Page 35 of 47 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,050 of 1410

Thread: Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

  1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I hope he doesn’t nominate a Gorsuch or a Thomas. Another Kennedy or a Lewis Powell would be fine.

    I suspect it totally depends on whether Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and maybe a couple of others will show a spine. Right before midterms, he is going to want to throw out a lot of red meat.

  2. #1022
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565

    Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Senate Democrats should drape a big "Mitch's Team" banner across the back of the chambers and filibuster any nominee Trump names, then refuse to consider anyone he nominates after they take back the Senate.
    The Biden Rule applies during presidential election years. It's about who gets to nominate the justice, not who gets to confirm him.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 06-27-2018 at 11:51 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #1023
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    The Biden Rule applies during presidential election years. It's about who gets to nominate the justice, not to confirm him.
    This kind of stuff reminds me of board games as a kid, you just make up new rules to make sure you win




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #1024
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    This kind of stuff reminds me of board games as a kid, you just make up new rules to make sure you win
    lol.


    I know conservatives want to criminalize abortion, and remove what's left of the ACA. What else is on the right wing agenda? Seems like a lot of litigation lining up against what Scott Pruitt is doing at the EPA, maybe we'll see the whole concept of environmental regulations thrown out? Majority rules on letting states & municipalities codify religious law - as long as it's not the feds, right?

    (I believe that was the argument regarding Santa Fe HS in Texas when the ACLU defended a Mormon & Catholic family against prayers over the PA from student body officers for Jesus to help the Mormons & Catholics see the light and the error of their cultish ways and come to the one true savior.)

    I have to admit I don't understand LA's hope that it's not another arch-rightist.

  5. #1025
    Didn't take long for the North Koreans to defy Trump... not that it will make any difference to adherents of the Trump Party: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/06...ze-report.html

    Anyone want to take any guesses about the results of the Trump-Putin summit coming up? We pulled out of the UN Human Rights Commission, taking care of that potential snag.

  6. #1026
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I hope he doesn’t nominate a Gorsuch or a Thomas. Another Kennedy or a Lewis Powell would be fine.
    How ridiculous is the supreme court, though? We have our nation's ever-dividing big issue - abortion - and its fate lies in the hands of this group of ancient academics, appointed for life. The composition of the court doesn't necessarily ever reflect the needs/desires of the nation, and any one president can have a disproportionate influence on the course of the nation by nothing more than the dumb luck of timing. I have liberal friends who are in full panic mode over the retirement of just one old guy. Bruni - one of the better NYTimes writers - is dramatically anticipating the collapse of all human rights. It's a messed up system.

  7. #1027
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    How ridiculous is the supreme court, though? We have our nation's ever-dividing big issue - abortion - and its fate lies in the hands of this group of ancient academics, appointed for life. The composition of the court doesn't necessarily ever reflect the needs/desires of the nation, and any one president can have a disproportionate influence on the course of the nation by nothing more than the dumb luck of timing. I have liberal friends who are in full panic mode over the retirement of just one old guy. Bruni - one of the better NYTimes writers - is dramatically anticipating the collapse of all human rights. It's a messed up system.
    Imagine how conservatives felt with Obama nominating Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotamayor? People's rights will survive. John Roberts and other conservatives in the court have all expressed their belief in stare decisis. It won't be that easy to overturn Roe v Wade and who knows what else.

  8. #1028
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    Didn't take long for the North Koreans to defy Trump... not that it will make any difference to adherents of the Trump Party: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/06...ze-report.html

    Anyone want to take any guesses about the results of the Trump-Putin summit coming up? We pulled out of the UN Human Rights Commission, taking care of that potential snag.
    Well, since Putin owns Trump (those naked photos of him, you know) I'm sure we can expect a joint agreement on something like a Russian-American non-aggression pact. Maybe cooperation in intelligence matters, free U.S. college education for Russian kids, a Russian wing added to the White House. The possibilities are endless.

    time_trump_russia.jpg

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #1029
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Imagine how conservatives felt with Obama nominating Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotamayor? People's rights will survive. John Roberts and other conservatives in the court have all expressed their belief in stare decisis. It won't be that easy to overturn Roe v Wade and who knows what else.
    I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

    From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.

  10. #1030
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

    From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.
    Pre 1970 justices averaged service was 15 years. It’s ballooned to 26 years after 1970.

    Since 1977 only 12 justices have been placed on the court.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #1031
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565
    What's interesting to me is that the whole country now convulses, politically, when a SCOTUS position opens. The Supreme Court may have become more important than it ideally should be.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  12. #1032
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

    From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.
    But for stare decisis Roe v. Wade would have been overturned decades ago.

  13. #1033
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    But for stare decisis Roe v. Wade would have been overturned decades ago.
    Maybe. That's unknowable.

    I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.

  14. #1034

    Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Maybe. That's unknowable.

    I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.
    Most cases are. I've read a few times that something like 20% of cases are narrowly determined and in recent years that number has been down in the low teens.

    Even the Colorado Cake Maker case was 7-2


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Rocker Ute; 06-29-2018 at 03:39 AM.

  15. #1035
    I'm opposed to the harassing of politicians in their private lives, and I am especially opposed to personal threats, but I am finding it quite amusing that Maxine Waters is now complaining about the public harassing her as a politician.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #1036
    So if it’s not ok to nominate SCJ in election years I assume presidents who are the subject of an investigation should also refrain


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #1037
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Most cases are. I've read a few times that something like 20% of cases are narrowly determined and in recent years that number has been down in the low teens.

    Even the Colorado Cake Maker case was 7-2
    Okay, I'll wade even deeper into something I know nothing about. I feel like everyone 'round here already knows I'm a moron, but I want to state it explicitly just in case.

    Isn't that stat misleading because most supreme court cases aren't big, political, or controversial? Weren't this week's controversial cases both 5-4?

    With the cake, didn't they just punt on the issue?

    What are the well known cases where justices went against their politics in a ruling? The ones I can think of deal with conservatives backing off, like Roberts with Obamacare. You could say those were related to precedent, but they might just be fear or logic or any number of other things.
    Last edited by sancho; 06-29-2018 at 10:24 AM.

  18. #1038
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Well, since Putin owns Trump (those naked photos of him, you know) I'm sure we can expect a joint agreement on something like a Russian-American non-aggression pact. Maybe cooperation in intelligence matters, free U.S. college education for Russian kids, a Russian wing added to the White House. The possibilities are endless.
    I think it will be mostly an ice-breaker meeting, devoid of details or agreements (like the UK-NK summit), but with certainly less fanfare, given that 60%+ of the nation still remembers what happened with the 2016 elections and (maybe) 5% of nation remembers about Crimea, Ukraine, the Malaysian Airlines shoot down, the bio-attack in London 3 long months ago, etc. Trump's feeling his oats, the Russian investigation is getting marginalized and discredited, Mueller will be painted as a old patriot deceived by partisan FBI agents who led him in a wrong way.

    Mostly Putin-Trump will be about further desensitizing the nation about the realignment of the international order - the US involvement in the post WWII western alignment is dissolving quickly, Trump has a clear affinity toward autocratic dictators - Putin, Kim, Duterte (7000+ death squad killings). Put another way - can *you* imagine Obama praising & elevating Kim like that? In the last week Kim executed a military officer who gave soldiers extra food. No joke.

    As this point, who cares about any "pee tape" that might emerge? It's sort of irrelevant now, everyone knows Trump is "not an angel" and any outrage would be explained away as Trump Derangement Syndrome by unhinged Dems. The "Fake News" tag is implanted in everyone's brain, more will believe it if the news contradicts what they feel in their heart the good thing that Trump is ruling the nation, and the media is our enemy, etc.

    I have to admit fascination at how quickly Republicans have morphed into the Party of Trump. There are a few truth tellers left - McCain, Corker, Graham, Flake [soon just Graham]- and a whole lot of Republicans bailing out, seeing the wave of authoritarian hunger making them forget their previous principles and cower at the new intra-party reality. (I remember some lectures at the U about the Authoritarian Personality complex - it's amazing how accurate those insights were, so long ago.)

    I don't believe in the White Horse Prophecy, of course, but I do believe Mitt Romney may play a pivotal role if America will continue democratic rule, in the longer term. He can bob & weave as well as Trump - a key survival skill. But underneath it all, I think Romney has a base moral compass and the intelligence to know when it is being pressured to change. (Hindsight is 20/20, it's impossible to know what the course might have been, but considering what has happened, what we've learned about human nature, I think America might have been better off if Romney won in 2012. How's that for honest reflection?)

    But one thing I've learned from our patients is that every day is a gift, and I'm going to go soak up a beautiful Friday here in Los Angeles and think about how I can do something good for the people I love.
    Last edited by Ma'ake; 07-01-2018 at 10:43 AM.

  19. #1039
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Maybe. That's unknowable.

    I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.
    Read the plurality opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

  20. #1040
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Read the plurality opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
    Well, we all know I'm not going to do that. I'm barely literate at all. No way I could understand something like that.

    So you win...this time.

  21. #1041
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565
    I liked the point-counterpoint video in this story (disregard the Washington Post headline):

    Trump Country, it turns out, is more tolerant than the left


    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  22. #1042
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,227
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I liked the point-counterpoint video in this story (disregard the Washington Post headline):

    Trump Country, it turns out, is more tolerant than the left

    It's a false equivalency to compare a few interrupted lunches with this type of thing that happens all the time.


  23. #1043
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    From my point of view, there is no point where it's permissible to treat others poorly. I've certainly broken that rule myself, but I don't feel good or justified about it.

    The two arguments I've seen attempting to justify this:

    (1) We've always had incivility. _______________ was uncivil (recently or 200 years ago). Why, then, should we be civil?

    and

    (2) There's never been a more grotesque president, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Basically, we need to fight fire with fire.

    I don't find either argument compelling, but I tend to see things from a christian point of view. Even from a strategic/political point of view, however, the restaurant owner hurt her own cause. She'd have served her cause (which is a good cause, I think) better by just giving that women her dinner.
    Add a few arguments since last week:

    3) Well, they are worse!

    4) Well behaved protesters seldom make history.

    Again, not very compelling. There just aren't many instances where being mean to someone is better than turning the other cheek.

  24. #1044
    So it sounds like Trump wants to meet privately with Putin in his upcoming employee review. Anybody okay with that?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #1045

    Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight Schr-Ute View Post
    So it sounds like Trump wants to meet privately with Putin in his upcoming employee review. Anybody okay with that?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ha, maybe they are going to watch the [strike]pee tape [\strike] World Cup together.

  26. #1046
    In response to Pruitt's resignation today.



    :eyeroll:

  27. #1047
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight Schr-Ute View Post
    In response to Pruitt's resignation today.
    Snowflakes...

  28. #1048
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565
    Seth Lipsky, Long-time conservative pundit in the Reagan mold:

    This line of thinking was nicely articulated the other day by The New York Times’ David Leonhardt in a column urging liberals not to despair. Leonhardt didn’t go so far as to suggest that a right-wing court would be the “best” thing in years. He did, though, urge a course of realism and a new strategy for pursuing liberal policies.

    Like, say, winning elections.

    “Over the last half-century, conservatives have put more energy into building a movement,” Leonhardt wrote. Above all, he added, “winning local, state and congressional elections.”

    Democrats, meanwhile, “have emphasized higher-profile politics, like the presidency and landmark court cases.” Leonhardt suggested Democrats “can’t afford to do so anymore.”

    Those strike me as wise words as we stand at the brink of what might yet come to be called the Trump court. And they are words to mark for the conservative caucus, too.

    After all, we were there once.
    https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/losing...uable-lessons/

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  29. #1049
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Seth Lipsky, Long-time conservative pundit in the Reagan mold:



    https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/losing...uable-lessons/
    Many years ago a then-Republican friend of mine said that the Warren Court created New Republicans and energized existing ones. I didn't disagree with him. Hope we see the same phenomenon the next decade. I'm not sure it will, though. That Court helped create the law and order Republicans. I don't see a new issue coming out of this Court that will create a new issues where the camps are not already well established. Sounds like Lipsky has a good point.

  30. #1050
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Many years ago a then-Republican friend of mine said that the Warren Court created New Republicans and energized existing ones. I didn't disagree with him. Hope we see the same phenomenon the next decade. I'm not sure it will, though. That Court helped create the law and order Republicans. I don't see a new issue coming out of this Court that will create a new issues where the camps are not already well established. Sounds like Lipsky has a good point.
    I just think the SCOTUS has become too doggone important.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •