Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Man, Jon Chait is getting hammered by pretty much everyone on the left for his stupid, needlessly contrarian article on race.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Man, Jon Chait is getting hammered by pretty much everyone on the left for his stupid, needlessly contrarian article on race.

I don't think his original articles on ryan's comments were bad at all (unless he was serious that the 'Culture of poverty' was a black rather than a response to general oppression and lack of opportunity) but he's completely missing the point on the criticism on his recent article. Even if MHP didn't handle it the best the way chait is dealing with it is losing my respect. Jamelle Bouie has had some great takes on the whole thing. But as it drags on Chait is digging his whole deeper.

I think I posted Beutler's article which highlighted Chait's strawman http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...bate-all-about-willful-conservative-ignorance

The left's racial analysis of conservative politics might lend itself to careless or opportunistic, overreaching accusations of racism. But it its also fundamentally correct. Chait, by contrast, calls it "insane," and to support that claim he slips into a mischaracterization of the analysis he's set out to debunk.

It may be true that, at the level of electoral campaign messaging, conservatism and white racial resentment are functionally identical. It would follow that any conservative argument is an appeal to white racism. That is, indeed, the all-but-explicit conclusion of the ubiquitous Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive.

Impressive though the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence undergirding this analysis may be, it also happens to be completely insane. Whatever Lee Atwater said, or meant to say, advocating tax cuts is not in any meaningful sense racist.

Chait's indictment of liberal racial analysis lives and dies on the bolded sentence. And the sentence is just wrong. It is not an accurate description of the left's perspective. Republicans do frequently code switch when they appeal to activist voters. All politicians do. But the idea that liberals believe this tendency renders racist every increment and manifestation of conservative appeal is the straw man upon which his broader argument collapses.

 

[speculawyer]

The only thing the Heritage plan had that's similar to Obamacare was the mandate. They wanted to voucherize Medicare/Medicaid and there wasn't any subsidies.

But the mandate is the MAIN thing. And the medicaid expansion is not in their red states (yet).

Voucherizing medicare was never gonna happen...that was like privatizing social security.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...-supreme-court-libel-20140418,0,3941111.story

Scalia is so damn horrible. Ginsburg should have slapped him

WASHINGTON – This spring marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, its most important pronouncement on the freedom of the press, but the ruling has not won the acceptance of Justice Antonin Scalia.

“It was wrong,” he said Thursday evening at the National Press Club in a joint appearance with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “I think the Framers would have been appalled. … It was revising the Constitution.”

Of course scalia will ignore his statements here and use this as precedent for his decision in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Mark my words

 

[benjipwns]

I'm not sure this is anywhere near the worst reasoning of Scalia's, even if he does have a massive hardon for bringing it up:

In elaborating on his point that courts should not render decisions that in effect legislate, he said that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan means “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not.

“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia continued. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’ But the living constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea any more.’”

It certainly is the view of almost all of the rest of the world. Good or ill.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not sure this is anywhere near the worst reasoning of Scalia's, even if he does have a massive hardon for bringing it up:

It certainly is the view of almost all of the rest of the world. Good or ill.

.

The first amendment is where I unequivocally believe America is at the forefront on free speech and democracy

 

[benjipwns]

One of the things about the frozen wasteland to the north I'll never forget:

In an exchange during the Marc Lemire case, lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" Steacy responded:

“ "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value... It's not my job to give value to an American concept."[24][25] ”

In the same transcript, Mr. Steacy later repeated that "freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept" but added that a person stating that they were protected by "freedom of speech," would be equivalent "to somebody raising a 'freedom of expression' concept," which Mr. Steacy stated was protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms "to a point."[26] He later added that "you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially when it's in written format."

Which derives from their Charter's opening:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Fundamental guaranteed freedoms except where they're prescribed by law!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

One of the things about the frozen wasteland to the north I'll never forget:

Which derives from their Charter's opening:

Fundamental guaranteed freedoms except where they're prescribed by law!

I always face these issues with GAF threads on free speech. So many people ready to limit acceptable discourse. While I disagree on citizens united. This court has been exceptional for free speech rights.

 

[Piecake]

.

The first amendment is where I unequivocally believe America is at the forefront on free speech and democracy

I really doubt that George Washing and Thomas Jefferson would agree with Scalia (could be wrong). They got libeled to all hell in the newspapers and the only thing they did about it was complain since they thought freedom of the press was vital. Some of the newspapermen were definitely doing it out of actual malice as well.

 

[Sibylus]

I always face these issues with GAF threads on free speech. So many people ready to limit acceptable discourse. While I disagree on citizens united. This court has been exceptional for free speech rights.

The standard of acceptable discourse differs between place to place, of course. In practice that line is typically drawn at hate speech in Canada, in the UK, much behavior is proscribed that in North America would fall under the purview of freedom of the press. I don't know for certain where I stand on the issue of where those limits ought to fall myself, but while the function of the press and non-destructive speech is unimpeded, I think I can live with the country potentially falling short for the time being. Always room for improvement in the future. In the meantime, the law as written and interpreted has served to protect the vulnerable far more than it has served to empower the unscrupulous.

Perfect the enemy of the good, etc etc.

 

[benjipwns]

They got libeled to all hell in the newspapers and the only thing they did about it was complain since they thought freedom of the press was vital. Some of the newspapermen were definitely doing it out of actual malice as well.

Well, they also "settled" the matters out of court...

 

[Piecake]

Well, they also "settled" the matters out of court...

I don't remember Washington or Jefferson doing any of this

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not sure this is anywhere near the worst reasoning of Scalia's, even if he does have a massive hardon for bringing it up:

It certainly is the view of almost all of the rest of the world. Good or ill.

You think Scalia is gonna close down Fox News, newsmax, and WND?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Gay people shouldn't be married.



Unless I know them directly.



Prop 8 lawyer changes anti-gay stance

Man there was some fucker republican during the minnesota gay marriage vote who voted no on the bill after giving a pseech wabout his views 'Evovlign" because he knew a gay ocuple who invited him to their wedding.

It' slike great job jackass you voted against their being able to get married. How can they be so hypocrticial? i odn't fucking get it.

 

[empty vessel]

Chait is terrible and always has been.

 

[Wilsongt]

I don't like adding my family as friends on Facebook, so I must have been drunk when I added this particular cousin. Well, turns out that was a big mistake. Obama hate, support for the confederate flag, and God stuff spewed on my wall this morning. Unfollowed, for sure.

 

[Diablos]

Something that concerns me about ACA signups -- do people (especially young people) understand that if they already have a job that offers insurance that is essentially the same as the subsidized ACA marketplace plans, they're making a mistake? Otherwise they're going to see a letter from the IRS someday asking them to pay back some or all of what was subsidized because they chose not to sign up for their employer's plan(s)... and that cannot go over too well.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

On a crisp morning in late March, an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes filed into a cozy auditorium at the White House.

Their name tags read like a catalog of the country’s wealthiest and most influential clans: Rockefeller, Pritzker, Marriott. They were there for a discreet, invitation-only summit hosted by the Obama administration to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next-generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.

The well-heeled group seemed receptive. “I think it’s fantastic,” said Patrick Gage, a 19-year-old heir to the multibillion-dollar Carlson hotel and hospitality fortune. “I’ve never seen anything like this before.” Mr. Gage, physically boyish with naturally swooping Bieber bangs, wore a conservative pinstripe suit and a white oxford shirt. His family’s Carlson company, which owns Radisson hotels, Country Inns and Suites, T.G.I. Friday’s and other brands, is an industry leader in enforcing measures to combat trafficking and involuntary prostitution.

The daylong conference was organized by Thomas Kalil, a deputy director for technology and innovation in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, with the help of Nexus, a youth organization based in Washington that seeks to “catalyze” the next generation of billionaire philanthropists and other stakeholders.

(Disclosure: Although the event was closed to the media, I was invited by the founders of Nexus, Jonah Wittkamper and Rachel Cohen Gerrol, to report on the conference as a member of the family that started the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company.)

Policy experts and donors recognize that there’s no better time than now to empower young philanthropists. Professionals in the field, citing an Accenture report from 2012, estimate that more than $30 trillion in wealth will pass from baby boomers to younger generations by around 2050. At the same time, the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy (no relation to this reporter) and the nonprofit consulting group 21/64 have concluded in a recent study on philanthropic giving that heirs are becoming involved in family foundations at an earlier age — specifically in their 20s and 30s — and imprinting them with the social values of their generation.

It was rhetoric that Liesel Pritzker Simmons, 30, could appreciate. A strong believer in impact investing, Ms. Simmons received a fortune that Forbes magazine estimates at about $500 million, through a lawsuit against her father, Robert Pritzker, and other members of the family after she was left out of the Pritzker inheritance. In 2011, she married Ian Simmons, whose forebears were founders of the Montgomery Ward department store chain, and together they have become a recognizable power couple in philanthropic circles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

Welcome to our new overlords

 

[Wilsongt]

Yeah, bootstraps my ass.


Enough money to pay off the entire US's debt and all of them could still live without a care in life.

The American dream, folks.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

Welcome to our new overlords

Or we could tax the money right out of their grubby little paws and then collectively decide--let's say democratically--how our collective welfare is best served instead of leaving those decisions in the hands of "an elite group of 100 young philanthropists."

 

[Piecake]

Or we could tax the money right out of their grubby little paws and then collectively decide--let's say democratically--how our collective welfare is best served instead of leaving those decisions in the hands of "an elite group of 100 young philanthropists."

But they are elite. The must be incredibly intelligent and know how best to spend their money for the common good.

Spoiler

My vote goes for universal pre-k

 

[PhoenixDark]

Chait is terrible and always has been.

OSU fan?

 

[ISOM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0



Welcome to our new overlords

With the way campaign finance laws are now it's best to recruit these young billionaires to the democrat party while they are young.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Yeah, bootstraps my ass.


Enough money to pay off the entire US's debt and all of them could still live without a care in life.

The American dream, folks.

Dont worry, man. It'll all trickle down!

 

[Incognito]

Something that concerns me about ACA signups -- do people (especially young people) understand that if they already have a job that offers insurance that is essentially the same as the subsidized ACA marketplace plans, they're making a mistake? Otherwise they're going to see a letter from the IRS someday asking them to pay back some or all of what was subsidized because they chose not to sign up for their employer's plan(s)... and that cannot go over too well.

One of the first questions before applying for ACA insurance is if you have employer insurance. If you do, you're redirected to another page with instructions on your options. Basically, unless your employer is not adhering to ACA minimum mandates, you have to stick with the employer insurance. There are some caveats, but generally you won't be eligible for plans on the exchanges if you already have insurance.

 

[Milabrega]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

Welcome to our new overlords

Or we can restructure the tax code so we don't have dynastic wealth dictating the future of our their inherited country, just an idea.

 

[Oblivion]

But their parents worked hard for their money, probably!

 

[zero shift]

This is the problem with the right's "charity" argument. You get far more money by taxing a rich person rather than the rich person becoming a philanthropist. Has the transition from early to mid 20th century taught us nothing?

 

[Piecake]

This is the problem with the right's "charity" argument. You get far more money by taxing a rich person rather than the rich person becoming a philanthropist. Has the transition from early to mid 20th century taught us nothing?

Not to mention that they give charity to things they care about instead of charities that actually help the poor

Wealth affects not only how much money is given but to whom it is given. The poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums. Of the 50 largest individual gifts to public charities in 2012, 34 went to educational institutions, the vast majority of them colleges and universities, like Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley, that cater to the nation’s and the world’s elite. Museums and arts organizations such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art received nine of these major gifts, with the remaining donations spread among medical facilities and fashionable charities like the Central Park Conservancy. Not a single one of them went to a social-service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor and the dispossessed. More gifts in this group went to elite prep schools (one, to the Hackley School in Tarrytown, New York) than to any of our nation’s largest social-service organizations, including United Way, the Salvation Army, and Feeding America (which got, among them, zero

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

I'd imagine not being able to plaster your name on it is a huge drawback for the rich giving to the poor. I am also not sure if we should characterize the rich giving to elite institutions philanthropy...

 

[WayneMorse]

America just isn't ready for a 100% estate tax.

 

[sc0la]

Or we could tax the money right out of their grubby little paws and then collectively decide--let's say democratically--how our collective welfare is best served instead of leaving those decisions in the hands of "an elite group of 100 young philanthropists."

Remember, we have to resort to stroking the egos of 20 something billionaires to meet policy and general welfare goals philanthropically since "death taxes" are un-american. :X

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/fashion/white-house-hosts-next-generation-young-and-rich.html?_r=0

Welcome to our new overlords

I wonder if conservatives will go berserk over this. Then all you need to do is point out that it is the GOP that wants to ELIMINATE estate taxes. That would turn up the wealth gap to 11.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Remember, we have to resort to stroking the egos of 20 something billionaires to meet policy and general welfare goals philanthropically since "death taxes" are un-american. :X

I vote we storm the castle instead. Sharpening my pitchfork as we speak.

 

[platypotamus]

I vote we storm the castle instead. Sharpening my pitchfork as we speak.

In

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/19/3428747/scalia-taxes-revolt/

During a question and answer part of the event, a student asked Scalia about the constitutionality of a federal income tax. Scalia assured the questioner that the tax was in fact permissible by the constitution, but added that if it ever became too high, “perhaps you should revolt.”

a day later

“It sometimes annoys me when somebody has made outrageous statements that are hateful,” he told the audience at the National Press Club.

 

[speculawyer]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/19/3428747/scalia-taxes-revolt/


a day later

I got so sick of reading Rehnquist decisions in Con Law. Such an asshole. I didn't think he could be topped. But Scalia has managed it. I look forward to the day when he is no longer on the bench. (And Clarence Thomas immediately implodes thereafter.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

 

[RustyNails]

#11 is the only one where some thought went into it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/19/3428747/scalia-taxes-revolt/


a day later

Is this supposed to be ironic because Scalia's statement was outrageous and hateful? Because I'm not seeing it.

But Scalia has managed it. I look forward to the day when he is no longer on the bench. (And Clarence Thomas immediately implodes thereafter.)

Liberal argle-bargle of the 90's notwithstanding, it's now widely understood that Thomas has his own jurisprudence, and has had more of an influence on Scalia than vice versa.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is this supposed to be ironic because Scalia's statement was outrageous and hateful? Because I'm not seeing it.

Unless your taking a hyper texualists reading of that the juxtaposition is quite clear if you get the tone and intent of Scalia's statements and don't take a devils advocate position. He clearly was saying an outrageous thing and then a day later condemned people saying outrageous things

Liberal argle-bargle of the 90's notwithstanding, it's now widely understood that Thomas has his own jurisprudence, and has had more of an influence on Scalia than vice versa.

Serious question, are you a member of Federalist Society or something like it? Most of your links come from people that are very found of defending "liberty" above all else.

On a side note the federalist society and the rise of an orginalist reading of the constitution is one of the worst developments in the 20th century and has harmed our country immeasurably. Lets hope we get more judges that are more apt to do justice and be aware of the effects of their decisions rather than ones who do nothing but thought experiments in defense of "liberty." I think Chichikov has talked about this but we're far to found of paying deference to ancient and abstract legal theories and legalist argument and not concerned enough with reality and people who didn't spend 3 years in a library reading other peoples opinions and learning how to regurgitate them. Lawyers are important but we pay far too much deference to them especially when they've become so intertwined with the economic elite.

 

[Piecake]

Unless your taking a hyper texualists reading of that the juxtaposition is quite clear if you get the tone and intent of Scalia's statements and don't take a devils advocate position. He clearly was saying an outrageous thing and then a day later condemned people saying outrageous things



Serious question, are you a member of Federalist Society or something like it? Most of your links come from people that are very found of defending "liberty" above all else.

On a side note the federalist society and the rise of an orginalist reading of the constitution is one of the worst developments in the 20th century and has harmed our country immeasurably. Lets hope we get more judges that are more apt to do justice and be aware of the effects of their decisions rather than ones who do nothing but thought experiments in defense of "liberty." I think Chichikov has talked about this but we're far to found of paying deference to ancient and abstract legal theories and legalist argument and not concerned enough with reality and people who didn't spend 3 years in a library reading other peoples opinions and learning how to regurgitate them. Lawyers are important but we pay far too much deference to them especially when they've become so intertwined with the economic elite.

An 'originalist' meaning of the constitution is inherently stupid anyways because any cursory study of the founding period will tell you that the founding fathers had differing views on the meaning of the Constitution. Hell, one of the reasons why George Washington liked it was that the document could adapt and change for new generations because there was one thing that everyone there agreed on, that the Constitution was not perfect.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

An 'originalist' meaning of the constitution is inherently stupid anyways because any cursory study of the founding period will tell you that the founding fathers had differing views on the meaning of the Constitution. Hell, one of the reasons why George Washington liked it was that the document could adapt and change for new generations because there was one thing that everyone there agreed on, that the Constitution was not perfect.

I don't think the orginalist school even takes originalist positions. The second amendment for example. But its a school of thought that generally is very opposed to federal involvement in commerce and very laissez faire in its approach to most things. It also loves sticking to the text of a law when the intent and legislative history would point to a different reasoning.

 

[Piecake]

I don't think the orginalist school even takes originalist positions. The second amendment for example. But its a school of thought that generally is very opposed to federal involvement in commerce and very laissez faire in its approach to most things. It also loves sticking to the text of a law when the intent and legislative history would point to a different reasoning.

Well, that's more or less a Virginia/Southern interpretation of the constitution (minus George Washington). All about limited government, states rights, self-government, and liberty (to apparently own slaves). I am sure that there are significant differences between that and the 'originalists', and I agree that Its just an appeal to authority to, I assume, convince ignorant people that what you believe in were the founding principles of our nation.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Well, that's more or less a Virginia/Southern interpretation of the constitution (minus George Washington). All about limited government, states rights, self-government, and liberty (to apparently own slaves). I am sure that there are significant differences between that and the 'originalists', and I agree that Its just an appeal to authority to, I assume, convince ignorant people that what you believe in were the founding principles of our nation.

It's an appeal to an authority, whom, in hindsight weren't that great of people in the first place. I mean honestly, they only counted a certain segment of the population as 3/5ths of a person, not to mention even if you were white, unless you owned land, you couldn't do jack shit for change.

The Founding Fathers were every bit in bed with the rich just as some of the GOP is today. Yet, somehow, they've become deities in the eyes of conservatives who unironically don't know the implications of their cult-like worship of the Constitution that was, and still is, extremely flawed.

 

[benjipwns]

It's an appeal to an authority, whom, in hindsight weren't that great of people in the first place.

Well, theoretically it's supposed to be an appeal to the highest legal authority of the land, the Constitution.

I mean honestly, they only counted a certain segment of the population as 3/5ths of a person

If they had done the right thing and not counted them at all then the whole thing probably would have fallen apart.

They got lucky on the slave importation ban being in the interests of the Slave Power.

The Founding Fathers were every bit in bed with the rich just as some of the GOP is today.

Their wives were only as rich as they were.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Unless your taking a hyper texualists reading of that the juxtaposition is quite clear if you get the tone and intent of Scalia's statements and don't take a devils advocate position. He clearly was saying an outrageous thing and then a day later condemned people saying outrageous things

He didn't condemn anyone. He said he sometimes gets annoyed by people who make "outrageous statements that are hateful." Reading the entire phrase--rather than omitting the final three words--isn't hyper-textualism. It's reading.

Serious question, are you a member of Federalist Society or something like it?

No.

Lawyers are important but we pay far too much deference to them especially when they've become so intertwined with the economic elite.

You're starting to sound like Scalia.

An 'originalist' meaning of the constitution is inherently stupid anyways because any cursory study of the founding period will tell you that the founding fathers had differing views on the meaning of the Constitution.

There are several strains of originalism. Original intent originalism tries to determine what the drafters of the Constitution intended. This is not a mainstream originalist theory, and your criticism applies only to it. Original meaning originalism tries to determine the original public meaning of the Constitution. This is the originalism of Scalia and Thomas. (Just for fun, there's also the new-fangled original methods originalism, which purports to interpret the Constitution by using the original interpretive methods which would have been employed at the time of its ratification.)

I don't think the orginalist school even takes originalist positions. The second amendment for example.

What's not originalist about Scalia's opinion in Heller?

It also loves sticking to the text of a law when the intent and legislative history would point to a different reasoning.

This is different. Originalism is a doctrine of Constitutional interpretation. You're now referring to textualism--a doctrine of statutory interpretation. One can be a textualist with regard to statutes without being an originalist with regard to the Constitution. I think it makes sense to focus on the text of a statute rather than the "legislative intent" of hundreds of individual legislators or "legislative history" consisting of statements made by various legislators. After all, the legislature voted on the text, not some vague statement of intent or legislators' commentary. The legislature embodies its intent in the text of the legislation, and not otherwise. Focusing on either legislative history or legislative intent (that is, legislative intent not embodied in the text of the legislation) leads an interpreting judge to ask, "What would I have done?" rather than "What has the legislature done?"

 

[kehs]

Is this like double satire?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

He didn't condemn anyone. He said he sometimes gets annoyed by people who make "outrageous statements that are hateful." Reading the entire phrase--rather than omitting the final three words--isn't hyper-textualism. It's reading.

Your missing the point because you want to.

You're starting to sound like Scalia.

OK, I agree with him on that point.

I don't think he's an idiot, he's just a politician not a judge

What's not originalist about Scalia's opinion in Heller?

Most of it? It appeals more to public ideas and "natural rights" than it does to history surrounding the law. It omits a key phrase, ignore history of the law. Breyer does a good job of listen regulations on firearms and weapons of the sort. The second amendment was created by a fear of a standing army.

Never mind the absolutely ridiculous "common use" argument where Scalia makes up a reason why his decision doesn't open the door to machine guns which has no basis in any ideas of the founders.

This is different. Originalism is a doctrine of Constitutional interpretation. You're now referring to textualism--a doctrine of statutory interpretation. One can be a textualist with regard to statutes without being an originalist with regard to the Constitution. I think it makes sense to focus on the text of a statute rather than the "legislative intent" of hundreds of individual legislators or "legislative history" consisting of statements made by various legislators. After all, the legislature voted on the text, not some vague statement of intent or legislators' commentary. The legislature embodies its intent in the text of the legislation, and not otherwise. Focusing on either legislative history or legislative intent (that is, legislative intent not embodied in the text of the legislation) leads an interpreting judge to ask, "What would I have done?" rather than "What has the legislature done?"

I'm not in favor of favoring one over the other. It depends on the case. For example the recent ACA case if very clear what the intent was, for the government to provide subsidies. I think you read the text but supplement when the meaning is disputed.

Ignoring outside factors and intent and focusing on text exclusively is stupid and leads to horrible decisions like this Ball State case last term where altio mansplained sexual harassment and workplace hierarchy. It does disservice to the words etched above their building.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not to mention that they give charity to things they care about instead of charities that actually help the poor



http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254

I'd imagine not being able to plaster your name on it is a huge drawback for the rich giving to the poor. I am also not sure if we should characterize the rich giving to elite institutions philanthropy...

Never quite got my head around that. Why donate to institutions that charge an arm and a leg for education?

 

[WayneMorse]

Never quite got my head around that. Why donate to institutions that charge an arm and a leg for education?

Thanks to the Kochs the economics department at Florida State University is a free market Austrian economics shithole.