• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pigeon

Banned
Averon said:
What was the GOP's goal with playing with the VAWA? It doesn't take a damn political strategist to see that it's bad politics, especially when your party is hurting so badly with women, and an election just ended showing that. All they achieved was giving Dems more ammo against them with women voters and keeps the war against women campaign as an albatross around their necks.
Click to expand...

This is the whole problem the GOP is facing right now, though -- the House is the only place where Republicans are powerful (hence visible) and the Republican House is straightforwardly bad at politics because national politics is not a key skillset for representatives. Opposing stuff they really have to pass because they're angry about it and their local districts are way to the right of the country and then getting steamrolled into voting for it anyway is like the entire House Republican deal right now. And the best part is, every time it happens they get even more angry and swear that next time they won't do it. That's why Boehner basically completely gave up on talking about the sequester until it happens.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Some people could make the argument that a lot of people like being in abusive relationships. It's a love-hate relationship. It's very, very common for people to stick around with somebody they love who also abuses him or her.

...

Is the solution to those kind of dysfunctional relationships going to be more government, another law? I'd say no. People are always free to leave.
Click to expand...

State Rep. Mark Warden (R-Manchester)
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Scene outside SCOTUS:

BEIHgMsCAAAb_ss.jpg:large
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Tamanon said:
In all honesty, I wouldn't say the South is necessarily more racist than the rest of the Nation.

I think that people might be more vocal about it.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the whole reason for the law was because the South was enacting laws – more so than the rest of the country – that discriminated against minorities. So, in terms of laws? Yes they are.
 
K

kehs

Banned
CHEEZMO™;48437504 said:
What's goin on?
Click to expand...

Could be this:

A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.

With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations cannot sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/us-court-wont-allow-challenge-to-surveillance-law/
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” ...​

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/u...-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html

It seems to me that this is the culmination of the conservative movement in the US. It was about preserving white power the whole time. That, more than anything else, drives conservative ideology.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dax01 said:
Maybe, but the whole reason for the law was because the South was enacting laws – more so than the rest of the country – that discriminated against minorities. So, in terms of laws? Yes they are.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Parts of the South may be getting better, but the more rural areas still aren't much better than they were then the VRA was passed. I remember a story from 2008 about an honest to goodness lynching. Frankly you don't hear about that shit in the North, Mid-west, or West Coast.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
empty vessel said:
Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” ...​

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/u...-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html

It seems to me that this is the culmination of the conservative movement in the US. It was about preserving white power the whole time. That, more than anything else, drives conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

Yup, expect Gerrymandering to get even worse after SC strikes this down.
 
S

Snake

Member
Scalia and Roberts said:
Bad things
Click to expand...

I'm not in a generous mood right now.

These guys are not simply ignorant. They are wholly complicit in the legacy of white supremacy that the Republican Party has inherited and embraced politically for half a century. Their opinions are vile and have no place on the Supreme Court in the 21st Century.

When my cousin from rural California asked "why is it racist to have a confederate flag?," I could give him the benefit of the doubt because he had no real education about American history. I cannot say the same for Roberts or Scalia.


And on another note, Bob Woodward is a complete embarrassment. But we already knew that.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
empty vessel said:
Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” ...​

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/u...-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html

It seems to me that this is the culmination of the conservative movement in the US. It was about preserving white power the whole time. That, more than anything else, drives conservative ideology.
Click to expand...
Yup. Truly infuriating to see. It will leave a lasting and damaging mark on this country.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Maninthemirror said:
This wasnt posted

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bob-woodward-blasts-obama-madness-88160.html?hp=f2
Click to expand...

“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?” Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”
The Pentagon announced earlier this month the U.S.S. Harry Truman, which was supposed to leave for the Persian Gulf, will remain stateside due to budget concerns. The sequester, which will cut billions in defense spending, is scheduled to hit on Friday.
Woodward has become an unlikely conservative hero in recent days for calling out the administration over whether Obama had “moved the goalposts”’ in negotiations over the sequester.
Click to expand...
So Obama spends too much and Obama is not spending enough. Yes, such rational useful criticism.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
goddamn . . . the blood donation ladies messed up and i had to stare at hannity for 10 minutes. i told them i was getting naseous and they adjusted my chair.

Edit: They couldn't get the blood to flow today despite trying both arms. :-/ Ah well, it happens some times.
Edit2: They felt bad about trying twice & failing and gave me a T-shirt. My wardrobe largely consists of blood donation shirts.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
empty vessel said:
Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” ...​

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/u...-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html

It seems to me that this is the culmination of the conservative movement in the US. It was about preserving white power the whole time. That, more than anything else, drives conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

Justice Roberts: " i let Obamacare stay.......but now 2013 everything goes! muhahahahaha!"
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Really gonna be sad to see the voting rights act taken down. It's a big screw your to minorities and says the government can screw you over as long as they don't blatantly say they racist.
 
G

gcubed

Member
GhaleonEB said:
The Voting Rights act was declared constitutional just a few years ago, wasn't it? Why else would they take it up now?
Click to expand...

it was declared constitutional and was noted that congress should really re-write the formula used to determine state eligibility since its over 30 years old.

Congress didn't do this, i've seen some speculation that they will basically wipe that formula out, forcing congress to come up with a new one.

Although this would indeed end the VRA.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
gcubed said:
it was declared constitutional and was noted that congress should really re-write the formula used to determine state eligibility since its over 30 years old.

Congress didn't do this, i've seen some speculation that they will basically wipe that formula out, forcing congress to come up with a new one.

Although this would indeed end the VRA.
Click to expand...

They have to realize unless the Dems win the House in 2014 that this won't happen though. Someone will point it out and if this is what they were thinking they'll have no choice but to uphold it.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Isn't this the same game the media played with the ACA hearing? SC justices skeptical, media assumes law is doomed
Click to expand...

I don't know about the media per se but predictions of the ACA losing were essentially correct. The law was doomed, except that Roberts fortuitously switched his vote to preserve the court's integrity. In any event, that decision was never considered easy to predict.

Black Mamba said:
If you to bet based on oral arguments you'd go broke pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Oral arguments can reveal quite a bit about which way the case will turn out. That doesn't mean that you count every judge who asks a critical question of a party as a vote against the party, but oral argument does indeed provide information from which a better informed prediction can be made about the outcome. Of course, that doesn't mean I'd try to make a living betting on it.

In most cases, the issues themselves and the context of the case settle where most of the court will be. What oral argument can do is inform where the "center" (i.e., Kennedy) of the court is on the case, and that can inform what the outcome might be. Center is in scare quotes, of course, because Kennedy is a hard conservative and nowhere near the center.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
I don't know about the media per se but predictions of the ACA losing were essentially correct. The law was doomed, except that Roberts fortuitously switched his vote to preserve the court's integrity. In any event, that decision was never considered easy to predict.



Oral arguments can reveal quite a bit about which way the case will turn out. That doesn't mean that you count every judge who asks a critical question of a party as a vote against the party, but oral argument does indeed provide information from which a better informed prediction can be made about the outcome. Of course, that doesn't mean I'd try to make a living betting on it.

In most cases, the issues themselves and the context of the case settle where most of the court will be. What oral argument can do is inform where the "center" (i.e., Kennedy) of the court is on the case, and that can inform what the outcome might be. Center is in scare quotes, of course, because Kennedy is a hard conservative and nowhere near the center.
Click to expand...

The last study I saw on this showed well below 50% success rate based on oral arguments. Like you mention later just knowing the type of case and the justice's philosophy/history is a much better indicator (I've seen over 90% success with a computer simulation before).

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest you can figure out the center. If anything it is probably harder based on oral arguments.

Dax01 said:
This isn't like the healthcare ruling. I honestly believe Roberts ruled the way he did to give him cover on rulings like this. This has been brewing for a long time.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Roberts will vote how he always was going to vote on this case. ACA isn't changing his vote here.

Seriously just ignore oral arguments. They may vote it down but whatever happened today isn't giving us clues. I've read numerous transcripts of major cases its just not worth the time. It's like random noise.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
BEIiOuOCUAAYP2U.jpg
Click to expand...

Also I think this sums up Scalia and his position
‏@TeaPartyCat
Scalia: "The Voting Rights Act is a perpetual racial entitlement, at odds with the Founders' intent that blacks be second class citizens."
Click to expand...

Interesting take on if the VRA gets taken down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-voting-rights-act-careful-what-you-wish-for/

Basically it will further push minorities to the Democratic party. Imagine if the GOP and comes out and praises the rulling. No matter what a bunch of white justices say blacks and other minorities don't think the country is post racial

Because if Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the court strike down Section 5, no amount of rebranding will hide the fact that the Republican Party would rather continue to block people from voting than learn how to appeal to them.
Click to expand...
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Pretty sure Roberts will vote how he always was going to vote on this case. ACA isn't changing his vote here.

Seriously just ignore oral arguments. They may vote it down but whatever happened today isn't giving us clues. I've read numerous transcripts of major cases its just not worth the time. It's like random noise.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand what I was saying. Roberts changed his vote on ACA to save the Court's legitimacy. I never said he was changing his vote here, but I think he's going to rule against it. How would it like if SCOTUS didn't uphold ACA and VRA, especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United? The Court would have had little legitimacy.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
The last study I saw on this showed well below 50% success rate based on oral arguments. Like you mention later just knowing the type of case and the justice's philosophy/history is a much better indicator (I've seen over 90% success with a computer simulation before).

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest you can figure out the center. If anything it is probably harder based on oral arguments.
Click to expand...

I agree if you are talking about predictions based just on oral argument without having any additional information or expertise. Still disagree pretty strongly about oral argument not informing on which direction the center will break. For example, I can predict with about 99% confidence the outcome of a case argued in SCOTUS on Monday based on my expertise and how the oral argument played out. (I would have predicted it the same before the argument, but the argument is the factor that raises the confidence level so high).

Using oral argument to aid in prediction of case outcomes is something appellate practitioners routinely do. I do think that the more high profile the case and high stakes the legal issue involved, the less helpful oral argument may be. One reason to hold out hope that the court won't strike down the VRA is simply because it would be such a radical thing to do, and one might think this could hold some Justices back from actually doing it notwithstanding the tenor of the argument. So that would be a reason not to read too much into oral argument in a case like this. But in most appellate cases these kinds of considerations that caution against taking oral argument at face value never even enter the calculus.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Dax01 said:
You didn't understand what I was saying. Roberts changed his vote on ACA to save the Court's legitimacy. I never said he was changing his vote here, but I think he's going to rule against it. How would it like if SCOTUS didn't uphold ACA and VRA, especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United? The Court would have had little legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
@KOSUMichaelC said:
Sykes says since people in Oklahoma get to take 100% of pay after injury there's 'an incentive to get hurt'. HB1062 drops to 70% of pay.
Click to expand...
My state's legislature is corrupt and terrible.

The Oklahoma Workers' Compensation court system is all but certain to be dismantled in favor of an administrative panel appointed by the governor.

This is what happens when you get a Republican supermajority in both houses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
949
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
520
11K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
850
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom