Support NeoGAF

[ClassyPenguin]

Subway definitely has gone downhill.

 

[Hitokage]

From what I understand, Lynx has been a good success, well above ridership estimates.

It has and it desperately needs to be expanded, but it's going to be a long time coming.

Bus system is just passable, though, and roads are Atlanta Jr.

 

[RustyNails]

Am I the only one who thought Conan's performance was bland and boring? Sounded like a Jay Leno monologue. A total snooze. I guess that's what politicians want to hear though.

Dunno why he played it safe.

 

[The Librarian]

Am I the only one who thought Conan's performance was bland and boring? Sounded like a Jay Leno monologue. A total snooze. I guess that's what politicians want to hear though.

Conan has never been funny.

 

[explodet]

Lewis Black said this about performing at the congressional correspondent's dinner, during the W era:

You have to understand that I devoted four months of my life to this 20 minutes. I had to. Ask any comedian who's done the gig. You have to work and work.

I had to spend day after day transforming whatever the fuck it is that I'm doing up here into a precise series of very refined knock-knock jokes.

This was before Colbert, of course.

 

[Mike M]

Well, then.

Pretty forward thinking church.

Oh wait, they probably don't mean the same thing I do if I were to say something similar...

 

[empty vessel]

From what I understand, Lynx has been a good success, well above ridership estimates.

And Charlotte was one of the few southern cities to build any form of rail transit in the past couple of decades. Norfolk was the only other one I can think of.

Houston.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Houston.

Dallas has the largest light rail system in the U.S., believe it or not.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

GOP Senators taking hits in the polls after voting against the gun bill.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html#more

 

[fallagin]

GOP Senators taking hits in the polls after voting against the gun bill.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html#more

Nice, they seem to have made a big mistake, lets hope this keeps up.

 

[Mike M]

GOP Senators taking hits in the polls after voting against the gun bill.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html#more

Probably too far removed from elections to amount to much.

 

[The Librarian]

As Matt Yglesias said, "headdesk."

 

[789shadow]

As Matt Yglesias said, "headdesk."

Well, look on the bright side: if Gore had won we might have had a Republican in office right now.

 

[Chichikov]

As Matt Yglesias said, "headdesk."

What courage, not "holy shit we fucked up", not "that was an abortion of democracy justified by legal-techno-babble", not even a simple "I was wrong", but "damn, that was a tough one, I wish someone else could've taken care of this".

Also, Bush v. Gore is one of the strongest cases as to why appointing judges by the executive is very problematic, and now she want to apply that system to the state level?
Yeah, no.

Well, look on the bright side: if Gore had won we might have had a Republican in office right now.

Those people didn't die for nothing in Iraq!

 

[empty vessel]

Also, Bush v. Gore is one of the strongest cases as to why appointing judges by the executive is very problematic, and now she want to apply that system to the state level?
Yeah, no.

Do you have anything in mind as an alternative?

 

[Frank the Great]

judicial appointment by executives seems like it sucks but it is far superior to the alternative of having judicial elections.

 

[Chichikov]

Do you have anything in mind as an alternative?

I don't think elections are great, but they're slightly superior to executive appointments, they share most of the same problems, but an election at least gives the people an out in the case of a really outrageous nominee.
Within the current framework, the main thing I would focus on would be life-appointments, which I find almost undemocratic.

But I think the bigger problem here is that we pretend that those decisions are objective and that real professional legal scholars will usually reach a consensus on those things, but this is false, and every 5-4 along party line decision makes more of a mockery of that idea.
Some people think it's because our legal system got corrupted by money and politics, they might be right (and there's certainly some truth to it) I think it's deeper than that, I think our legal framework is just bad, we need to rethink everything about it, from the way to write laws through the way we enforce them to how we resolve conflicts in our society in general, I think our current system is old, archaic and doesn't work really well for most people.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Lifetime appointments are a must for me. The court should be relatively free from poltical obligations and direct public pressure. I suppose it is undemocratic, but it's a check on some of the downsides of a democratic process.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Probably too far removed from elections to amount to much.

True. It won't matter in 2014 or 2016, based on history; gun control isn't a driving factor for votes, whereas being "pro gun" is for many on the right/rural voters. The economy will drive votes next year, and maybe immigration too.

 

[Chichikov]

Lifetime appointments are a must for me. The court should be relatively free from poltical obligations and direct public pressure. I suppose it is undemocratic, but it's a check on some of the downsides of a democratic process.

No one in government should be free of answering to the people they serve.
Also, lifetime appointments effectively say that today's majority is more important and should take precedence to tomorrow's majority, which I find undemocratic.

And even from a practical level they don't really work, we have an arms race of sorts, where every side make sure to appoint ideologically pure candidate, because "the other side is going to appoint an ideologue, we can't risk having an unreliable conservative/liberal on the bench".

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No one in government should be free of answering to the people they serve.
Also, lifetime appointments effectively say that today's majority is more important and should take precedence to tomorrow's majority, which I find undemocratic.

I disagree. I think there's serious value in having one branch *not* answerable to the current majority. It allows for the taking of unpopular opinions, like civil rights positions in the 1960s.

Imagine how slow integration would have gone if the justices had to answer to the general population.

Also, it allows justices to change their views over time. They aren't answerable to the current majority and should not be answerable to the majority that put them in power, either.

 

[Chichikov]

I disagree. I think there's serious value in having one branch *not* answerable to the current majority. It allows for the taking of unpopular opinions, like civil rights positions in the 1960s.

Imagine how slow integration would have gone if the justices had to answer to the general population.

Also, it allows justices to change their views over time. They aren't answerable to the current majority and should not be answerable to the majority that put them in power, either.

The public supported the civil rights act about 2:1 and strongly supported most of the supreme court decisions around it.

Now you imagine how Citizens United or Clapper v. Amnesty International would've gone if the justices would've had to answer to the people they serve (if nothing else, Scalia would've been less of a dick).

p.s.
That model didn't stop slavery, torture, interment and a bunch of wars that by human reading of the constitution (as opposed to lawyer reading) should have been illegal, so I don't know how much I buy the whole "they'll push the country forward even though it doesn't want to" argument.

 

[cashman]

Edit: it's 2013, I should be able to take a picture of my ankle with my phone and have someone tell me if I should go to the ER or if that would be a waste of everyone's time and money, but I guess for that to happen, people need to accept that sometime weird shit happens and you can't go sue someone just because you happened to land on the unlucky side of the probability curve.

Just make thread on GAF

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Do you have a source for the public support of superme court decisions?

Also, I consider some of the reining in of FDR to be a good thing, even though I supported hsi policies overall.

 

[Mike M]

Just make thread on GAF

"Feed it pizza."

 

[Wilsongt]

Bill proposed to let Congress peer review your scientific work.

U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants

The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.

The legislation, being worked up by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), represents the latest—and bluntest—attack on NSF by congressional Republicans seeking to halt what they believe is frivolous and wasteful research being funded in the social sciences. Last month, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully attached language to a 2013 spending bill that prohibits NSF from funding any political science research for the rest of the fiscal year unless its director certifies that it pertains to economic development or national security. Smith's draft bill, called the "High Quality Research Act," would apply similar language to NSF's entire research portfolio across all the disciplines that it supports.

ScienceInsider has obtained a copy of the legislation, labeled "Discussion Draft" and dated 18 April, which has begun to circulate among members of Congress and science lobbyists. In effect, the proposed bill would force NSF to adopt three criteria in judging every grant. Specifically, the draft would require the NSF director to post on NSF's Web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is:

1) "… in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and

3) "… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society.

Same guy who introduced SOPA and denies climate change.

This could guy really fuck up scientific funding. I know it won't go anywhere, but there are not enough face palms epic enough to describe how stupid this is.

As someone who works in a field where it's hard enough to compete for a grant at NSF, this would make it nearly impossible to get funding.

Congress wouldn't know a piece of datum if it beat them to a bloody pulp.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The public supported the civil rights act about 2:1 and strongly supported most of the supreme court decisions around it.

Now you imagine how Citizens United or Clapper v. Amnesty International would've gone if the justices would've had to answer to the people they serve (if nothing else, Scalia would've been less of a dick).

p.s.
That model didn't stop slavery, torture, interment and a bunch of wars that by human reading of the constitution (as opposed to lawyer reading) should have been illegal, so I don't know how much I buy the whole "they'll push the country forward even though it doesn't want to" argument.

I don't buy your ps arguments that those were easy cases the people would overturn. If we had direct elections we would not have gotten roe v wade, we'd have no meaningful 1st or 4th amendment and civil rights would be horrible I'm sorry the public might have "supported it" but the south didn't and was dragging it's feet .

You can point to counter examples but we do need to have lawyers and legal professionals interpreting the constitution. And it's not like we lack means to change the court. There is impeachment and the Amendment process.

 

[Chichikov]

Do you have a source for the public support of superme court decisions?

I got it from here.

Also, I consider some of the reining in of FDR to be a good thing, even though I supported hsi policies overall.

They didn't reign in the internment camps.
But more importantly, the fact that this model produced some positive outcomes is not enough for me to support it, you need to explain why you think it's a better than the alternative.

Just make thread on GAF

You joke, but those threads is what got me to start thinking about that issue, I mean, the people who start these threads do not seem stupid or overly uninformed, and yet they concluded that the best way for them to get their current healthcare needs addressed is to open a thread in a videogame forum.
Surely we can do better as a society.

I don't buy your ps arguments that those were easy cases the people would overturn. If we had direct elections we would not have gotten roe v wade, we'd have no meaningful 1st or 4th amendment and civil rights would be horrible I'm sorry the public might have "supported it" but the south didn't and was dragging it's feet .

You can point to counter examples but we do need to have lawyers and legal professionals interpreting the constitution. And it's not like we lack means to change the court. There is impeachment and the Amendment process.

The 1st and 4th amendment were not passed by the court, they were passed by congress and affirmed by the people, the main things the court did was to erode their protection (again, normal reading of them should suggest stop and frisk is illegal and that you should not have to ask for a permission to have a peaceful demonstration, but you'd be wrong, because fuck you, that's why).
I don't like Roe v. Wade as a decision all that much, I support abortion rights (more accurately, I think forcing a women to carry a baby they don't want doesn't work too well for anyone) but I think that approach is literally the worst way we could've addressed the issue, but honestly, I'm not sure we need to bring abortion into this discussion.

But most importantly, the government represents the will of the people and its draws its legitimacy from it, if the people want things you disagree with, your only move is to try and show them why they're wrong.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I got it from here.

They didn't reign in the internment camps.
But more importantly, the fact that this model produced some positive outcomes is not enough for me to support it, you need to explain why you think it's a better than the alternative.

And elected judges would be better? You see how quick congress throughs out civil liberties to get reelected, judges would do the same if they weren't insulated

Also did you not see how judges were challenged in Iowa after they rules on gay marriage? Elected judges are a horrible idea.
It politizes the judiciary too much.


II don't want judicial ads either ("you can count on judge Mcdonald never to coddle criminals")

 

[ElectricThunder]

Bill proposed to let Congress peer review your scientific work.

U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants



Same guy who introduced SOPA and denies climate change.

This could guy really fuck up scientific funding. I know it won't go anywhere, but there are not enough face palms epic enough to describe how stupid this is.

As someone who works in a field where it's hard enough to compete for a grant at NSF, this would make it nearly impossible to get funding.

Congress wouldn't know a piece of datum if it beat them to a bloody pulp.

Dear God...the sheer idiocy of this bill----the shortsighted MADNESS. This is the sort of shit that should never even be allowed to graze the damn table, let alone sit on it however briefly, precisely for the incredibly small chance that enough ignorance, bribes, and jackasses would come together just so and have it pass.

 

[Mike M]

Bill proposed to let Congress peer review your scientific work.

U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants



Same guy who introduced SOPA and denies climate change.

This could guy really fuck up scientific funding. I know it won't go anywhere, but there are not enough face palms epic enough to describe how stupid this is.

As someone who works in a field where it's hard enough to compete for a grant at NSF, this would make it nearly impossible to get funding.

Congress wouldn't know a piece of datum if it beat them to a bloody pulp.

Working in scientific fields in a country where a huge swath of the populous is not only willfully ignorant but gleefully and boisterously so is an unspeakable drag. Fighting against the antiscience wing is like being Sisyphus.

 

[Chichikov]

And elected judges would be better? You see how quick congress throughs out civil liberties to get reelected, judges would do the same if they weren't insulated

Slightly better.
And the supreme court fucked civil liberties just as much as congress.

Also did you not see how judges were challenged in Iowa after they rules on gay marriage? Elected judges are a horrible idea.
It politizes the judiciary too much.


II don't want judicial ads either ("you can count on judge Mcdonald never to coddle criminals")

Wait, you don't think the current system is politicized?
But more broadly, the problem here is not that they were challenged (there are some issues with the specific process that was used, but that's a different story) but that they were challenged over stupid shit.

Can't you imagine a situation that would make you say "fuck that, this dude is unfit to fill his job, he needs to go"?
This is somewhat covered by impeachment, but that's a more politicized process than pretty much anything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Slightly better.
And the supreme court fucked civil liberties just as much as congress.


Wait, you don't think the current system is politicized?
But more broadly, the problem here is not that they were challenged (there are some issues with the specific process that was used, but that's a different story) but that they were challenged over stupid shit.

Can't you imagine a situation that would make you say "fuck that, this dude is unfit to fill his job, he needs to go"?
This is somewhat covered by impeachment, but that's a more politicized process than pretty much anything.

I think it's politicized but single decision are much less likely to force ouster. It's less political than your proposed system by far. And yes they were challenge over stupid shit, that's often the problem with electorate they focus on small issues.

 

[el retorno]

The 1st and 4th amendment were not passed by the court, they were passed by congress and affirmed by the people, the main things the court did was to erode their protection (again, normal reading of them should suggest stop and frisk is illegal and that you should not have to ask for a permission to have a peaceful demonstration, but you'd be wrong, because fuck you, that's why).
I don't like Roe v. Wade as a decision all that much, I support abortion rights (more accurately, I think forcing women to carry a baby they don't want doesn't and the government c. now.

But most importantly, the government represents the will of the people and its draws its legitimacy from it, if the people want things you disagree with, your only move is to try and show them why they're wrong.

I don't think that's the contention. I think its that the electorate would support errotions of the rights so that they would in effect be meaningless. For example a majority supports school prayer . Your examples of a "normal reading" would be shot down most likely because they wouldn't vote in people who read what's written in the constitution but rather what they want to read.

 

[789shadow]

Supreme Court justices should still be appointed by the executive, since elections of Supreme Court justices is just asking for trouble, but they should be limited to one 20 year term.

 

[FyreWulff]

I don't know how other states do it but ours are appointed, then they are put to a vote the first general election after they've served at least 3 years in the position, and then have to be voted on every 6 years afterwards.

You can't run against them, it's a "should we keep this judge" question and if they don't get at least 50% of the voters to say 'yes', they're removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Supreme_Court

I guess that works out to being a hybrid appointing/election system there.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't think that's the contention. I think its that the electorate would support errotions of the rights so that they would in effect be meaningless. For example a majority supports school prayer . Your examples of a "normal reading" would be shot down most likely because they wouldn't vote in people who read what's written in the constitution but rather what they want to read.

Generally, if the electorate want it then the electorate should get it.
I strongly believe the government draws its power and legitimacy from the people it serve, the fact that I'm in the minority opinion on certain issues does not shake that conviction.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Bill proposed to let Congress peer review your scientific work.

U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants



Same guy who introduced SOPA and denies climate change.

This could guy really fuck up scientific funding. I know it won't go anywhere, but there are not enough face palms epic enough to describe how stupid this is.

As someone who works in a field where it's hard enough to compete for a grant at NSF, this would make it nearly impossible to get funding.

Congress wouldn't know a piece of datum if it beat them to a bloody pulp.

Fuck these assholes

Moronic people don't understand the value of research

 

[el retorno]

Generally, if the electorate want it then the electorate should get it.
I strongly believe the government draws its power and legitimacy from the people it serve, the fact that I'm in the minority opinion on certain issues does not shake that conviction.

Certain issues are above majority rule. We have an amendment process if they want it.

Supreme Court justices should still be appointed by the executive, since elections of Supreme Court justices is just asking for trouble, but they should be limited to one 20 year term.

What does a limit do?

 

[789shadow]

Moronic people don't understand the value of research

No, they understand the value of research in proving them wrong.

What does a limit do?

We don't have to wish for people to die so they can't continue to force outdated views on the country.

 

[Chichikov]

Certain issues are above majority rule. We have an amendment process if they want it.

I'm not a huge huge fan of supermajority as a concept, again, it implies that today's majority is less important than yesterday's majority, but I definitely think that there is some room for it, mainly to help stability and predictability (prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes) but you can still do it through congress.
You really think that an issue that is too sensitive for a normal majority of American to decide should be handled by 9 lawyers who answer to no one?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They didn't reign in the internment camps.
But more importantly, the fact that this model produced some positive outcomes is not enough for me to support it, you need to explain why you think it's a better than the alternative.

I think the burden is on you to explain how changes would be any better. As soon as a judicial candidate is going to have to fundraise, I imagine the system infinitely worse.

 

[KingK]

If you got buried under the 54 links Politico had on their frontpage today about the WHCD then you might have missed this gem.

“Trying to just land on the debt too quickly would really harm the economy; I’m convinced of that,” Kaine, hardly a wild-eyed liberal, said in an interview. “Jobs and growth should be No. 1. Economic growth is the best anti-deficit strategy.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/democrats-debt-crisis-90717.html

Thank you Tim Kaine! Finally somebody of influence says that. I'm glad that at least some people in the government are starting to admit that austerity doesn't work. I was skeptical that the debunking of the R&R paper would have any effect on Congress, but it looks like some people really are able to be swayed by facts and numbers.

I really hope this anti-austerity faction starts gaining momentum. It will be hard because Obama and the Dems have made the fucking stupid decision to buy into the Republican messaging of the debt for so long that nobody even knows there's an alternative to austerity. I doubt we'll get any Republican politicians to openly oppose austerity, but if a majority of Democrats can push the message that austerity destroys economies, at least the public will be aware that that point of view exists. Right now it's just accepted as a general truth in the media and Washington that austerity is what needs to happen in some form or another, so it's nice that some people are starting to challenge that premise.

Now if only the President could do the same...

 

[Chichikov]

I think the burden is on you to explain how changes would be any better. As soon as a judicial candidate is going to have to fundraise, I imagine the system infinitely worse.

I tried to, in numerous posts.
This post isn't clear?
What type of argument would expect from me on this issue?

Also, as a progressive, I don't accept your framing for the discussion, I think you need to explain why the current system is superior to the alternatives just as much as I need to explain why my alternative is superior to the current system.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I tried to, in numerous posts.
This post isn't clear?
What type of argument would expect from me on this issue?

Also, as a progressive, I don't accept your framing for the discussion, I think you need to explain why the current system is superior to the alternatives just as much as I need to explain why my alternative is superior to the current system.

I don't find you argument at all compelling. You are arguing agaisnt the status quo, you have to do better than point out that the status quo has produced poor results at times. In particular, there's nothing to suggest that on balance we'd have a better court based on anything but a vague call to principle. Perhaps a rundown of decisions, weight against popular opinion and congressional action, and a case why a more-democratic court might have acted better.

It's too big a change to throw out "I think this is better" without a lot of backing it up.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Dems continue to embarrass themselves on the sequester
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/why_you_dont_cross_your_own_bright_lines.php?ref=fpblg

Harry Reid is probably shaking his head somewhere.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't find you argument at all compelling. You are arguing agaisnt the status quo, you have to do better than point out that the status quo has produced poor results at times. In particular, there's nothing to suggest that on balance we'd have a better court based on anything but a vague call to principle. Perhaps a rundown of decisions, weight against popular opinion and congressional action, and a case why a more-democratic court might have acted better.

It's too big a change to throw out "I think this is better" without a lot of backing it up.

I tried to put out a bunch of points, again, I'm not sure what form of argument are you expecting.

You effectively said that having unelected officials are preferable because they can take unpopular positions, to which I countered by saying that -
a. I think taking popular positions is actually a good thing in a democracy.
b. I think the supreme court doesn't do it quite as often as you think, and the unpopular decisions it makes are not necessarily good ones.

It's fine to disagree, but I think it would me more productive to try and show where you think I'm wrong in my thinking.
I'm not sure how to counter "it's complicated and you might break things if you touch it" type of argument, such rationalization can be used to argue against pretty much any change.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's complicated and you might break it is a perfectly fine stance.

I said exactly what you might do for your argument, but it would require research. I am not opposed to research being funded and conducted, but I'm not going to take the results of your proposes change jujst based on a few off-the-cuffs that don't necessarily paint the current picture clearly, nor presume that your solution would be in any way better. It's punditry, not poly-sci, that you are advancing. It sounds good, it might even be good, but it has nothing to back it up.

 

[rocketknight]

I don't know how other states do it but ours are appointed, then they are put to a vote the first general election after they've served at least 3 years in the position, and then have to be voted on every 6 years afterwards.

You can't run against them, it's a "should we keep this judge" question and if they don't get at least 50% of the voters to say 'yes', they're removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Supreme_Court

I guess that works out to being a hybrid appointing/election system there.

This seems dangerous too, in a you-better-not-for-for-gay-marriage-or-we're-kicking-you-out sort of way. With those term lengths (3 years/6 years from then on) it's not even that different from the executive and legislative branches. The judiciary is supposed to be somewhat isolated from consequences of temporal approval/disapproval to act as a balance to the other branches that aren't. The only kind of term limits or up/down votes that make sense are long ones (like 789shadow's 20 years), but then you still need to show how that's better than what we have.

 

[TacticalFox88]

WASHINGTON—President Obama left attendees of the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in stitches Saturday night after delivering a hilarious speech repeatedly telling the entire room to “fuck off.” “No, seriously, each and every one of you cocksuckers can go fuck yourselves; I fucking hate all of you,” Obama said to the uproarious laughter and applause of the assembled politicians and media personalities. “Stop laughing. I’m not fucking kidding, idiots. All of you gathered here today are a bunch of spineless, hypocritical pieces of shit, and I have absolutely zero respect for anyone in this room. So, fuck you all, and may you and your families go straight to fucking hell.” Critics have praised Obama’s performance at the annual dinner, saying the president’s jokes were sharp and his timing has “never been better.”

Oh, god, the Onion is amazing.