U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Week]

8 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Like in Portland, right? Where the peaceful, anti-violence Antifa members totally didn't stand in the rally's way, agitating, throwing bottles, rocks and fireworks into the crowd.

Was this before or after a white supremacist murdered a counter-protester*?

 

*Heather Heyer

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Because unless you have a true AI running the courts there's a person interpreting law at some point and that person is a political beast.  Why bother pretending they aren't?

Which leaves us with the mob.  Are you comfortable with the mob making decisions about your life without the cover and protection of law?  Democracy, untempered by protections for individual liberty, is just a different form of tyranny.  

[aceluby]

Just now, SweetPea said:

No whataboutism in my post whatsoever. I was replying to this statement in the post that I was quoting:

1. White supremacists turned the rally into a violent assault

That is flat out wrong. The violence was started by Antifa.

The post was about SC, not about Portland.  You replied with "what about what happened in Portland".  Nice try.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's Article III, Section I.  "Section III" just sounds like you haven't read the constitution at all.

Typos go both ways. At least I have the excuse of being at work watching Federer choke!

Quote

Tie breakers to the younger justice?  Why?  Isn't the a clear partisan way to get [whomever has the advantage] on the court?  And why the next elected president?  Why not the current president?  If this is just then, why isn't it just now?   -- The previous are the nicest of objections that would follow such an action.

If there are term limits, give me a younger justice please. Tech runs the world now and we need tech literate justices. And you start with the next president because you’d have a clean slate and the public would get to decide who picks first after the Constitutional Amendment had been enacted.

Quote

Heh.  Tha'st the Dems perspective.  Does the GOP demonstrably go further right than the Dems go left?  Yep.  But the GOP has blinked plenty of times.  As had Trump.  We're not facing an indomitable enemy.  Recent history says midterm turnout sucks and Trump got really lucky.  Wash off your handkerchief and get off out the matt.

This isn’t a right-left debate. It’s about who is more willing to play hardball, and that’s clearly been the Republicans over the last few decades.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

Wait how many protesters did antifa kill? 

[SweetPea]

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

The post was about SC, not about Portland.  You replied with "what about what happened in Portland".  Nice try.

The post was in general about leftists responding to people rallying for white supremacy. The most recent example of which was in Portland. And if I remember correctly, the same poster described the Portland events earlier in exactly this way - that white supremacists turned it violent. (let's not get into whether or not people were actually marching for white supremacy, we know what he poster meant).

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

You're, in my view, offering a view very similar to that of Robespierre in justifying the Terror.

LOL.  Wish my friends would buy I was being so revolutionary.  I'm not.  All I'm saying is something that has been accepted in political and judicial behavior for years - the justices have their own beliefs, and their opinions are imbued by such beliefs.

16 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Why attempt a neutral legal system if it is always politics?

Because a "neutral" legal system is the most fair ground for the inevitable fight of politics.

17 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Why no just go with pure democracy and let the mob determine what may an may not be done with people, their families, their property?

A lot of people will say the judicial system protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's bullshit.  The judicial system sways towards the majority because that's how they maintain their legitimacy and credibility.  But anyway, when the polity wakes up to what is right, the judiciary is a great way to confirm it.

20 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Why do we even attempt to create law if everything boils down to politics?

Because that totally wasn't what I was saying.  Politics is not going to protect agencies and sub-agencies that are in danger of being demolished.  You know this.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

ypos go both ways. At least I have the excuse of being at work watching Federer choke!

That's a pretty shit excuse.

25 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

If there are term limits, give me a younger justice please. Tech runs the world now and we need tech literate justices. And you start with the next president because you’d have a clean slate and the public would get to decide who picks first after the Constitutional Amendment had been enacted.

So after the bolded do the unicorns celebrate and the dragons dance?

26 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

This isn’t a right-left debate. It’s about who is more willing to play hardball, and that’s clearly been the Republicans over the last few decades.  

This is another one of those bullshit arguments loki or whomever has been feeding you.  The Dems play hardball fine.  I'm a Dem, you wanna play hardball?  How bout LBJ?  Dude's got a whole "treatment" named after him.  I grew up in the Clinton years.  Dude was fighting back every day to paint Ken Starr as a POS.  And he did it.  Now, that guy's deputy is up for the Supreme Court.  You don't think Dems are pissed?  GTFO.  

I am officially calling an end to the Dem bashing with no rational reason.  Is the actual Democratic Party stupid?  You bet!  Does that matter for GOP voters?  You bet not!  So get the fuck over it.  And vote for the only party that matters instead of reading Lyndon Larouche pamphlets.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I am officially calling an end to the Dem bashing with no rational reason.  Is the actual Democratic Party stupid?  You bet!  Does that matter for GOP voters?  You bet not!  So get the fuck over it.  And vote for the only party that matters instead of reading Lyndon Larouche pamphlets.

Slow.  Fucking.  Clap.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL.  Wish my friends would buy I was being so revolutionary.  I'm not.  All I'm saying is something that has been accepted in political and judicial behavior for years - the justices have their own beliefs, and their opinions are imbued by such beliefs.

Because a "neutral" legal system is the most fair ground for the inevitable fight of politics.

A lot of people will say the judicial system protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's bullshit.  The judicial system sways towards the majority because that's how they maintain their legitimacy and credibility.  But anyway, when the polity wakes up to what is right, the judiciary is a great way to confirm it.

Because that totally wasn't what I was saying.  Politics is not going to protect agencies and sub-agencies that are in danger of being demolished.  You know this.

DMC,

I do hear what you are saying.  Nevertheless, no system (run by humans) is ever going to be perfectly just.  I think taking the opposite tack and just making law overtly political is incredibly dangerous.  While humans aren't perfect we can seek to rise above politics and we can punish those on the bench that engage in overtly political actions.  Hence the limitations on Judicial participation in politics within existing Judical canons.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

DMC,

I do hear what you are saying.  Nevertheless, no system (run by humans) is ever going to be perfectly just.  I think taking the opposite tack and just making law overtly political is incredibly dangerous.  While humans aren't perfect we can seek to rise above politics and we can punish those on the bench that engage in overtly political actions.  Hence the limitations on Judicial participation in politics within existing Judical canons.

As I understand you're a lawyer, I will always understand your reticence to this.  However, there is something to be said for compartmentalization.   My sister works for a district court judge - writes most of her civil cases - and she has no idea about politics.  When you get to the circuit court level, you are deciding policy - at least to a significant extent.  That means you were put there by people that wanted you to decide policy in a certain way.  And the way you decide that policy is, definitionally, political.  Circuit court and SC justices are by definition political.  If they truly were "apolitical," then if I was King God I'd remove them as unqualified.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

As I understand you're a lawyer, I will always understand your reticence to this.  However, there is something to be said for compartmentalization.   My sister works for a district court judge - writes most of her civil cases - and she has no idea about politics.  When you get to the circuit court level, you are deciding policy - at least to a significant extent.  That means you were put there by people that wanted you to decide policy in a certain way.  And the way you decide that policy is, definitionally, political.  Circuit court and SC justices are by definition political.  If they truly were "apolitical," then if I was King God I'd remove them as unqualified.

But there is a difference between having political impact and acting to have political impact.  The SCOTUS and the Federal Courts of Appeals are not legislatures.  The whole point of the "Political Questions" doctrine was to give these judges the ability to walk away from issues that are overtly political and that should be handled by the political branches of our Government. 

Judges are not elected.  As such they should not be acting... to have political effect because those are actions that are supposed to be reserved for elected officials who have to answer directly to the voting public as Judges do not.  Further, I do not want Judges sticking their fingers in the air to see how the winds are blowing before they make a decision in a serious case.  Hence, my objection to just making everything above the District Court level overtly political.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

But there is a difference between having political impact and acting to have political impact.  The SCOTUS and the Federal Courts of Appeals are not legislatures.  The whole point of the "Political Questions" doctrine was to give these judges the ability to walk away from issues that are overtly political and that should be handled by the political branches of our Government. 

Aye.  That's why Roberts "upheld" the ACA on a thin commerce clause rationalization.

12 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Judges are not elected.  As such they should not be acting... to have political effect because those are actions that are supposed to be reserved for elected officials who have to answer directly to the voting public as Judges do not.  Further, I do not want Judges sticking their fingers in the air to see how the winds are blowing before they make a decision in a serious case.  Hence, my objection to just making everything above the District Court level overtly political.

But justices already do this, elected or not.  Do you think we'd have gay marriage if there wasn't a huge turn in public opinion on the subject?  Do you think Roe would be so vociferously if there wasn't 2/3s of the country that wants it to stay?  Do you think Charles Evans Hughes would have allowed New Deal policies to be ruled constitutional if he could otherwise prevent it?  Judges are not elected, sure, but they have to decide how much influence they have on the republic just like any other branch.  And that consideration?  It's purely political.

[Frog Eater]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

The post was in general about leftists responding to people rallying for white supremacy. The most recent example of which was in Portland. And if I remember correctly, the same poster described the Portland events earlier in exactly this way - that white supremacists turned it violent. (let's not get into whether or not people were actually marching for white supremacy, we know what he poster meant).

There is a bill right now in the House to hold ANTIFA activists liable for their domestic terrorism. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396404-unmasking-antifa-act-includes-15-year-prison-term-proposal

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Aye.  That's why Roberts "upheld" the ACA on a thin commerce clause rationalization.

But justices already do this, elected or not.  Do you think we'd have gay marriage if there wasn't a huge turn in public opinion on the subject?  Do you think Roe would be so vociferously if there wasn't 2/3s of the country that wants it to stay?  Do you think Charles Evans Hughes would have allowed New Deal policies to be ruled constitutional if he could otherwise prevent it?  Judges are not elected, sure, but they have to decide how much influence they have on the republic just like any other branch.  And that consideration?  It's purely political.

And I, sincerely, have problems with that.  The entire point of lifetime appointments and Judicial Canons is to keep the Judiciary above politics.  If these offices are overtly political they should be elected and to terms of significantly shorter duration.  And even then the "finger in the air" method of Judicial interpretation really gives me pause.  Do you want ideas like freedom of the press subject to the whims of the masses?

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

There is a bill right now in the House to hold ANTIFA activists liable for their domestic terrorism. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396404-unmasking-antifa-act-includes-15-year-prison-term-proposal

 

How can you possibly support something like this?  Wearing masks = 15 years in prison, promoting genocide = free speech?  You guys on the right have some messed up priorities.

[SweetPea]

8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

How can you possibly support something like this?  Wearing masks = 15 years in prison, promoting genocide = free speech?  You guys on the right have some messed up priorities.

The better question is, how can you possibly not support an action  that could punish people for going to rallies and protests covered in masks, body armor and carrying batons, and then being violent thugs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

There is a bill right now in the House to hold ANTIFA activists liable for their domestic terrorism. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396404-unmasking-antifa-act-includes-15-year-prison-term-proposal

 

That sounds an awful lot like a Bill of Attainder.  That is a power expressly denied to the Congress in Article I.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

The better question is, how can you possibly not support an action  that could punish people for going to rallies and protests covered in masks, body armor and carrying batons, and then being violent thugs.

Because it is a Bill of Attainder.  And Congress doesn't have the power to create those.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's a pretty shit excuse.

Jeez, what’s got you in such a foul mood today…

Quote

So after the bolded do the unicorns celebrate and the dragons dance?

At the same time with this idea that packing the courts is practical or smart.

Quote

This is another one of those bullshit arguments loki or whomever has been feeding you.  The Dems play hardball fine.  I'm a Dem, you wanna play hardball?  How bout LBJ?  Dude's got a whole "treatment" named after him.  I grew up in the Clinton years.  Dude was fighting back every day to paint Ken Starr as a POS.  And he did it.  Now, that guy's deputy is up for the Supreme Court.  You don't think Dems are pissed?  GTFO.  

I am officially calling an end to the Dem bashing with no rational reason.  Is the actual Democratic Party stupid?  You bet!  Does that matter for GOP voters?  You bet not!  So get the fuck over it.  And vote for the only party that matters instead of reading Lyndon Larouche pamphlets.

Dude I ignore his woe is me arguments about the doom and gloom of the party. But it’s not wrong to say that right now Democrats are not as good at playing hardball as Republicans, and citing a politically dead guy and an actually dead guy isn’t going to change that. Our current leadership is weak and ineffective. The party is poorly organized at both the state and national level. Pretending this isn’t true is dangerous.