Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Is the fact that Bush signed the most recent renewal of the VRA not enough of a defense?
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Is the fact that Bush signed the most recent renewal of the VRA not enough of a defense?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
When he nominated the judges that crippled it, no it's not enough.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That makes little sense. For starters, he only appointed two of the five justices who voted to invalidate section 4's coverage formula. What's more, he appointed those two some eight years before that decision, and in the year prior to signing the VRA's renewal. Come on. This is partisan spite, and nothing more.
eBay Huckster
Member
(For the record, "very, very slim defense" was very poorly-communicated snark.)
Meph is right. If you want to change the SC to suit your positions, elect a Democrat(Hillary) next year to replace the 2 conservatives and 1 liberal. Daunting on past SC picks is futile.
WayneMorse
Banned
So here's a question that I haven't heard many people discuss: what the fuck are we gonna do with Afghanistan? The US has two options, either to fight an endless, bloody back and forth with the Taliban or leave and have the entire country re-captured by Taliban and a possible ISIS presence in a matter of months or even weeks after they leave.
Warning: New McClatchy Marist Poll
48-44 Clinton/Walker
49-42 Clinton/Bush
49-42 Clinton/Rubio
51-40 Clinton/Paul
51-42 Clinton/Perry
53-39 Clinton/Cruz
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1682657/mcclatchy-marist-poll-2016-nature-of-the-sample.pdf#storylink=relast
48-44 Clinton/Walker
49-42 Clinton/Bush
49-42 Clinton/Rubio
51-40 Clinton/Paul
51-42 Clinton/Perry
53-39 Clinton/Cruz
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1682657/mcclatchy-marist-poll-2016-nature-of-the-sample.pdf#storylink=relast
Coriolanus
Banned
The answer has been known for years. The US will make a deal with the Taliban. There is no other realistic choice.
Then again, i'd have never called Ghani winning the election a realistic outcome, so w/e, miracles can happen.
Still have no idea why the fuck the independent election commish never released the vote totals. It is a mystery.
One man's partisan spite is another man's 11th dimension chess move.
Poodlestrike
Banned
That reminds me, can Cruz even run? He was born in Canada, wasn't he? Or am I mixing him up with somebody else?
Coriolanus
Banned
Can be born anywhere in the world, provided your parents are 'merkans. Jus sanguinis and all
Poodlestrike
Banned
Huh. Thought you had to be born here. Ah well.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's like being a Jew. If your mom was born here you're good for life.
It's going to be the same shit as last time, only with no Romney.
Not really. When a candidate says Policy Position A and then appoints judges while knowing there's a good chance they'll undermine Policy Position A, that counts for something - especially given how difficult it is to check the judiciary's power. SCOTUS often has the final word on many matters, especially in this highly-divided era.
It cuts both ways. We saw candidate Bill Clinton sign DOMA, but it wasn't all that dismaying because we had a good idea that his judges would, err, "do the dirty work" of knocking it down once it was challenged.
If there were a candidate who idolized and had a solid habit of nominating/approving Ginsburg clones, I don't really care about the letter behind his or her name. If the candidate were friggin' Joe Lieberman in the general and he pledged to nominate clones of Breyer, I'd still give him my vote over the candidate pushing Thomases.
Hm. Her floor seems pretty solid there..
Poodlestrike
Banned
Wow. The whole birther thing just picked up an extra layer of stupid.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't have proof on-hand for you. And frankly, I'm not that interested in attempting to convince you. It'll end in paragraphs and paragraphs that I just scroll past.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I doubt that this discussion would turn into one involving "paragraphs and paragraphs," but I can't force you to reconsider beliefs you hold without evidence. (Though I certainly think you should.)
The only thing I will dispute here is that I hold these beliefs "without evidence." But I will indeed admit that I am too lazy to provide research for you.
I've seen you argue. A lot. A lot lot. I don't have it in me to do back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth-and.. .. .. .. You're more persistent than I am in that regard. Congrats.
In theory you're right, but considering Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers, I don't really think there's a whole lot of evidence that he was paying lip service to the VRA while trying to undermine it through judicial appointments.
This whole thing is just a sad byproduct of the partisan nature of the supreme court.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I'm just upset 2016 won't have the same hilarity as 2012.
God, that Primary was LEGENDARY.
God, that Primary was LEGENDARY.
I dunno, Obama's going to be trolling pretty hard from the sidelines this time around. Plus there's guys like Walker who can't help but fall on their swords every other day. I think this might just be funnier.
She got killed by conservatives for supporting affirmative action. You never know how people gonna vote once they get on the court, and it's true that she didn't have too much of a record to go on, but from we do know there's no reason to believe she would've been bad on civil rights.
Admittedly, I don't think he deliberately named these folks thinking, "Yeah! Gonna stick it to the VRA! Haha!" I was noting that the contrast between his nominees and the image of him today made me smirk more than a bit. Of anyone else he could've chosen after that (really entertaining) Miers debacle.. smh..
(In fairness, I'd say the same thing of Dems had they held hands. I still smirk at some of them who've voted to approve.)
Living in the pre-partisan era must've been incredible - the idea of a court that could rule more unpredictably sounds mind-blowing!
I still feel pretty confident that she'll win if we continue along this general trajectory, but the thought of it being closer than 2012 is going to make me sweat a good bit more. 2012 spoiled a lot of us with the whole "trust Nate Silver"/"lol, unskewed!" themes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's early and thus doesn't matter
I think Hillary will have a fairly comfortable victory. Similar to 2012 where Romney was close enough that you couldn't predict an Obama win with absolute certainty, but most of us knew what was up.
Well, except Diablos who spent all his time freaking out for no reason and PD who hoped against all rational belief that Romney would somehow pull out a win in Ohio with all his "Romney's gonna pull a hail-Mary" comments (which as we learned wouldn't have made a difference in who won the election, not to mention having to pull a hail-Mary generally doesn't mean you're in a good position for anything)
Not really, you just come off as someone who looks at the headings of the IRC and has never actually worked with taxes in any substantive manner in your life.
For example, the first line of IRC Section 3101 (which isn't in the income tax section, for those of you following at home) specifically states that it's a tax on income. It's merely filed outside the income tax section of the IRC because the employer portion of payroll taxes aren't taxes on income and it's more logical to group payroll taxes together than to split them between income and non-income taxes.
HTH in your budding career in tax law.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Ha. Well, required or not, your response at least gives me something to work with. But let's make sure the folks following along at home understand what you dispute.
You do not argue that the tax on capital gains is anything but a part of the income tax. In fact, it would be futile to do so, given that 26 U.S.C. s. 1(h) clearly defines "the tax imposed by this section" (i.e., the income tax) if "a taxpayer has a net capital gain for [a] taxable year." In a formal setting (were the question to arise), one would cite section 1(h) (perhaps along with section 61 and Treas. Reg. 1.61-6) to establish that the tax on capital gains is a part of the income tax we all know and love (as opposed to quoting the headings of titles, subtitles, chapters, and subchapters of the IRC), but I wouldn't call a video game forum--even one as refined and well-regarded as NeoGAF--a "formal setting" such that proper citation is necessary.
Rather than contradicting what was the point of my post, you first dispute that every tax on income appears in Subtitle A. But I haven't said otherwise. To say that the tax on capital gains is not distinct from the income tax, based on the placement of the former in the subtitle of the IRC devoted to the latter, is not equivalent to saying that every tax on income appears in that subtitle.
You then make what boils down to a semantic argument: you imply that a reference to "the income tax" should include "payroll taxes," because part of some of what are commonly known as "payroll taxes" are taxes on income. But I see no reason to accept this argument, nor to disavow my prior statement that "payroll taxes" are "distinct" from "the income tax." After all, even you acknowledge that "the employer portion of payroll taxes [i.e., half of FICA and all of FUTA] aren't taxes on income." And you can't deny that "payroll taxes" are imposed, calculated, reported, used, and discussed in a manner that is distinct from "the" income tax.
In conclusion, while I appreciate your helpful attitude, I'm probably not going to implement any of your suggested changes.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Sheesh. Who invited a tax discussion into our politics thread?
Oh, right. It was benjipwns.
In non-tax news, here's a Princeton professor arguing that Republicans should ignore any Supreme Court opinion holding that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional:
Terrible advice, all around.
In the first place, there are clear and well-established doctrinal avenues by which the Supreme Court could strike down same-sex marriage bans (there are even originalist arguments that come out the same way). Second, I don't think opposition to same-sex marriage is a winning issue for national Republicans. If they're unwilling to give up opposition to it following a Supreme Court opinion that invalidates such bans, then they'll need to recognize that a Constitutional amendment is their only option (and an amendment defining marriage nationwide as between one man and one woman never gained traction even ten years ago). Third, there is a growing movement within the ranks of conservatives themselves that calls on courts to be more active in reviewing and striking down laws, and I think the judicial restraint urged by folks like Robert Bork (and Robert P. George) would be to this nation's detriment.
Oh, right. It was benjipwns.
In non-tax news, here's a Princeton professor arguing that Republicans should ignore any Supreme Court opinion holding that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional:
Robert P. George said:
Terrible advice, all around.
In the first place, there are clear and well-established doctrinal avenues by which the Supreme Court could strike down same-sex marriage bans (there are even originalist arguments that come out the same way). Second, I don't think opposition to same-sex marriage is a winning issue for national Republicans. If they're unwilling to give up opposition to it following a Supreme Court opinion that invalidates such bans, then they'll need to recognize that a Constitutional amendment is their only option (and an amendment defining marriage nationwide as between one man and one woman never gained traction even ten years ago). Third, there is a growing movement within the ranks of conservatives themselves that calls on courts to be more active in reviewing and striking down laws, and I think the judicial restraint urged by folks like Robert Bork (and Robert P. George) would be to this nation's detriment.
cartoon_soldier
Member
It was a brilliant speech. One of the best speeches he or anyone in US has delivered in a while.
Religion had a big part to play in success of Civil Rights. To ignore that would be just foolish and would be to ignore history. In truth the the fight against inequality would have been next to impossible without the church.
JesseEwiak
Member
Judicial engagement is just a simpler way to say, "judicial activism, but for the stuff we support, instead of what those evil liberals support."
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Nah, there's more to it than that. One of the big changes Neily proposes (in the book referred to by Barnett in the link I provided) is getting rid of the rational-basis test. Neily calls that test an example of "fake judging," since it's essentially just a rubber stamp for whatever the government wants to do.
Also, Lindsey Graham has never sent an email. Is his newsletter literally a newsletter? Is his "written response" sent by first class mail?
EDIT: Here are a few posts that offer a shorter version of the arguments Neily develops in his book. From the "Day 1" post:
Clark Neily said:
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, yes, I know. It's a lot of words and bluster to say, "we want to use the courts to get rid of the New Deal and welfare/regulatory state, because know we can never win an election on that, but we don't want marginalized people to have any standing to fight back."
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Well, I can't argue that such folks don't see "judicial engagement" as a means to limit government power over private life. They do. But, to the extent that the "New Deal and welfare/regulatory state" are authorized by the Constitution, their approach to judging would not affect them.
EDIT: In other words, whether the courts apply the rational basis test or some higher level of scrutiny doesn't change their underlying interpretation of the Constitution.
Mark Halperin on Hillary:
February 8 2015
They have people who could step in if she falters. Right now, shes so far and away the most likely president of the United States, adding, If she performs, shows authenticity, more than anything else, if she shows people who she really is and has a second chance to introduce herself, it would be hard to beat her if she performs.
March 8 2015
"I said a few weeks ago on this show that she was easily the most likely president of the United States; I now think -- not only because this is a symptom and a cause, I now think she is not only not easily the most likely, I don't think she is the most likely."
February 8 2015
They have people who could step in if she falters. Right now, shes so far and away the most likely president of the United States, adding, If she performs, shows authenticity, more than anything else, if she shows people who she really is and has a second chance to introduce herself, it would be hard to beat her if she performs.
March 8 2015
"I said a few weeks ago on this show that she was easily the most likely president of the United States; I now think -- not only because this is a symptom and a cause, I now think she is not only not easily the most likely, I don't think she is the most likely."
Aaron Strife
Banned
Compared to who? Scott Walker? Lol
If you're going to scoff at early polls showing Hillary up 20 in Ohio or something then do the same for this pointless Chicken Littling.
If you're going to scoff at early polls showing Hillary up 20 in Ohio or something then do the same for this pointless Chicken Littling.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm sure you mean Diablosing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
lol @ political prognosticators treating this shit like the NFL Combine. It's March, nobody gives a shit. Is Hillary weaker than advertised? Sure. But again, no one is officially campaigning, and no one is paying attention except for a circlejerk of journalists who live and die by their #hottakes.
My problem with the emails is that they suggest a blatant disregard for rules. The media is obsessed with the mere idea of scandal. Meanwhile even if the public started paying attention I'm not sure they'd care unless some specifically problematic emails are released.
My problem with the emails is that they suggest a blatant disregard for rules. The media is obsessed with the mere idea of scandal. Meanwhile even if the public started paying attention I'm not sure they'd care unless some specifically problematic emails are released.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I won't give Halperin that honor.
A choice quote from him: Chris Christie is magical.
Caught up with Obama's Selma speech.
I ain't American, I ain't black, but this shit rocked my soul goddam.
I ain't American, I ain't black, but this shit rocked my soul goddam.
SenorArdilla
Member
What are the chances of Democrats distancing themselves from Hilary right before the election?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Zero? Unless something major happens, which is possible. That's the problem with the Clintons.
I still don't think people are paying attention right now, but if I was a second tier candidate I'd be using this to really get serious about competing.
Coriolanus
Banned
Generally? Zero. The lesson was learned in 2014. Don't run from your cheevos. Don't be republican lite.
There's always a coupla idiots that'll try, obviously.
Democrats running away from other Democrats and Democratic ideals have proven to be a losing strategy. They did this in 2010 and in 2014...to disastrous results on both counts. Al Gore did it this with Bill Clinton, and we all know how that ended.
I would hope that after 2014 Democrats finally realize that running away from their own party and trying to be GOP-lite is no longer a viable option.
"B-b-b-b-but isn't that how Clinton won?"
No you idiot Democrats, Clinton won by saying the most extreme left wing policy and most extreme right wing policy* won't work so here's my "middle of the road" approach; not by adopting Republican talking points.
*This made Republicans have to try to defend the far right policy so as not to lose the relatively new social conservative base which has now become the core of the Republican base.
Coriolanus
Banned
And then Bams went and won campaigning on hope, change and yes we can.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked