• 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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
20xTYju.jpg
Click to expand...

lol
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Oblivion said:
Also, how can something be both unconstitutional and the law of the land?
Click to expand...

I don't see that this is a particularly outlandish sort of thing to think. Maybe you think Oklahoma's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, but it's clearly the law in Oklahoma. Or consider abortion restrictions in various states. It's pretty common to understand "the law" as what the government thinks the law is, and this can be at odds with a "correct" understanding of the Constitution, since the state can get the Constitution wrong by way of a bad or absent Supreme Court decision (for most senses of "constitutional").

I don't even think "the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional" is a crazy position. It's a crazy thing for a politician to say, and believing that the CRA was a bad thing is pretty crazy such that someone who thinks it's unconstitutional has to grapple with what it means that doing something unconstitutional seems to have worked out so well, but that doesn't mean the underlying position is crazy.

Now, obviously when Republican politicians make noises about the CRA being unconstitutional, they're not just making some abstract legal point. They're signalling retroactive opposition to it and presenting themselves as buying into particular ways of thinking about government and freedom. This is how you signal that you're serious about libertarianism - you're willing to call out the sacred cow of big government as an unconstitutional assault on freedom, so you can be trusted to keep people safe from Obama.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Gotchaye said:
I don't see that this is a particularly outlandish sort of thing to think. Maybe you think Oklahoma's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, but it's clearly the law in Oklahoma. Or consider abortion restrictions in various states. It's pretty common to understand "the law" as what the government thinks the law is, and this can be at odds with a "correct" understanding of the Constitution, since the state can get the Constitution wrong by way of a bad or absent Supreme Court decision (for most senses of "constitutional").

I don't even think "the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional" is a crazy position. It's a crazy thing for a politician to say, and believing that the CRA was a bad thing is pretty crazy such that someone who thinks it's unconstitutional has to grapple with what it means that doing something unconstitutional seems to have worked out so well, but that doesn't mean the underlying position is crazy.

Now, obviously when Republican politicians make noises about the CRA being unconstitutional, they're not just making some abstract legal point. They're signalling retroactive opposition to it and presenting themselves as buying into particular ways of thinking about government and freedom. This is how you signal that you're serious about libertarianism - you're willing to call out the sacred cow of big government as an unconstitutional assault on freedom, so you can be trusted to keep people safe from Obama.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but my point was if one thinks some law is unconstitutional, then presumably one would support the idea of overturning said law. #YOHO seems to be saying that he doesn't know if the CRA is constitutional, but that even if it wasn't, it's the law of the land, so oh well?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Not with these gerrymandered districts.
Click to expand...
If a Democrats got 6 more points everywhere in 2012 they would have won the majority. They won by 1 that year. So yes, 7.

Of course it's harder to extrapolate just based on the generic ballot (those extra points could just be concentrated in districts Democrats already hold for example) and I don't think it'll happen right now, but if Democrats start leading on the generic ballot consistently by 6-8 points they'd be at least even money to win. They would certainly hold the Senate at that point, at least.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Samarecarm said:
I don't get it. What am I looking for?

Is it the fact that the y-axis doesn't encompass the entire 0-100% range? That's true of plenty of graphs where a number like 100% is implausible. We already know that no one is going to account for 100% of income tax revenue.
Click to expand...
The top 1% number is included in the highest quintile line.

ACA Signups: Exchange signups now up to 7.78 million. It might go up a little with states running their own exchanges extending their deadlines, but man it's nice to see a plan come together.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
rocketknight said:
LA House votes 27-66 to keep unconstitutional anti-sodomy law on the books; Nick Lorusso, R-New Orleans voted to keep.
Click to expand...

Gotta still let those gays know if those 6 justices hadn't stopped them, they'd still be locking them up!

Edit: I still can't believe Scalia wrote this. These are actual words from the 21st century Supreme Court dissent

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

.....

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
 
V

ViperVisor

Member
speculawyer said:
He can't die fast enough.
Click to expand...
There was a internet wormhole I went into some years ago where I looked back at big decisions and his piece of shit-ness was confirmed over and over again.

Right at the start he was already at the peak of wrong mountain.

1987
Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana's "Creationism Act" was unconstitutional. This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".

1 sentence and 20 words needed to describe what it was. I could beat that version of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney in 5 seconds without a Game Genie's help.

Here's the card he played in the dissent.

The Louisiana legislators who passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Balanced Treatment Act), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 17:286.1-17:286.7 (West 1982), each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution, (1) were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a Charizard.
His point is it is OK to blatantly violate the law as long as there is case you pinky promised to try to do right but end up with your thumb up your ass?
Well maybe not that literally because your rectum is a sacred shrine to the Holey Ghost.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Samarecarm said:
I don't get it. What am I looking for?

Is it the fact that the y-axis doesn't encompass the entire 0-100% range? That's true of plenty of graphs where a number like 100% is implausible. We already know that no one is going to account for 100% of income tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Click the link. It's the data on the chart, rather than the chart composition, that is misleading.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Samarecarm said:
I don't get it. What am I looking for?

Is it the fact that the y-axis doesn't encompass the entire 0-100% range? That's true of plenty of graphs where a number like 100% is implausible. We already know that no one is going to account for 100% of income tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Yeah as others have said they're duplicating data and mixing up things to make it seem as the top quintile rather than the top 1% has had their tax burden increased. Part of the WSJ continuing mission to inform us how bad rich people have it.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Democrats want Kathleen Sebelius to run for Senate in Kansas

Would be interesting I guess but I don't think she has much of a chance. I suppose they're hoping they can take advantage of the governor's race (which actually presents a realistic pickup opportunity for the Democrats) and win the Senate seat at the same time.

There's a new piece on Susana Martinez (Republican governor of New Mexico) from Mother Jones that makes me wonder if she's very vulnerable. She was up by 5 in the last PPP poll. If I had to compare her to anyone else it'd probably be Walker, who's up by a decent enough margin for a blue state governor.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
A Democrat hasn't won an election to the Senate in Kansas since 1932 and the last competitive Senate election was in 1974, it would be insane for Sebelius to win.
 
R

rocketknight

Member
ViperVisor said:
There was a internet wormhole I went into some years ago where I looked back at big decisions and his piece of shit-ness was confirmed over and over again.

Right at the start he was already at the peak of wrong mountain.

1987
Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana's "Creationism Act" was unconstitutional. This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".

1 sentence and 20 words needed to describe what it was. I could beat that version of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney in 5 seconds without a Game Genie's help.

Here's the card he played in the dissent.



Not exactly a Charizard.
His point is it is OK to blatantly violate the law as long as there is case you pinky promised to try to do right but end up with your thumb up your ass?
Well maybe not that literally because your rectum is a sacred shrine to the Holey Ghost.
Click to expand...

Wow. A Supreme Court justice is deferring to state legislators because surely state legislators would never do anything unconstitutional and it's certainly not a Supreme Court justice's job to make those calls!
 
S

speculawyer

Member
WayneMorse said:
A Democrat hasn't won an election to the Senate in Kansas since 1932 and the last competitive Senate election was in 1974, it would be insane for Sebelius to win.
Click to expand...
50 state strategy, man. Even if they are not going to win the Democrats should field a credible candidate and get that alternative message out there. And occasionally you'll even win when the competition implodes like Murdock & Akin.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
rocketknight said:
Wow. A Supreme Court justice is deferring to state legislators because surely state legislators would never do anything unconstitutional and it's certainly not a Supreme Court justice's job to make those calls!
Click to expand...
Scalia is a theocratic plain and simple. There was no secular rational reason for anti - Sodomy laws. Just a religious reason.
 
A

Averon

Member
speculawyer said:
50 state strategy, man. Even if they are not going to win the Democrats should field a credible candidate and get that alternative message out there. And occasionally you'll even win when the competition implodes like Murdock & Akin.
Click to expand...

THIS. Even if the Dem candidate doesn't win, it helps builds the foundations for future Dems to perform more strongly. Wendy Davis ain't winning, but you'd at least want her candidacy to help start building a competitive Democratic coalition in future elections. You'll never win if you never even try to compete.

The 50 state strategy was the smartest thing Dems done election-wise.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Averon said:
THIS. Even if the Dem candidate doesn't win, it helps builds the foundations for future Dems to perform more strongly. Wendy Davis ain't winning, but you'd at least want her candidacy to help start building a competitive Democratic coalition in future elections. You'll never win if you never even try to compete.

The 50 state strategy was the smartest thing Dems done election-wise.
Click to expand...
We have Howard Dean to thank for that. It wasn't without its downsides, though, as some of the seats were taken by conservative Democrats, but that's a small price to pay for institutional control.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Hitokage said:
We have Howard Dean to thank for that. It wasn't without its downsides, though, as some of the seats were taken by conservative Democrats, but that's a small price to pay for institutional control.
Click to expand...
There is also a point where it becomes a little ridiculous.

Finding candidates is one thing, but it's obnoxious (and kind of hilarious) going on like DailyKos and seeing the comments being like "WHY ARE DEMOCRATS ABANDONING OKLAHOMA, 50 STATE STRATEGY"
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
The 50 state strategy led to what I think is the biggest problem with Democrats today.

When a Republican wins a seat in the House he's crazy hard right no matter what, or how small their majority is, they will always vote party line and be true believer conservatives.

Democrats however try to match the views of their constituencies, and moderate their views.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
speculawyer said:
I want to see the same type of graph for Iraq war cost estimates and reality.
Click to expand...
Joe Molotov said:
It'd take some Fox News style chart-fuckery just to get both lines on the same screen together.
Click to expand...
The Iraq War* actually came in slightly under OMB expectations.

*If you only count the days up to and including the Fall of Baghdad. Really, that's what the one Bush Administration official argued at that one hearing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom