NYCmetsfan
Banned
My favorite little trivia fact is the 13th amendment doesn't end slavery. It ends it unless your convicted of it.
I know thats more in place to make sure someone didn't say prison was slavery but still I think its a bit funny.
-
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
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
My favorite little trivia fact is the 13th amendment doesn't end slavery. It ends it unless your convicted of it.
I know thats more in place to make sure someone didn't say prison was slavery but still I think its a bit funny.
empty vessel
Member
Just giving some thought to this case, it's actually stunning how frivolous it is. This is a challenge to a law passed by Congress pursuant to express authority in the Constitution (15th Amendment). There is no basis for challenging it except on the barest of due process grounds: that it has no rational basis, i.e., there is no rational connection between the law and enforcing the right of US citizens to vote without racial discrimination. I honestly don't know if this fundamental due process argument has ever won in any context. Most judges dismiss the argument out of hand (or ignore it entirely).
Mind you, the law being accused of having no rational basis passed in 2006 by a vote of 390-33 in the House and 98–0 in the Senate with Republicans in control of both houses and was signed by George W. Bush. The argument is that all of these people acted irrationally in passing it to enforce people's right to vote without racial discrimination. And the SCOTUS is seriously considering crediting that argument. These are extreme times, with extremists in positions of power threatening to do serious damage. I can't even really convey in words the level of frivolity of the argument being made.
Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS has already severely undermined the 15th Amendment by interpreting it as narrowly as possible. Absurdly so, in fact, holding that it is constrained by the 10th Amendment, which of course is ridiculous since the 15th was passed later in time. The Roberts Court effectively read federalism into the Amendment where it doesn't exist. This court is really disgusting and incorrigible.
By the way, I know a lot of liberals thought John Roberts was a cute and cuddly centrist during his confirmation process, but he's actually a vile racist, probably the vilest on the court. He wrote anti-integration memorandum when he was part of the Reagan Administration.
Mind you, the law being accused of having no rational basis passed in 2006 by a vote of 390-33 in the House and 98–0 in the Senate with Republicans in control of both houses and was signed by George W. Bush. The argument is that all of these people acted irrationally in passing it to enforce people's right to vote without racial discrimination. And the SCOTUS is seriously considering crediting that argument. These are extreme times, with extremists in positions of power threatening to do serious damage. I can't even really convey in words the level of frivolity of the argument being made.
Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS has already severely undermined the 15th Amendment by interpreting it as narrowly as possible. Absurdly so, in fact, holding that it is constrained by the 10th Amendment, which of course is ridiculous since the 15th was passed later in time. The Roberts Court effectively read federalism into the Amendment where it doesn't exist. This court is really disgusting and incorrigible.
By the way, I know a lot of liberals thought John Roberts was a cute and cuddly centrist during his confirmation process, but he's actually a vile racist, probably the vilest on the court. He wrote anti-integration memorandum when he was part of the Reagan Administration.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Looks like Iowa's Senate seat will be an easy hold. Tom Latham (IA-03), the more moderate of the House GOP delegation from Iowa, said he won't run. This leaves Steve King, Iowa's Bachmann, as the frontrunner for the GOP nom, who will probably lose handily to Bruce Baley (IA-01 and the leading Democrat).
Black Mamba
Member
You said:
"I honestly believe Roberts ruled the way he did to give him cover on rulings like this."
I believe if the ACA never came to the court he would still rule the same on this case. You're indicating he changed his ruling on the ACA to give him cover for other cases. I don't agree at all. I think he may have changed his stance on ACA because of legacy and the view of the Court but not to cover for other cases at all. Had he ruled against the ACA he would still be voting the same in this case. I think they are completely independent of one another and play no factor.
That said, I'm also unconvinced Roberts changed his mind in terms of outcome in the ACA. Roberts record is actually economically liberal in court cases, especially with federal power to regulate commerce (he's conservative on everything else but not this). If anything, I think he changed his stance on allowing the ICC to give the power since Kennedy didn't go for it and went with the tax power to escape conservative criticism on ICC. I think he was always for it. Kennedy was the one that surprised me, I thought it was going to be 6-3 to uphold the ACA.
So you'd have gotten the ACA case right, especially in terms of legal reasoning? Cuz without it your success rate takes a decent dip for a single year.
You're probably suffering from confirmation bias more than anything. I highly doubt with the aid of oral arguments you could predict outcomes exactly with 99% confidence. There are people paid to do this that aren't good enough to claim that.
Yes, we can generally get right where a justice lies in any case due to their history. From the ACA to Reich to Hamdi the oral arguments wouldn't give you any additional information where one lies IMO and if anything it probably makes the center more murky.
Guess we're just going to have to disagree on this point.
empty vessel
Member
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing carefully. You are arguing that oral argument is completely useless for prediction. I am arguing it is not completely useless. It doesn't go beyond that. If you have ever done oral argument, you would understand that it has value in predicting the outcome.
Black Mamba
Member
Yes, that is exactly what you're arguing. I understand that. And I disagree and think it's useless over the long term.
I am saying your belief it isn't useless is probably based on confirmation bias. I don't think you would do any better predicting cases with oral arguments versus without and in fact think you might do worse with them.
The Librarian
Banned
Right, that's what I said, but I also said without that, he wouldn't have the legitimacy to rule the he way he was going to. If ACA never came up, the Court would still have some legitimacy to rule against the VRA. But if the Court ruled against the ACA and the VRA? That doesn't look good.
speculawyer
Member
The voting rights act SHOULD end because we shouldn't need it. But then they gerrymander like crazy, Gov. Rick scott cuts early voting causing people to wait 7 hours in line to vote, etc. And you can't help but think . . . damn, it is still needed because they just keep acting like dicks.
Frank the Great
Banned
If the VRA is no longer needed, Congress should be the ones to decide so. Not 5 schmucks on the Court.
You doubt judicial review?
Who is better than lawyers to decide about stuff?
Everybody loves lawyers for a reason!
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
I would feel a lot better if we had some restrictions or oversight regarding changing shit around leading up to an election year.
doesn't the constitution say just that?
electricpirate
Member
Surely the conservative wing would sully themselves and embrace judicial activism?
Black Mamba
Member
yeah, but i don't think it was related to other cases. I think he didn't want the legacy of the Court striking down massive federal legislation into the marketplace which would have been unprecedented if it was anything. It wasn't about the legitimacy of the Court but rather the how people will view him personally 30 years from now. But again, I don't even believe he changed his mind on the ACA in terms of upholding it, anyway, so from my perspective neither legacy or legitimacy plays a factor.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I know David Brooks isn't racist, but why wouldn't Obama feel comfortable or fall into place at an Applebee's? I don't get his original point.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
And note that the other national embarrassment hasn't made any comments about this.
Dr. Ben Carson will speak at CPAC
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/feb/27/yes-ben-carson-will-speak-cpac/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/feb/27/yes-ben-carson-will-speak-cpac/
Oh boy, here we go. This is going to be good.
jamesinclair
Banned
Obama needs to executive order election stuff
Link
The Autumn Wind
Byakuya769
Member
Obama was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has no idea how every day 'Mericans live.
cooljeanius
Member
They've been doing so ever since the Roberts Court took over.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He ordered a burger with dijon mustard at a TGI Friday's once. What a snob!
speculawyer
Member
Really? They still think that a black conservative nutbag will save them? Did it work with Michael Steele, Alan West, Alan Keyes, etc.? Keep fuckin' that chicken.
How could you forget Herman Cain?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Yes.
Read somewhere else he believes Debt is the biggest problem in the country right now.
Wait, what does that Michael Cross guy actually do? He's not part of the state legislature is he?
Shadow Hog
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
The CPAC director mentioned that Christie was not invited in part because they wanted to highlight an "all star" cast of future GOP leaders. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Alan West. Yeah...
Christie is the most popular governor in the country, if they want to ostracize him that's their loss and his gain. Really shows the party has no plans on moderating, and the mantra continues to be "our ideas aren't the problem, it's the messaging."
Christie is the most popular governor in the country, if they want to ostracize him that's their loss and his gain. Really shows the party has no plans on moderating, and the mantra continues to be "our ideas aren't the problem, it's the messaging."
Frank the Great
Banned
Christie is not a national Republican. He is certainly a right wing Republican by New Jersey standards but he simply does not fit into the national party.
He could easily be a blue dog Democrat. It's not surprising that the party snubbed him, it says much more about the party than him.
He could easily be a blue dog Democrat. It's not surprising that the party snubbed him, it says much more about the party than him.
Shadow Hog
Member
I think they need to double-check the meaning of the word "future".
As in, they have none
They can't have someone with a job there, what do you think they are?
Working people?
Why isn't Rubio there at least?
CPAC are rabid biggie fans.
If they knew the word they wouldn't be conservatives.
Aqua Lunge.
He's the reporter for KOSU, Oklahoma State's NPR station.
I've been posting his Twitter reports from the legislature for the last couple of days.
One of my favorites from today:
The argument from Republicans is that there are too many fraudulent claims, and the example the senator uses is a case that was thrown out by the workers' comp as fraudulent. Doesn't that prove that the current system of courts is functioning as intended?
This is basically "Tort Reform" Part Deux. They're eliminating carpal tunnel as a valid workers' comp claim, and setting maximum limits on how much a person can be compensated for other types of work-related injuries (in addition to lowering the worker's pay from 100% to 70% for time missed).
Really pisses me off.
Being a transplant to the South, I've noticed higher levels of prejudice. Of course, my perceptions could be tainted by my own bias. But aside from my experience, I find there's evidence that the South retains disproportionately racist attitudes. It might not manifest in overt racism, but it's been replaced by more subtle indications of resentment.
It's time for blacks to cease being the special favorite of the laws.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Woodword is an idiot. His comments this morning were stupid (why can't the president just ignore the law!?) now he's saying the white house sent him an email saying "you're going to regret this" context of course was ignored. So I don't know what prompted those words.
LOOK OUT THE THUGS ARE COMING
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-...r-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2
Now conservatives love him.
LOOK OUT THE THUGS ARE COMING
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-...r-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2
Now conservatives love him.
speculawyer
Member
Carson has written four bestselling books published by Zondervan, an international Christian media and publishing company: Gifted Hands, The Big Picture, Take the Risk, and Think Big. The first book is an autobiography and two are about his personal philosophies of success that incorporate hard work and a faith in God; Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. In a debate with Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, and Daniel Dennett, Carson stated he doesn't believe in evolution: "I don't believe in evolution...evolution says that because there are these similarities, even though we can't specifically connect them, it proves that this is what happened."[7]
NYCmetsfan
Banned
cartoon_soldier
Member
A neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in evolution...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I can always put it back in. I just thought people might get the wrong impression.
It wasn't that funny to begin with.
And dude, no one will get the wrong impression about going to stormfront, it's what people here do when they run out of things to bitch about.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
- Status