Larry of the Lawn Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: What you are calling "textualism" I would call "originalism" that goes a step beyond "textualism" and says that the document needs to be interpreted as the original drafters intended the document to be interpreted. Textualism, in my view is simply that the words have their ordinary meanings. That seems like a different definition than you were using in your first response to Tywin when he called originalism and textualism idiotic. Maybe I'm missing the nuance but you were implying that anything other than textualism ignores the Constitution completely and just lets people make up whatever they want. That is not true. Is a living document interpretation just making it say whatever you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 17 hours ago, Altherion said: Sanders recently tweeted something along the lines of him wanting to be at campaign events, but needing to be at the Senate for the trial and hoping that the American people will understand. There's obviously no way to prove this, but I've seen a really neat idea mentioned at a few sites: what if this was the true goal of Pelosi's delay of impeachment maneuver? That is, trying to force the Senate to conduct a trial with rules imposed on them by the House with the alternative being that the articles of impeachment would not be sent always seemed silly -- McConnell doesn't care if the trial is delayed so holding the articles does not amount to leverage. However, Pelosi is one of the most canny politicians in Washington. What if she knew that she has no chance of making the Senate dance to her tune and never cared about influencing the rules of the trial in the first place? What if the the real purpose of this novel maneuver is the delay itself? Sanders and Warren are sitting Senators and must be present for the trial whereas Biden is no longer a Senator and gets to campaign just before the early primaries and caucuses unopposed by his two closest competitors? Again, there's no way to prove this, but it would be pretty clever of Pelosi if this was her real goal all along. I'd hazard a guess that Republicans have been spreading this theory so that the gullible would start re-posting it, so that Trump could do one of his infamous tweets. "I didn't say it, I'm just re-tweeting it!" I wouldn't be surprised if the idea turned out to have originated from Moscow. What a great way to cause turmoil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Quick question: Can someone point me to a full stream of the 7th debate? So far I could only find "highlights" and such on YT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Textualism, in my view is simply that the words have their ordinary meanings. Many, many words have changed meaning and nuance since 1787. Meaning is always constructed and constructed transactionally. Not to mention ongoing polysemy and cultural mediation. At the time of the writing of the Constitution only a white man was considered fully human. It also didn't allow women or anyone without property above a certain amount to vote. Nobody but reps voted on senators. Slavery was legal, genocide of first peoples was the national policy, which is why there's a well regulated militia 2nd amendment added in 1791. That alone should tell you that the Constitution has been and continues to reviewed and ... ah-hem ... reconstituted almost constantly since ratification. Perhaps you think this a manner of combating Their determination to turn everything into mush, to make facts fake, truth lies, graft, bribery, corruption as normal and legal and also, so what? But this isn't going to help at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 26 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: That seems like a different definition than you were using in your first response to Tywin when he called originalism and textualism idiotic. Maybe I'm missing the nuance but you were implying that anything other than textualism ignores the Constitution completely and just lets people make up whatever they want. That is not true. Is a living document interpretation just making it say whatever you want? Please see Zabzie's comment above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Please see Zabzie's comment above. I did. Thanks for almost engaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Here's the thing, any government "protection', any "liberty interest", any "right" exists only in human imagination. They are abstract concepts. By this logic nothing is safe and nothing is certain. We can do anything. Technically you can do just about anything, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences. But the point stands Scot, that our inalienable rights endowed by our creator is just flowery language and not something that is actually real. I’m aware that this is a cynical view of the world, but it is also the most accurate one from my perspective. 55 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Right exactly. Weighing in late here, but one cannot both say that "words have meaning" when you like the result and "words have whatever meaning is expedient" when you don't like the result (btw, originalists do this all.the.time., so it's both sides woo hoo). For a legal right or obligation to have meaning you need to have a consistent understanding of that right or obligation (which is why stare decisis is a thing). Canons of statutory construction, including looking at legislative history to resolve ambiguities, exist for a reason. First, thanks for pointing out the both sides aspect of this. It always bothers me when those folks pick and choose how they apply their legal theories. I don't think anyone is going to strongly argue that you can make it say whatever you want, but much like religion, you can pick and choose the amount of weight you want to give various sections. I also just think it's a huge mistake to approach the Constitution through the lens of its creators for several reason, many of which have already been brought up. Honestly I wish the Constitution had a clause in it that trigger a new Constitutional Convention every 25 years or so. They made the thing too damn hard to modernize with the times, and I think it's fair to speculate that next to none of them could ever predicted the world we live in today. 46 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: Quick question: Can someone point me to a full stream of the 7th debate? So far I could only find "highlights" and such on YT. That's really all you need. Nothing important happened other than the handshake dust up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 NPR's All Things Considered interviewed an attorney for the impeachment trial. Guess which defender of sexual assault and harassment perpetrators NPR thought was the most important person to interview -- no, not even Ken Starr who was dismissed from a position due to mishandling a sexual assault case. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/sports/ncaafootball/baylor-art-briles-kenneth-starr-college-football.html Yes, they did choose someone who defends sexual assault and harassment, however. Dershowitz, self-proclaimed expert on impeachment. Since frackin' when? But then he says he's a constitutional expert too, as well as sexual assault, as he defends Jeffrey Epstein and others. Is this correct, that the bedbug's entire defense team are experts in defending sexual criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 The swamp gets deeper? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-considers-changes-to-law-banning-overseas-bribes/ar-BBZ46FI?ocid=msnclassic (Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing whether to seek changes to a 1977 law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials. Trump thinks his diet is good enough for kids... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/usda-proposes-changing-school-menus-to-allow-more-fries-and-fewer-vegetables-reversing-a-michelle-obama-effort/ar-BBZ4ce8?ocid=msnclassic The U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken another whack at former first lady Michelle Obama’s signature achievement: Establishing stricter nutritional standards for school breakfasts and lunches. And on her birthday. On Friday, USDA Deputy Under Secretary Brandon Lipps announced new proposed rules for the Food and Nutrition Service that would allow schools to cut the amount of vegetables and fruits required at lunch and breakfasts while giving them the ability to sell more pizza, burgers and fries to students. The agency is responsible for administering nutritional programs that feed nearly 30 million students at 99,000 schools. Lipps said the changes will help address what he described as unintended issues that developed as a result of the regulations put in place during the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 21 hours ago, larrytheimp said: Bolded: Bull. Fucking. Shit. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back to bring them out of the woodwork, if I may combine colloquialisms. But electing a black president didn't cause them. If you want to take a Hegelian approach perhaps look at it as opposing but existing forces resolving. Eta:. The right wing in this country has been on an acelerating course of batshit cruelty and hatred for way before 2008. It's funny that you think electing Obama caused it though. I agree, yet I am confused. I said and have said all of this before. The point was the degree of the swinging of the pendulum. I don't think their reaction would have been as extreme if a generic white guy had won. 20 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: There are also 6 million Obama-Trump voters for whom economic anxiety is paramount, and I dont see how a moderate like Biden will sway them when they already have Trump who is at least maintaining something of a status quo for them (or they are convinced he is). Now I don't think anyone knows which numbers are greater particularly in the swing states, or else we could be projecting our own electoral maps right now. I guess my only argument here is that those six million people have already in effect voted for Biden. He might be more palatable to them than say Sanders or Warren. 20 hours ago, Mudguard said: As everyone here agrees, Sanders isn't going to be able to pass any meaningful legislation, so the comparison to Johnson passing major legislation that caused severe consequences doesn't work. It does, just not in the same way. The mere fact we elected an avowed socialist would cause the right to lose their minds. Quote I also don't agree that the election of a black president caused a swing to Republicans. If that was the case, Obama shouldn't have gotten reelected, which he did easily. And Trump barely won because Clinton was a terrible candidate that still was able to win the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. It's not the causation I'm talking about, it's the intensity. And the reaction Obama's election on the right was intense than anything I've seen. And it would have likely been horrific too if Clinton won, because as my mom is wont to say, America will elect a man of any ethnicity before they'd ever elect a woman. Also, Obama won because he held his coalition together. That's different than the right getting more extreme at higher speeds. Also also, didn't you use to be a center right Republican? 20 hours ago, Martell Spy said: Didn't we try running the "safe" moderate candidate in 2016? Kal nailed this one, but you also can't forget she was the second least popular candidate to run in modern times. Joe won't have those problems, he's just got a whole host of other ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Zorral said: NPR's All Things Considered interviewed an attorney for the impeachment trial. Guess which defender of sexual assault and harassment perpetrators NPR thought was the most important person to interview -- no, not even Ken Starr who was dismissed from a position due to mishandling a sexual assault case. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/sports/ncaafootball/baylor-art-briles-kenneth-starr-college-football.html Yes, they did choose someone who defends sexual assault and harassment, however. Dershowitz, self-proclaimed expert on impeachment. Since frackin' when? But then he says he's a constitutional expert too, as well as sexual assault, as he defends Jeffrey Epstein and others. Is this correct, that the bedbug's entire defense team are experts in defending sexual criminals? In Stugotz's personal record book, Art Briles is permanently trapped in Hell. And amazingly I think Baylor has skated on sanctions, which is absurd given how people are reacting to OBJ and the $100 handshakes, a right of passage for college football players because f*** the NCAA, an organization that some how manages to match the complete awfulness of FIFA. And yet here I am, still rooting for Chelsea and the Golden Gophers. See @Ser Scot A Ellison, this is how we lie to ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: In Stugotz's personal record book, Art Briles is permanently trapped in Hell. And amazingly I think Baylor has skated on sanctions, which is absurd given how people are reacting to OBJ and the $100 handshakes, a right of passage for college football players because f*** the NCAA, an organization that some how manages to match the complete awfulness of FIFA. And yet here I am, still rooting for Chelsea and the Golden Gophers. See @Ser Scot A Ellison, this is how we lie to ourselves. Have you read Sapians by Yuval Noah Harari? It speaks quite eloquently regarding “imagination’s” (or as you put it “lieing to ourselves”) importance in human civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Have you read Sapians by Yuval Noah Harari? It speaks quite eloquently regarding “imagination’s” (or as you put it “lieing to ourselves” importance in human civilization. I have not, and a quick Google search suggest that scholars didn't care too much for it. I did listen to this NPR podcast with him though a while back. IIRC he did have some interesting ideas to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Mindwalker said: Quick question: Can someone point me to a full stream of the 7th debate? So far I could only find "highlights" and such on YT. It's available on the CNN app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, ThinkerX said: The swamp gets deeper? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-considers-changes-to-law-banning-overseas-bribes/ar-BBZ46FI?ocid=msnclassic Trump thinks his diet is good enough for kids... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/usda-proposes-changing-school-menus-to-allow-more-fries-and-fewer-vegetables-reversing-a-michelle-obama-effort/ar-BBZ4ce8?ocid=msnclassic “Unintended issues...” like hurting Trump’s ego? It really does seem like one of his primary goals is to tear down any kind of legacy Obama left behind, whether that be Barrak or Michelle. The pettiness would be amusing if it wasn’t so costly to so many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: It's not the causation I'm talking about, it's the intensity. And the reaction Obama's election on the right was intense than anything I've seen. And it would have likely been horrific too if Clinton won, because as my mom is wont to say, America will elect a man of any ethnicity before they'd ever elect a woman. Also, Obama won because he held his coalition together. That's different than the right getting more extreme at higher speeds. Also also, didn't you use to be a center right Republican? I don't think Republican turnout for Romney was anything out of the ordinary, which you would expect it to be if there was large scale outrage in the Republican party over Obama's election. There was certainly a rabid vocal minority as well as parts of the media that catered to these people, but I haven't seen any hard data that seems to support your hypothesis. I've always been a registered Democrat. I might seem like a Republican on this board because I'll occasionally criticize certain Democrats and/or their policies. For example, I ripped Clinton for her decision to use a private email server and her subsequent handling of it, when she obviously had ambitions to run for POTUS. Same thing for her decision to give $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs and other banks and firms in the financial industry. To me, that was just common sense, and not an indication that I'm a Republican. For the record, I voted Sanders in the primary, and Clinton in the general. And before that, I voted for Obama twice. For this election, I've criticized Hunter Biden for hurting Joe Biden's chance of winning the general, if he wins the primary. I'm not criticizing Hunter because I'm a Republican. I'm just being, in my mind, objective that this will be a significant weakness for Biden in the general. It's obvious that Trump, the media, and the Republican party will pummel Biden over this if he wins the primary. Hunter is a huge liability for many reasons. There was strong opposition here that Hunter did anything wrong or even shady, like getting his job at Burisma due to his name and not on his resume. Hunter himself has admitted in an interview that he got the job due to his name, as well as another member of the Burisma board who openly admitted that this is how things are done there. Not illegal, but looks bad. For this reason and others, Biden is my least favorite front runner even though he is polling the best against Trump in a head to head. It's going to be too easy for Trump to tar Biden with the appearance of corruption, and as we saw in the last election, that may be enough for some Democrats to sit out. I also like to discuss political strategy, which includes discussing Republican strategy. I may occasionally even think that the Republican strategy is a good one, in the sense that I think it's likely going to work the way they intend it to. Some posters automatically assume that means I'm supportive of the strategy being discussed and that I must be Republican. On occasion, it's even possible I'll agree with a Republican position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Quote Kal nailed this one, but you also can't forget she was the second least popular candidate to run in modern times. Joe won't have those problems, he's just got a whole host of other ones. Well, put it this way. After George McGovern lost we were told that we could never let this happen again. And indeed the moderate wing of the party has decided every presidential nomination in the party since. Now, the decisions of moderates led us to defeat last election, and I indict myself in that as I voted HRC. If the moderate wing loses us another election, do we have to try it next time, too? How many times do we need to lose to give up on the "New" Democratic thing? I've certainly tired of it and I was a moderate for decades. We've litigated the 2016 election many times here and can't know exactly what amounts sexism and perception of HRC being moderate on economic policies hurt us. The moderate economic policies combined with the speeches thing was certainly deployed over and over as a Republican attack, even on this board. Was it effective? It should at least give you pause. Trump berates Azar over bad health care polling The president's frustration with his health secretary sparked a flurry of new planning on election-year drug pricing initiatives. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-berates-azar-over-bad-health-care-polling-100650 Quote President Donald Trump lashed out at HHS Secretary Alex Azar on Thursday after senior aides presented him with polling data showing that voters prefer Democrats on health care, according to six people with knowledge of the conversation. Trump, who phoned Azar from a meeting with his political affairs team, expressed frustration that voters haven’t rewarded him for taking actions to lower drug prices, the sources said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Cowardice? Political pressure? I remember reading of similar altered photographs in the histories of totalitarian countries. That this is happening in the US... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/national-archives-exhibit-blurs-images-critical-of-president-trump/ar-BBZ4J6X?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR2_eSBDrLFWHfTNgimDGb7IpVoWdJy9exPXiAzSClY1k0DSZ0D4a7oFw7A The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred. In the original version of the 2017 photograph, taken by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama, the street is packed with marchers carrying a variety of signs, with the Capitol in the background. In the Archives version, at least four of those signs are altered. A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out. Signs with messages that referenced women’s anatomy — which were prevalent at the march — are also digitally altered. One that reads “If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED” has “vagina” blurred out. And another that says “This P***y Grabs Back” has the word “P***y” erased. The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Perhaps Evelyn should be running and Andrew could be First Hubby? Opinion: Evelyn Yang is the bravest woman I know https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/opinions/evelyn-yang-assault-and-bravery-hossain/index.html Such a shame her perpetrator was first enabled by Columbia (Both Andrew and Evelyn are alumni) and then let off easy by the NY District Attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 19 hours ago, Mindwalker said: Regarding electability (and disregarding the slippery slope of black or women candidates vs. electability), I see that Biden has a lot going for him. But I also feel that he has a lot against him: His age (he looks a lot more frail than Sanders, Warren, and, most of all, Trump), and most importantly, fear Trump would eat him alive in a debate - without any kind of substance, of course - just his usual pseudo-energetic, dumb rhetoric, imbecile jokes vs. Biden's slowness and tendency to gaffes. Trump's never told a joke in his life. Like most people with a frail ego, he doesn't have a sense of humour. He likes mean nicknames, taunting and belittling people, but these things are not 'jokes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.