I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.Originally Posted by Rocker Ute
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
73% of Democrats Want ‘A Fresh Face’ As 2020 Nominee
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_2020_nomineeHillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are among those touted as serious Democratic presidential contenders in 2020, but three-out-of-four Democrats think their party needs to turn to someone new.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely Democratic Voters believe their party should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2020. Just 16% disagree and think the party should promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
Last edited by LA Ute; 07-17-2018 at 01:08 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
I'm not a democrat, but I'm an independent who wants a fresh face. I would also say that Chelsea Clinton or any Bush progeny doesn't count as a fresh face.
Of course, I wanted a fresh face in 2016, and I got one. So be careful what you wish for.
I am enjoying Joe Kennedy.
I've yet to see an attractive candidate floated by either party. Have you?
Let's agree to push candidates that are not on the fringe of their party, and can we rid ourselves of candidates who have a pattern of being a sexual predator - either an actual predator (Trump, Clinton) or someone who has enabled it (HRC). Finally, someone that has some meaningful experience outside a lifetime of feeding from the public trough would be nice. Maybe a Governor that has met a budget building a business at some point in his life. Anyway.....that's what I'm looking for -- a political Easter Bunny.
I want a Romney do-over.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
No cougar club members. That is not negotiable.
This isn't about Trump but I hope we are doing something about it. If he's so big on infrastructure we should be spending money on redundancy, backup systems, etc.
Russian hackers infiltrated US power networks and had the ability to trigger massive blackouts
https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...etworks-2018-7
"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
2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives
https://www.realclearinvestigations....e_a_setup.html
This looks far-fetched to me but it is from Real Clear Investigations, who are serious folks. I'm just posting the article as evidence of what an unholy mess all of this has become. As for its accuracy, I'll quote William Goldman the screenwriter: "Nobody knows anything."
"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
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.
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 02:39 AM.
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 09:24 AM.
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.
You know, as a Republican I wish he had chosen a really strong running mate so he could just declare a yuge victory after one term and let someone suited for the job step in.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.htmlTrump does an about-face, says he misspoke on Russia meddling
President Trump said today that he meant the opposite when he said during his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin that he doesn't see why Russia would have interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Speaking at the White House, the president said he meant he doesn't see why Russia “wouldn't” be responsible. He also said he accepts the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the election, but he denied that his campaign had colluded in the effort.
Last edited by LA Ute; 07-17-2018 at 01:08 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
The amount of words devoted to our president is astounding. How about "the guy is crazy?" We've known it for decades. Nothing new to see here.
Yup, one thing he's never done as president is surprise me.
With Trump I'm regularly shocked, but never surprised.
"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
I'm relieved the debacle with Putin got wide coverage, and that Republicans seemed to find their voices, for a day, at least. For an awakened public, this should give Mueller more room to do his job.
However deep Mueller's trail goes will only be confirmational, and it becomes secondary if the Intel data goes all the way to Trump - he played the role of traitor as well as it could have been done, and the underlying truth is being exposed not by Mueller or Adam Schiff, but by the President himself.
If it's true that John Kelly urged Republicans to speak out, then good on him. Even Orrin Hatch now supports legislation curbing the idiotic tariff games.
The Other Russian Meddling
Democrats howl about Putin’s offenses, but not in Latin America.
ByMary Anastasia O’Grady
July 22, 2018 4:09 p.m. ET
Americans are rightly upset over President Trump’s obsequiousness toward Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. The former KGB agent heads a gangster government, and Mr. Trump should have stood up to him.
On the other hand, Democrats’ moralizing Helsinki hysteria is phony. They’re upset with Mr. Putin’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election because Hillary Clinton lost. When it comes to Russian expansionism in the Western Hemisphere and the Kremlin’s abysmal human-rights record, the American left mostly looks the other way.
Democratic ballyhooing over Mr. Putin’s habit of jailing and sometimes killing his political and media opponents is especially rich. Russia’s longstanding ally Cuba has an even worse civil-liberties record. Yet when President Obama unconditionally reshaped U.S. policy to please Cuban dictator Raúl Castro, his party cheered. Mr. Obama even trotted off to a baseball game in Havana with the Cuban mob boss. Democrats cheered some more.
Advocates of the Obama Cuba policy argue that Havana poses no threat to U.S. interests. But if regional security, stability and economic growth matter, that is demonstrably false. Sixty years after Castro came to power, Cuba, with strong backing from the Kremlin, still underwrites tyranny in Central and South America.
Venezuela is Exhibit A. And now there is blood-soaked Nicaragua, where Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez arrived on Thursday to celebrate the 39th anniversary of the Sandinista rebel victory over dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Daniel Ortega, legendary leader of the Marxist Sandinistas—longtime heroes of Democratic politicians such as former Secretary of State John Kerry, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, to name a few—is at war with his own people. Since April, when university students began peacefully protesting Mr. Ortega’s decade-plus consolidation of power, national police and pro-government militias have cut down some 350 Nicaraguans. Many have been murdered by sniper fire. Others have been shot at close range.
This state terrorism is copied from Venezuela’s military dictatorship, which has flattened its student-led opposition. In both cases a youth movement believed that its commitment to truth and freedom gave it the undisputed moral high ground. In both cases the dictatorship unleashed paramilitary forces to crush them. In both cases students met with jackboots, nighttime raids on their homes, torture and prison.
Both authoritarian regimes are born of the same ideology, and have the same progenitors: Havana and Moscow. Cuba has been instrumental in suffocating dissent in Venezuela by infiltrating the military, academic institutions and media. Now Castro’s regime, together with Caracas, is aiding Mr. Ortega. Students arrested and tortured in Nicaragua have reported hearing Venezuelan and Cuban accents in clandestine jails.
Outside help for intelligence-gathering, paramilitary training and weaponry also comes from beyond Latin America. Clearly, some of it comes directly or indirectly from Moscow. Around 2005, Mr. Putin began rekindling Russia’s warm economic and military relations with Cuba. He also has re-engaged with Nicaragua.
As I noted in a July 8 column, the Interior Ministry of Russia recently completed a multistory “Police Training” center in Managua. Mr. Ortega says it is for counternarcotics work. That’s laughable given Russia’s closeness with narco-states such as Venezuela. A more likely purpose is repressing dissidents so Mr. Ortega can retain power.
In a June 2016 essay for a Central Intelligence Agency peer-reviewed quarterly, Robert Vickers examined Nicaragua’s Cold War history and its current relationship with Russia. Mr. Vickers reminded readers of an airfield 60 kilometers north of Managua called Punta Huete. “It was constructed in the early 1980s—soon after the leftist Sandinista regime took power—with Soviet funds and Cuban technical assistance,” Mr. Vickers wrote. Its exceedingly long runway was designed to accommodate heavy bombers.
The airfield wasn’t finished during the Cold War, and the project sat idle after the Soviet collapse and during the eclipse of Mr. Ortega in the 1990s. But when he returned to power in 2007, the Moscow-Managua axis was restored. Punta Huete was completed in 2010 with, according to Mr. Vickers, “Russian financial assistance.” Russia recently donated two Antonov military transport planes to Nicaragua. It sold Mr. Ortega 50 T-72 tanks in 2016. To what end? One wonders.
Geopolitical and defense analyst W. Alejandro Sánchez discussed the Nicaragua-Russia relationship in the Sept. 25, 2017, issue of National Interest, observing that today “Russia’s most stable and closest friend in the region is arguably Nicaragua.”
Mr. Trump should call Mr. Putin on all this. Meanwhile, if Democrats want their outrage over Russian meddling to be credible, a little concern about the mounting body count in Nicaragua is a good place to start.
Write to O’Grady@wsj.com.
"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
Reply With Quote