U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As I have said for 23 years… I disagree with the 5-4 decision.  The 7-2 holding… I agree with.

Point is Sandra Day O'Connor should be ashamed of herself for taking the decision out of the voters hands -- because she knew Gore would win otherwise.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Point is Sandra Day O'Connor should be ashamed of herself for taking the decision out of the voters hands -- because she knew Gore would win otherwise.

That’s a fair point of view.  

What isn’t a fair point of view is implying there was something sinister about her discussing the case with her colleagues or writing a memo about the case before oral arguments were heard.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That happens all the time.  

Right. It happens all the time that judges at every level of the court system predetermine how they're going to rule. Hence why there's very little justice in the judicial system. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Right. It happens all the time that judges at every level of the court system predetermine how they're going to rule. Hence why there's very little justice in the judicial system. 

Say it with me…

“Appelate Courts… and Trial Courts… are different…”

they have different standards of review… and different modes of operation.  As such conflating requirements for Judges in the two different types of court is inappropriate.

 

 

[DMC]

Scot - I think Ty's basic point here is that the illusion the supreme court, as well as lower level appellate judges for that matter, make decisions based on the "law" rather than their political predispositions is bunch of horseshit.  Because it is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, DMC said:

Scot - I think Ty's basic point here is that the illusion the supreme court, as well as lower level appellate judges for that matter, make decisions based on the "law" rather than their political predispositions is bunch of horseshit.  Because it is.

So… should we just have plebiscites on appelate court cases?  Because of course humans have political opinions about law…

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… should we just have plebiscites on appelate court cases?  Because of course humans have political opinions about law…

No.  But we can stop pretending judicial decisions on major/controversial cases are based on "law" rather than politics.

Edited May 3, 2023 by DMC

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  But we can stop pretending judicial decisions on major/controversial cases are based on "law" rather than politics.

If it’s all about politics why isn’t Trump President?  Pray tell?

[Ormond]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet all the rumors about her are that she loved cucking her now ex-husband.

She really makes for a great fake Christian. Jesus himself wouldn't even piss on her face if he found her in the desert begging for water. 

 

Please, this is NOT how the one who said “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" to those who crucified him would respond to even the vilest person on Earth (and though she may be in the top !%, MTG isn't quite at that level.) Jesus would not respond to fascists by stooping to their level.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Say it with me…

“Appelate Courts… and Trial Courts… are different…”

they have different standards of review… and different modes of operation.  As such conflating requirements for Judges in the two different types of court is inappropriate.

 

 

Lol, no. They function differently, but the underlying premise is still a lie. Judges at every level are not above politics and often times are among the easiest people to be corrupted by them. The law at times can be utterly meaningless. It's my opinion that more often than not they know where they're starting and where they're ending and can make a reasonable enough argument to fill in the gaps in between before they've heard a single word from either side. This concept that they're elevated in anyway above the fray is a sick joke that should not be perpetuated. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Please, this is NOT how the one who said “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" to those who crucified him would respond to even the vilest person on Earth (and though she may be in the top !%, MTG isn't quite at that level.) Jesus would not respond to fascists by stooping to their level.

Jesus probably didn't even exist. Certainly not how we understand him today anyways. But if he did I think he'd be like any human and tell MTG to stop lying on his name. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, no. They function differently, but the underlying premise is still a lie. Judges at every level are not above politics and often times are among the easiest people to be corrupted by them. The law at times can be utterly meaningless. It's my opinion that more often than not they know where they're starting and where they're ending and can make a reasonable enough argument to fill in the gaps in between before they've heard a single word from either side. This concept that they're elevated in anyway above the fray is a sick joke that should not be perpetuated. 

You are welcome to that opinion.  Since courts and attorneys suck so badly in your opinion… with what do you propose they be replaced?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are welcome to that opinion.  Since courts and attorneys suck so badly in your opinion… with what do you propose they be replaced?

Well as I've told you before, my pops was a law professor and always said his worst students made the best lawyers while his best ones should... find another profession. 

So again, let's start with dispelling the notion that lawyers are inherently honest and judges care about the law. Some do, but many don't. Frankly most will take a paycheck over guarding their integrity. And that needs to be the first fundamental change. 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If it’s all about politics why isn’t Trump President?  Pray tell?

Because the scotus deemed it so. Politics doesn't just mean partisanship. It also means things like deciding certain people suck. 

[Gaston de Foix]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

These are..very dubious depictions of history.  HW Bush became Reagan's VP because he was runner up in the 1980 primary and it was meant to unify the party.  He also is the one that derisively dubbed Reaganomics "voodoo economics."  He, also, did jack shit as VP - other than maybe (probably) being involved in Iran-Contra, hardly something to write home about.  Him winning 88 in a landslide had nothing to do with his "performance" as VP.  

As for Mondale, what exactly did he do as Carter's VP?  Jimmy Carter, the guy who wanted to "micro-manage" everything, refused to hire a CoS for the first two years of his presidency, and alienated his party in Congress despite enjoying huge/historic majorities?  Did it make him the front runner in the 84 primary?  Sure, but he still barely beat Gary Hart.  And his reward was losing 49 states in the general.

The bottomline is Harris is blatantly being held to a different standard than any other VP in history.  Is that just the shittyness of reality?  Ok, sure.  But don't try to tell me otherwise.

Yeah, I agree with this.  Harris is "meh."  Thing is though, name me a prospective Democratic candidate that isn't "meh."  Newsom?  Whitmer?  Booker?  Castro?  They're all just about the same level of "meh" to me.  The only Dem politician that has that x-factor or specialness that distinguishes a candidate from that level is AOC.

Ty's OP questioned whether any VPs came out of the office with their image enhanced.  We can switch the goal posts and debate the effectiveness/success of VPs in office if you want.  Part of the problem here is that VPs can be measured on a number of distinct metrics: enhanced political profile, savviness in navigating Washington DC, assisting with legislative victories, influence with the President etc etc.  

It's not that I disagree that Harris is being held to a different standard than, say, Pence. That's true. That's for a lot of bad reasons and one good one: Biden's age.  

As for the 'x' factor - that seems like a synonym for star power/charisma/skill at political communication.  Yeah, probably, only AOC has that Obamesque quality.  Whitmer has a track record of electoral and legislative success in an important swing state.  That counts more in my book.  It's not that important to me that the next Democratic nominee make me feel a tingle in my legs.  It's important that they win elections and get make tangible movement on guns, voting rights, civil rights, education funding etc etc.  

[Jace, Extat]

I read once that books on ethics are stolen from libraries at shockingly high frequencies compared to other kinds.

Also, that philosophy/ethics students/teachers are not more ethical or morally virtuous than their peers:

Better at post-facto justification.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Secretary of Eumenes

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So again, let's start with dispelling the notion that lawyers are inherently honest and judges care about the law. Some do, but many don't. Frankly most will take a paycheck over guarding their integrity. And that needs to be the first fundamental change. 

Who is making the claim that any human being is “inherently honest”?

Perhaps you’re right and the reason I make shit for someone with 23 years as an attorney is that I’m too forthright.  I’m still curious to see what you want to replace the court system with.  

Every system you propose will have the same flaw.  It is run by people and people, all people, have the potential for corruption.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Gaston de Foix said:

As for the 'x' factor - that seems like a synonym for star power/charisma/skill at political communication.  Yeah, probably, only AOC has that Obamesque quality.  Whitmer has a track record of electoral and legislative success in an important swing state.  That counts more in my book.  It's not that important to me that the next Democratic nominee make me feel a tingle in my legs.  It's important that they win elections and get make tangible movement on guns, voting rights, civil rights, education funding etc etc.  

I would agree that of the options available to democrats in 2028, Whitmer seems like a very strong choice, as well as Kelly and Warnock.  The Democrats actually have a pretty strong bench of proven winners in swing states, something that the Republicans really lack (because they keep losing key senate/governor races). 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

If it’s all about politics why isn’t Trump President?  Pray tell?

 

Because the long game is more important to them, even the more extreme justices. Deciding abortion law for the next 40 years is more important than one President.

And Trump gave them no fig leaf. It was "Please SC rule that I'm allowed to steal the election."

[Gaston de Foix]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Who is making the claim that any human being is “inherently honest”?

Perhaps you’re right and the reason I make shit for someone with 23 years as an attorney is that I’m too forthright.  I’m still curious to see what you want to replace the court system with.  

Every system you propose will have the same flaw.  It is run by people and people, all people, have the potential for corruption.

I see Scot has been ably defending the integrity of our profession. 

I'll just chime in to make two points and ask a question:

(1) not every country has the same history and norms for its highest court as the United States SC.  By contemporary global standards (certainly compared to other advanced western democracies) it has been uniquely powerful and political for a number of factors including the nature of the appointment process, the background of its appointees, its own history, and the litigious nature of Americans.  Bush v Gore was a political institution at its lowest moment since Plessy v Ferguson.  Not all courts are that way in the US. (the lower federal judiciary until Trump was much more restrained).  I agree it's a rot in the system.  I disagree that rot and wood are indistinguishable. 

(2) You can and should criticize the Supreme Court for falling short of the rule of law.  But it makes no sense to use the rule of law as the standard to criticize the court for failing in their duty to independently and impartially exercise the judicial function and simultaneously argue that it's all politics all the way down.  The latter is a claim that the rule of law doesn't exist; that neutral standards can never be found or applied; that every disagreement is instrumental and cynical.  That's what people like Alito want you to believe.  It's striking that his response to criticisms of the shadow docket for example are a combination of whataboutism and (to external critics) you disagree with our decisions. 

@DMC, curious about your claim that SOC knew that Gore would win.  Didn't the press-conducted recounts show that if the USSC had never taken the case, Bush would still narrowly have come out top?