that all (or any) of them of the approved it either. 

Fortunately the statute of limitations has not run out on teachable moments.  The tape is teachable moment for exposing Trump and his sexual predator ways.  Realizing it was made by an employee in a workplace is an important nuance.  Charges don't need to filed as the loud revulsion by the public is filling that role.

[OldGimletEye]

42 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Perhaps not. It's from a libertarian publication. But then if they are truly hardcore Trumpites, they are kind of the direct opposite of libertarians.

The problem with many` so called "libertarians" is when push comes to shove they will take tax cuts over everything else it seems. And if they can get some 2nd Amendment stuff to to their way and some interstate commerce clause cases to go their way, that's just gravy.

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendments can generally go to hell with a lot of these guys.

They act is if there is not strong tradition of protecting civil liberties within liberalism. And that's bullshit.Think Marshall, Douglas, Brennan, etc.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The problem with many` so called "libertarians" is when push comes to shove they will take tax cuts over everything else it seems. And if they can get some 2nd Amendment stuff to to their way and some interstate commerce clause cases to go their way, that's just gravy.

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendments can generally go to hell with a lot of these guys.

They act is if there is not strong tradition of protecting civil liberties within liberalism. And that's bullshit.Think Marshall, Douglas, Brennan, etc.

Aren't they for legalized marijuana as well?  Dirty f*cking hippies.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Aren't they for legalized marijuana as well?  Dirty f*cking hippies.

I distinguish between civil libertarians and libertarians as the latter in my mind has connotions tied up with basically ultra right wing economic policies.

I consider myself to be a pretty strong civil libertarian, particularly with respect to the state's criminal enforcement powers.

But, it seems to me that so called "libertarians" are prone to misrepresenting liberalism record on civil liberties. Back in the day, the Warren Court, which was considered liberal, took a lot of shit for its rulings.

It's true that liberals tend to be more favorable to the inherent power of the federal government. But, you know, the states haven't always been bastions of liberty and freedom. That's why we had to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I distinguish between civil libertarians and libertarians as the latter in my mind has connotions tied up with basically ultra right wing economic policies.

I see I need to study more what the terms civil libertarians and libertarians really mean as I'm afraid I don't.

 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's true that liberals tend to be more favorable to the inherent power of the federal government. But, you know, the states haven't always been bastions of liberty and freedom. That's why we had to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And the 19th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.  Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote, but if it had been left only to the states, how long would it have taken for all states to grant this right to women?  Too long. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. Wasn't FDR the guy that appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. And wasn't Hugo Black the guy that fought harder than just about anybody to get the Bill of Rights incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

Libertarians, aka neo-feudalist, can be awful funny sometimes.

And didn't FDR also appoint William Douglas to the court?

OGE,

You have heard of FDR's Court Packing attempt right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

While that plan failed most of the conservative members of the SCOTUS retired shortly after the court packing attempt giving FDR the ability to appoint Justices more in line with his expansive view of Government power.  Wickard v Filburn was a product of his new SCOTUS majority:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Yes indeed.  Per this court not buying something because you grow food at home opens you up to regulation by the Federal Government because your choice not to buy "affects interstate commerce".

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, LongRider said:

I see I need to study more what the terms civil libertarians and libertarians really mean as I'm afraid I don't.

Civil libertarians - think ACLU, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, etc.

Libertarians - think Hayek, Mises, Rand (even though she hated libertarians for stealing her ideas allegedly), Rothbard, Freidman, etc.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

Do you think choosing to build something yourself or grow something yourself, thereby refraining from engaging in commerce, should open the individual making that choice up to regulation under the "interstate commerce clause"?

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

You have heard of FDR's Court Packing attempt right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

While that plan failed most of the conservative members of the SCOTUS retired shortly after the court packing attempt giving FDR the ability to appoint Justices more in line with his expansive view of Government power.  Wickard v Filburn was a product of his new SCOTUS majority:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Yes indeed.  Per this court not buying something because you grow food at home opens you up to regulation by the Federal Government because your choice not to buy "affects interstate commerce".

 

Yes, of course, I've heard of it. I know. 

And FDR's court packing plan wasn't something that I particularly liked. In fact, there are other things FDR did I don't like, even though I think he got a lot right.

But, the point is, even though FDR's court packing plan was wrong, the fact is that he didn't appoint a bunch of guys that were against civil liberties. Some of those guys became pretty strong civil libertarians. 

And I  believe it was mostly FDR guys on the court that turned down Harry Truman when Truman tried to nationalized the steel industry during the Korean War.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

What is your opinion on the expansive view of Government Regulatory power derived from Wickard?  A case that Scalia hung his hat on to discount State power to legalize Marijuana on a State by State basis.

(Scalia's inconsistency really pissed me off that time)

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Do you think choosing to build something yourself or grow something yourself, thereby refraining from engaging in commerce, should open the individual making that choice up to regulation under the "interstate commerce clause"?

Depends on whether said action could plausibly affect interstate commerce. The fact of the matter is that Filburn's actions if allowed could affect the price of wheat. And deflation was a big problem during the Great Depression.