PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oblivion said:
but Republicans freed the slaves
Click to expand...

My favorite little trivia fact is the 13th amendment doesn't end slavery. It ends it unless your convicted of it.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I know thats more in place to make sure someone didn't say prison was slavery but still I think its a bit funny.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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...

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.

empty vessel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Black Mamba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
empty vessel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Black Mamba said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
speculawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would feel a lot better if we had some restrictions or oversight regarding changing shit around leading up to an election year.
 
Dax01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
speculawyer said:
What do you mean? The fact that Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar destroys David Brooks' point. Obviously David Brooks is NOT a man of the people so what the fuck authority does he have to say Obama is not a man of the people.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dr. Ben Carson will speak at CPAC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/feb/27/yes-ben-carson-will-speak-cpac/
The American Conservative Union has announced that Dr. Ben Carson will be a featured speaker at CPAC 2013 - the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference in mid-March.

“Dr. Ben Carson represents the optimism and hope of the future of the conservative movement, while at the same time he articulates the deep fiscal and social challenges that our nation faces,” says chairman Al Cardenas.

Dr. Carson, director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, has been on conservative radar plenty since his straightforward speech about the state of America at the recent National Prayer Breakfast, before an audience that included President Obama.

The Wall Street Journal ran an immediate op-ed titled “Ben Carson for President,” in the aftermath, declaring that Dr. Carson “may not be politically correct, but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”

Many agree, and have acted on the sentiment. Already Internet domains have been filed with Register.com, the official depository of new websites, including “BenCarson2016.com” and “Bencarsonforpresident.com,” among others.
Click to expand...
 
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’
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably not the best example.


Dram said:
Dr. Ben Carson will speak at CPAC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/feb/27/yes-ben-carson-will-speak-cpac/
Click to expand...
Ah, Republicans.
 
Is Ben really a conservative nutbag? I never even really knew he was into politics. It would tarnish my image of him if I found out it was true I always respected him growing up around Baltimore.
 
xnipx said:
Is Ben really a conservative nutbag? I never even really knew he was into politics. It would tarnish my image of him if I found out it was true I always respected him growing up around Baltimore.
Click to expand...

Yes.

"What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe,” said Carson at the prayer breakfast. “"We don't necessarily have to do 10%, but it's the principle. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes.”
Click to expand...

About healthcare: "Here’s my solution. When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account [HSA], to which money can be contributed, pre-tax from the time you are born, to the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members".
Click to expand...

Read somewhere else he believes Debt is the biggest problem in the country right now.
 
KingGondo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait, what does that Michael Cross guy actually do? He's not part of the state legislature is he?
 
B-Dubs said:
How could you forget Herman Cain?
Click to expand...
Fairly easily.

herman-cain-smile.gif
 
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 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.
 
PhoenixDark said:
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."
Click to expand...
They can't have someone with a job there, what do you think they are?
Working people?
 
PhoenixDark said:
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."
Click to expand...

Why isn't Rubio there at least?
 
Oblivion said:
Wait, what does that Michael Cross guy actually do? He's not part of the state legislature is he?
Click to expand...
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:

In support of SB1062, Sen. Lovelace says he had worker who put a knife through his hand and it was thrown out as fraudulent
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
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.
Dax01 said:
Oh... :(

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/306809949441380353
Click to expand...
It's time for blacks to cease being the special favorite of the laws.
 
xnipx said:
Is Ben really a conservative nutbag? I never even really knew he was into politics. It would tarnish my image of him if I found out it was true I always respected him growing up around Baltimore.
Click to expand...

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]
 
speculawyer said:
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]
Click to expand...

Wut?

Also are there any conspiracies about a Jew running treasury?
 
speculawyer said:
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]
Click to expand...

A neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in evolution...
 
CPAC considers Romney (Pres loser), Palin (a dolt, to put it kindly), Gingrich (a craven opportunist with ethical issues), Santorum and West (rightwing nutbags) "all-star" league?

Good lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
UberTag replied
NEOPOP: Pulse of Pop Music OT1 a New Era
46
19K
Bullet Club replied
Tabletop & Board Game Design |OT1| By Peoples for Meeples
2
50
7K
RelentlessRolento replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
Top Bottom