Wow, am I confused? I remember it being 9-0.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
You are very confused.
Coriolanus
Banned
Arguable. Do feel that W.'s failure was a large part of why O's rethoric resonated so strongly and most likely also contributed to the congress makeup that gave y'all healthcare.
But by and large, yes. Shit has to get a whole lot realer before we can line up those decadent bourgeoise scum against the red wall of glory, comrade.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Severely.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
5-4, usual suspects.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Still, all of those political benefits from W's failure were gone within two years. W lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands while leading the country through the worst U.S. economic meltdown since the Great Depression and that lead to one critical piece of legislation. That's not worth it remotely.
Coriolanus
Banned
And Mao is responsible for 50 million deaths, but now more than a billion benefit from his work. The gears of progress must be crafted with bones and lubricated with blood, my friend.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
In defence of W (I will almost certainly never say this again), I am p. sure that a Democratic administration would also have gone into the Great Recession. Even Obama has not been particularly clean to clear up Wall Street, it seems to me very unlikely that CDO operations would have ceased or been made more transparent if you replace Bush with Al Gore.
That's not agreeing with accelerationists, I think they're wrong, but just an observation.
That's not agreeing with accelerationists, I think they're wrong, but just an observation.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
5-4. A large number of high-profile cases in recent years have been 5-4 (such as gay marriage and upholding most of Obamacare, and gutting the Voting Rights Act) so yeah, the ability to place the next justice(s) is *huge*.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
The devil's in the details!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
disregard cant read
Coriolanus
Banned
Gets really interesting when you consider that the crash most likely would have still happened under Kerry. Now that would've been a tragedy.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Stephen Miller and the rest of the National Review are a waste of life:
https://twitter.com/redsteeze
https://twitter.com/redsteeze
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yup, because then the Republicans could have pulled hard right in 2008 and we wouldn't even have had McCain, we'd have had President Huckabee.
In hindsight, it is really good Kerry lost.
Can you imagine Vice President John Edwards?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes. Can I unimagine it now?
Now imagine Vice President Lieberman.
Never.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's less bad than Edwards, nothing can scare me now. Besides, I feel like Al Gore would have been a good President.
Retromelon
Member
this revisionist history is so much piss in the wind, considering how wrapped up bush had that election in 04.
Coriolanus
Banned
"But guys, its totally Nader's fault we lost!"
Hasn't the police live stream already confirmed he went inside the PP?
Regardless, CU is only one of a bunch of narrow decisions that illustrate just how crucial the Supreme Court is. I seriously fear an overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges if we get another Scalia or two, and this court already gutted a key section of the VRA, who knows what else they could do to it with more crazy conservatives on the court. Forget about Trump, Carson, or Cruz, even establishment waterboy Rubio would be nominating crazies, he's already outright painted Roe v. Wade as a target. And our teaper-infested congress would be a lot less likely to balk at another Harriet Miers.
You may be aggravated by Hillary-stans bringing it up, but I'm more aggravated by what seems to be blithe dismissal of its importance in the OT. The PPACA barely survived this court, tilting it further right would destroy the healthcare options of millions. It really is a vitally important concern. The argument that we need to stop harping on the Supreme Court because we've been hearing so much about the Supreme Court holds about as much water as saying we need to stop harping on wealth inequality because we've been hearing so much about wealth inequality. It's a total South Park argument.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
YEP, the shooting took place at Planned Parenthood, but the media checking for confirmation for a few minutes is already being taken by the National Review and the rest of the shitguzzlers that this has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or Cruz's and Fiorina's hate speech.
These posts should be screenshotted if these people could feel shame.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
yet another example of why the us constitution is shit
PhoenixDark
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
BTW, I agree the Supreme Court is important. I just think Sanders is more electable than Clinton, for a number of reasons.
Overturning Obergefell won't happen -- c'mon. This is not a similar issue to Roe, and the protection of Roe is much more in jeopardy than Obergefell.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not that Roe will get overturned either, it's that grey areas left by Roe will get turned very ungrey in a specifically anti-woman manner, so to speak.
Well, sure. But if, say, there were two appointees in a Cruz administration for an RBG or a Kennedy, then you'd actually have to consider the possibility.
Have you read the dissents in Obergefell? I think it's very much in jeopardy if the Cons nominate two more justices.
I don't think there's an appetite for it in the conservative legal world, and I don't think Roberts would go for it, given the quiet but important role he most likely played in getting Obergefell to where it was, his dissent be damned.
I did not bring up the issue of qualification. You did, by saying that we should dismiss people's opinion because they only have background in neuroscience or biology. Carson is not an idiot because he is only a neurosurgeon, he is an idiot because he says idiotic things. The same is true for Harris, Dawkins, or whoever we are talking about. And, as I already said two times, Chomsky just proves my point and rebuts yours: he is not a social scientist, he is a theoretical linguist (who's work in this field I partially studied as a computer scientist). And still he makes thoughtful points.
Sure, we are hypocrites. It does not follow that our values are wrong or that we should not promote them. On the contrary, moral hypocrisies should make us want to convey them even more vigorously, among ourselves and others. I do not see how our hypocritical foreign realpolitik changes that stance. Especially since we are not complete hypocrites. Obviously, life in a Western society is more peaceful and civilized than in other parts of the world which do not accept freedom of expression, speech, or religion. And we have implemented the societies that are most tolerant of diversity, probably, in the history of the human species. (I recommend this book for evidence for this claim. It's a very interessting read)
By demanding the acceptance of liberal values by migrants from conservative Muslim majority countries we are not looking down on their societies. The one does not follow logically from the other.
Apart from that you do not need to have a moral right to analyze to moral state of a culture. It's an intellectual task that is independent from the fact that our foreign policies have been fucked up.
My best friend, whom I already mentioned, fled with his family from Iran. My grand parents were both migrants and my family was poor. My friend an I have both PhDs know. In no other part of the world have migrants from poorer countries more opportunities than in the West. Here in Germany, you receive social security, health care, and free education as a migrant, and we have Muslims in political leadership positions. This victim culture is completely unwarranted. Migrants from poor classes of society are not significantly disadvantaged compared to Germans from poor classes of society. (Obviously, diet racism is a problem in all societies.)
In fact, a professor at my former university interviewed me as part of a study that did research on high-performers with migrant background. Another friend of mine, himself a Muslim migrant, works as a sociologist for the Government, and he worked on a study involving migrants as well. So I had access to actual evidence. We are not perfect. But we are doing pretty damn good compared to where we have been some decades ago.
But attributing the radicalization of young Europeans to a lack of opportunity seems like soft bigotry of low expectation to me. Young, uneducated Germans are struggling with lacks of opportunity too, yet we do not blame it on society alone if they abandon our values and become right-wing extremist white supremacists. Everybody as a good chance here. Better than anywhere else.
So, have you read his book, or on what exactly are you forming your extreme opinion of that guy? A guy who, by the way, has accomplished 99.9% of what he is doing without any involvement of Harris. Calling him Harris' "third butthole" strikes me as a profoundly stupid thing to say.
I already addressed this point. You do not understand the basic logical fallacy that you are committing: from the fact that terrorists have been predominantly been Western-educated does not follow that Western "indoctrination" does not counteract Jihadism. Because those who have been counteracted do blow themselves up and do not appear in the news.
This is such an easy point to see that I do not know what else to tell you, really.
Wahhabism has existed well before American influence in the Middle East, and its rise to power has been caused by the clash between Western culture, imported as a result of oil wealth, and the highly conservative culture of Saudi Arabia's rural areas. Read the book "The Siege of Mecca", which has been recently recommended to me and has been a very interesting read.
And again, if an attempt to read Islamic doctrine as directly as possible can (rather easily) lead to Wahhabism, then it's a problem that Islam has. I've read the Qur'an, and unless you read it heavily biased through the lens of a-priori accepted liberal values, you will certainly not extract values like freedom of expression, speech, and religion from it. Quite the contrary. And you will have to perform mind-bending intellectual gymnastics to make those two compatible. Which many people in all Abrahamic religions have always tried to do, because thankfully people tend to better than their religious doctrine.
I do not agree with you on quite a bit, but I appreciate your effort in this conversation. Since our posts have grown quite long and since I am currently having a cold with some fever I will probably not respond to an eventual answer that you might post anytime soon. If you are interested in more exchange shoot me a PM. Also, if you think that you have books to recommend that might change my view on all these points, feel free to recommend them to me. I am currently reading stuff on the topic of migration, since we in Europe will have to deal with it intelligently over the coming years, so I am happy for impulses in that direction.
Manmademan
Member
King Burwell was such a stupid case to begin with it should have been 9-0.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
Maurice? Does he speak of the pompetous of love?*
And now people are painting Jeb! as...a weak-ass, immigrant-loving, flip-flopping, establishment liberal pussy.
*for the three Steve Miller fans in the room.
Third Strike
Member
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are political hacks. I never expected otherwise.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yeah, it's nice when one of these actually has a little margin, but too many are too close.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Quite an interesting article about how Clinton's enthusiasm gap with union employees could lead to a lack of ground troops: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/27/us-usa-election-labor-idUSKBN0TG11Y20151127
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Not only was it split, but the liberal justices aren't letting it go and are routinely bringing up how much they dislike the ruling.
Manmademan
Member
me neither. now imagine two more of those just like them that will strike down or uphold literally any nonsense at all based on personal ideology.
It's the absolute worst conceivable possibility. two more scalias would set us back decades.
Would they accept a challenge soon after getting a majority? I'd think they would be more sensitive to precedent in the short-run.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It was a sufficiently contentious majority that I'm not sure. It had one of the strongest and most emphatically made dissents from Stevens I can remember.
RustyNails
Member
Yo
My mind made the wah-wah! noise as soon as I read it, hehe..
There's no doubt in my mind that they'd take a suitable appeal case ASAP. Tons of cases have been overturned, and if they think Citizens was incorrectly decided, they probably won't care about such immaterial factors such as an appeal being "too soon."
Another issue with Citizens United is that a federal statute on limiting campaign spending in regards to SuperPACs would have to pass in order to have its constitutionality challenged, and then would have to be heard by the SCOTUS while also simultaneously upholding this hypothetical statute while also striking down Citizens United.
That seems like the easiest way, but passing anything federally in regards to campaign spending would be a nightmare. A new McCainFeingold would need to pass a Republican House, and only 41 Rs voted for McCain-Feingold in the House in the first place.
I guess there could be others parts of campaign law that you could potentially challenge and bring to the SCOTUS which then opens the scope of the questions to whether Citizens United is still constitutional.
That seems like the easiest way, but passing anything federally in regards to campaign spending would be a nightmare. A new McCainFeingold would need to pass a Republican House, and only 41 Rs voted for McCain-Feingold in the House in the first place.
I guess there could be others parts of campaign law that you could potentially challenge and bring to the SCOTUS which then opens the scope of the questions to whether Citizens United is still constitutional.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
misread carson and christie's shades there and was briefly all da fuq did I miss
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked