Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9025 total)
81 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK (3 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,309 Year: 955/14,102 Month: 358/597 Week: 136/96 Day: 4/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2020 Election early voting and eventually results
jar
Member
Posts: 33175
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 181 of 200 (883140)
11-08-2020 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by dwise1
11-07-2020 11:23 PM


Re: 74 days until Ding Dong
dwise1 writes:

The thing is that none of this is new!

And the fact that there is ANYONE over the age of 12 in the US that is NOT aware of all of this can only be through their willfully deciding to ignore ALL of the reporting about this that has been done over the last four years as well as all of the history of Trump failures and bankruptcies when it comes to business.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 11-07-2020 11:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Phat, posted 11-08-2020 11:13 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14943
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 182 of 200 (883147)
11-08-2020 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by dwise1
11-07-2020 11:23 PM


I Beg Your Pardon?
dwise1 writes:

Part of getting a security clearance is being able to show that you are trustworthy and that you are not a risk. For example, Jared Kushner demonstrated that he is not trustworthy by lying on his security questionnaire (SF 86).

Which brings up the issue of whether there will be any presidential pardons.

As 2020 comes to a close, we may yet see just how corrupt this previous administration actually was.

And I'm sure that the opponents of President Elect Biden will keep trying to expose dirt on Hunter.

I have heard that Republicans in general fear China more than Russia and that the Democrats seem less worried about China. I don't trust them. The CCP is a threat to the world and to our economic growth.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 11-07-2020 11:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 11-08-2020 11:12 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16723
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 183 of 200 (883149)
11-08-2020 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Phat
11-08-2020 11:03 AM


Re: I Beg Your Pardon?
Don’t believe that the Democrats are not worried about China. Obama was going for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to counter Chinese influence. Trump dropped out of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Phat, posted 11-08-2020 11:03 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14943
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 184 of 200 (883150)
11-08-2020 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
11-08-2020 7:04 AM


Re: 74 days until Ding Dong
jar writes:

And the fact that there is ANYONE over the age of 12 in the US that is NOT aware of all of this can only be through their willfully deciding to ignore ALL of the reporting about this that has been done over the last four years as well as all of the history of Trump failures and bankruptcies when it comes to business.

*sigh*...Your ego is nearly as big as Trumps!

The fact that I don't know more about this stuff is that I was lazy and didn't read all of the news sources. I didn't really care where Trump did business or how he did it. I don't really care too much about Joe Biden's family business and Hunter Biden and all that stuff either. I only begin caring when it effects me. And so far I trust the new administration. About the only rumors I have heard is that Pelosi, McConnell, and Biden all have financial interests in China., And I don't trust China largely because I don't trust unbridled competition and don't want them running the world.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 11-08-2020 7:04 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 11-08-2020 11:48 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33175
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(3)
Message 185 of 200 (883151)
11-08-2020 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Phat
11-08-2020 11:13 AM


Re: 74 days until Ding Dong
Phat writes:

The fact that I don't know more about this stuff is that I was lazy and didn't read all of the news sources.

Exactly.

We got Trump because tens of millions of Americans are lazy and don't pay any attention to reality; instead preferring "Reality TV".


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Phat, posted 11-08-2020 11:13 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5575
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 186 of 200 (883162)
11-08-2020 11:21 PM


Just so those who may think I was being a wee bit negatively pessimistic (Who? Me? Message 176) about the damage that Lame-Brain Cheeto-Duck could inflict upon the universe (or at least our quasi-quadrant of the galaxy) during his rump rule in the next 70-+ days, here is a clarion call from a news power on high to warn as well of the impending Trumpian doom.

Wrecking ball: the damage Trump could do while still president until January

Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 700
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 187 of 200 (883762)
01-10-2021 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
11-03-2020 12:57 AM


But your political position is what determines where you think the "balance point" should be!

Or . . . wait a minute . . . are you talking about the distribution of political opinion in the electorate? Justices should be about half-and-half Republican and Democrat?

So that if, say, one ninth of the population believed in white supremacy you'd support the nomination of one justice (out of nine) who is an avowed white supremacist? How about the people who believe religion should be taught in public schools? How about the global warming "deniers"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2020 12:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2021 9:27 AM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 10:52 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1215
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 188 of 200 (883764)
01-10-2021 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2021 9:19 AM


Justices and judges should be apolitical. Separation of powers, as Montesquieu got right a couple of centuries ago.

Split power between the executive, the legislature and the executive. They don’t stray into each other’s territory, but they each have power to hold in check any attempt at despotism. That’s why the judiciary should be apolitical - so that they aren’t beholden to the masses which can propel a despot to power.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2021 9:19 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-12-2021 7:28 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16723
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 189 of 200 (883769)
01-10-2021 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2021 9:19 AM


quote:
But your political position is what determines where you think the "balance point" should be!

Then I guess that makes me a Centrist.

quote:
Or . . . wait a minute . . . are you talking about the distribution of political opinion in the electorate? Justices should be about half-and-half Republican and Democrat?

No, roughly half conservative (which the Republican Party largely isn’t now) and roughly half liberal.

quote:
So that if, say, one ninth of the population believed in white supremacy you'd support the nomination of one justice (out of nine) who is an avowed white supremacist? How about the people who believe religion should be taught in public schools? How about the global warming "deniers"?

You do like inventing strawmen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2021 9:19 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-12-2021 7:37 PM PaulK has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 700
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 190 of 200 (883806)
01-12-2021 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by vimesey
01-10-2021 9:27 AM


But what does apolitical mean? They surely will have views on the important issues of the day. Presumably you mean they shouldn't be campaigning to have their views put into law, or (even worse) allow their views to affect their rulings.

That I do agree with. The last thing we need is a judiciary saying, "I know the law says X but my ruling is that, instead, it means Y."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2021 9:27 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 700
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 191 of 200 (883807)
01-12-2021 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
01-10-2021 10:52 AM


Most people, in my experience, like to think of themselves as centrists ("Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, ...")

But anyway, the idea of trying to fix a political makeup of the court falls apart when you realize that justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views, as you've conceded by ridiculing the idea that a white supremacist or global warming denier justice would be justified by public opinion.

Justices have enough trouble just reading the laws, reconciling the contradictions, cutting through the confusion of poorly written legislation and trying to apply laws to new situations as they come up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 10:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2021 9:31 PM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2021 9:38 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5575
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 192 of 200 (883809)
01-12-2021 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Sarah Bellum
01-12-2021 7:37 PM


... justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views ...

For the most part you are right that ...

quote:
Justices have enough trouble just reading the laws, reconciling the contradictions, cutting through the confusion of poorly written legislation and trying to apply laws to new situations as they come up.

But there are political, social justice, human integrity and privacy issues bubbling up the Fed Court system since forever.

The invented (some would say "uncovered") right to privacy in the Constitution (which led directly to RoevWade and so many other personal rights) is open to interpretation along ideological lines. There are others.

The temperament of those justices in aggregate will determine if we keep those rights. And it appears we will not.

Supreme Court reinstates restrictions on abortion pill

The political makeup of the court is central to how the court will decide on many social issues.

It is not some side issue to be debated in academia. The court is the central core of how our society will conduct itself. Their ideological leanings are crucial to many of their more significant decisions in the past. The same as it will be in the future.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-12-2021 7:37 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-16-2021 7:54 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 700
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 193 of 200 (883865)
01-16-2021 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AZPaul3
01-12-2021 9:31 PM


Ideological leanings, unfortunately, are the problem here. When courts decide to be legislators, as they did in Dred Scott, Korematsu, Kelo vs. City of New London, Roe vs. Wade and others it negatively affects how society will conduct itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2021 9:31 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 01-16-2021 1:03 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16723
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 194 of 200 (883868)
01-16-2021 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Sarah Bellum
01-12-2021 7:37 PM


quote:
Most people, in my experience, like to think of themselves as centrists ("Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, ...")

Then maybe that’s your problem. You are much further to the Right than you like to think.

quote:
But anyway, the idea of trying to fix a political makeup of the court falls apart when you realize that justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views, as you've conceded by ridiculing the idea that a white supremacist or global warming denier justice would be justified by public opinion.

This is foolish again. Judges are not supposed to rule according to silly dogmas associated with ideologies, but that is hardly the limit of politics. There is the whole question of judicial philosophises, for a start. Not to mention biases based in political standpoints.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court of all courts is badly in need of checks on judge’s bias - and especially when judges do let their political views colour their decisions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-12-2021 7:37 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by AZPaul3, posted 01-16-2021 1:16 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-21-2021 6:30 PM PaulK has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5575
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 195 of 200 (883874)
01-16-2021 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Sarah Bellum
01-16-2021 7:54 AM


Dred Scott was decided on the racist views of the law held by society at the time. The court did not legislate but affirmed racist law. Blacks were not citizens and did not have recourse to federal courts. Court ruled with the law at the time. Not legislated. Right but missed major opportunity to legislate and apply equal citizenship to blacks

Korematsu was not legislating by the court but is the court being cowed by the social fears of a society at war. Not legislation. Just wrong decision.

New London was not legislated but was, in keeping with their duty, the court interpreting the language of "public use" and "public purpose". And they had ample SCOTUS precedent for their ruling.

Roe was either the "invention" (legislation) of a right to privacy or was the "discovery" of such a right deep in the language of the constitution. You say tomato ...

Roe v Wade has had a major POSITIVE role in expanding and strengthening individual and group rights to marginalized peoples that are already enjoyed by the privileged white class.

Ideological leanings are part of the landscape. In our human institutions and dealings they cannot be avoided. That is why no one court has a solo say in anything. Not even the Supremes.

This is a reality of the human condition.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-16-2021 7:54 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-21-2021 6:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021