ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

Weren't the attacker's attribution still unknown at that time?

Only if you lived in a cave for the past decade or so.

"

faerwin wrote:

Beside, kind of hard to condemn ISIS (or cells of it) harder than declaring a war on them.

Radical Islamic Terrorism. It's not hard to say for normal people. It's also not hard to say Christians.

"

faerwin wrote:

As for Easter, it's celebrated across most faiths with christians roots, which as you know, include many different faiths. So in that sense, I don't really see anything wrong with this. Better to envelop all of them in one go than forgetting one.

Nobody ever says "Easter worshippers". And Easter is a Christian holiday, there's no way around it. Which other faiths celebrate Easter, especially in a church?

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Weren't the attacker's attribution still unknown at that time?

Only if you lived in a cave for the past decade or so.

Note the implicit assumption: whenever there's a terror attack, or a burning, or his keys go missing, Xav can and will assume that it's because of Muslim terrorists.

(Do keep in mind that before the current attack, Sri Lanka hasn't had a non-state terrorist attack in the past decade, and before that, the vast majority of attacks were by the Tamil Tigers, a nationalist seperatist group with no particular religious leanings.)

To this, I can only say:



Then again, it shouldn't be surprising to hear something so vile and wrong come from someone who thinks that saying the right magical 3-word phrase (that focuses the debate in a way that is actively harmful to preventing recruitment and fighting terrorism, which neither of the last two presidents used for this specific reason) will somehow help in the fight against groups like ISIS.

This forum is in dire need of a block button.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the only way out was activist jurisprudence.

Didn't happen.

See, you say this as though the hands of the justices on the bench were tied, and there were no competing legal theory that wouldn't lead to absurd and society-destroying results.

This would seemingly imply that Citizens United was a 9-0 decision.

But... It wasn't. It passed by a 5-4 margin. A straight-up partisan split.

Now, I'll be honest - I haven't read the dissent in Citizens United. However, I tend to assume that in such cases, the dissent has at least some legal merit, and cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as "activist judges".

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of activist jurisprudence — which is my name for anything that isn't originalist jurisprudence. I was explaining why it is tempting to me, and hopefully came close to explaining why it's tempting to large numbers of duly elected and appointed judges around the country. Ultimately I still believe it is not the best way, but let me reiterate: my polite rejection is by no means to be interpreted as a contemptuous dismissal.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

So sorry bro, but I'm not feeling bad about Kavanaugh, or Thomas, or any of the other originalist jurists who aren't activist enough to let special interests shove policy agendas through the judiciary that they could never hope to get through the duly elected Congress.

...Which is funny, because as the Slate article I linked upthread points out:

"In 5–4 decisions in which the Roberts Five constituted the court’s majority, they voted in favor of the position advocated in conservative amicus briefs 93 percent of the time. The Chamber of Commerce, in addition to funding the Federalist Society and supporting Republican candidates, also writes amicus briefs. It took positions in 25 of the Roberts Five cases and won every single time."

Weird, right?

Meanwhile, republicans are trying to get their biggest 2016 campaign promise done in the courts after they failed to get it through the legislature. Funny how that works. Funny how many significant recent republican victories have come from the supreme court, and not the legislature (in fact, most of those victories come specifically from laws passed by the legislature being overturned!). My favorite here remains Shelby, where the majority case was fucking paper-thin and had nothing to do with "respecting the wishes of the legislature", or indeed any decent constitutional backing. With the benefit of hindsight, there is absolutely no denying that RBG's dissent, where she speaks about throwing away an umbrella because you're not getting wet in the rain thanks to said umbrella, was absolutely 100% right on the money. Methinks there is some projection going on here.

You have a good point here, but it's levied more at "originalists" than originalism. You're pointing out how justices can have a partisan agenda and practice activist jurisprudence while cloaking themselves in the pretense of originalism. Originalists in name only, if you will. Or perhaps more accurately: originalists when it's convenient.

In terms of enjoyment in reading opinions and dissents, I have a strong preference for the conservative justices because they sometimes take a firm originalist stance. Because of this Thomas and Kavanaugh sometimes write stuff that makes me proud (I haven't read Kavanaugh since he made SCOTUS, but the stuff before was great). But I would be lying if I told you they consistently do so. Troublingly often my SCOTUS fave Thomas would write something full of twisted logic and unconvincing arguments — or at least unconvincing from an originalist standpoint. I'm not a lawyer by training, but my layman's opinion was that, in those opinions, Thomas was full of shit. And I trust my gut on this.

The sad truth is that they're all activist judges, a microcosm of our larger partisan landscape. Even the retired centrist Justice Kennedy had a healthy dose of activist mentality, even if he perhaps wasn't as partisan about it. A part of me really would like to believe that there are true originalists on the bench, but that's because it's a pleasant fiction. The other part of me knows that the reason conservative justices say the things I like hearing is because they're hypocrites, and the liberal justices are at least open about doing the opposite of what I'd like to see, rather than pretending they're something they're not.

So touché, BPC. You caught me falling for my dark side. Thanks for saying something.

I take back what I said about Kavanaugh and Thomas, that you quoted. Not because I've reconsidered my stance on originalism, but because I should reconsider Thomas' and Kavanaugh's real (as opposed to merely claimed) stances on it. I shouldn't vouch for people I occasionally have a strong disagreement with.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the tax cuts represent a significant boon to typical Americans that pretty much everyone with a W-2 is feeling right about… now. It's refund season, and you're acting as if it's not different this year.

Because, well, it isn't. "Double the standard deduction"? That's nice, how much money does it actually amount to? It looks like a few hundred bucks.

Your elitism is so thick I could cut it with a knife. If the Democratic presidential nominee is stupid enough to parrot this point publicly, they autolose. Trump will pick up the sound bites like a cudgel and beat their candidacy to death with it.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Personally, I'm curious how originalist judges help "the average American". Those originalists sure are big fans of union-busting, and aren't huge fans of universal health care. In fact, the Roberts court has been a years-long history of decisions that are notably horrendous for "the average American" - Slate has a nice overview here. My personal favorites: Citizens United, which means that if you're rich enough to buy up TV channels nationwide, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your free speech being a million times louder and more present than mine; Shelby County, which means that if your state has a history of voter suppression it is likely to continue that history; and the truly bizarre NIFLA v. Beccera, which means that health care providers that aren't actually health care providers have no requirement to admit that up front - always great for the "average American" when crisis pregnancy centers are able to defraud them.

This is a bit like saying that the Trump tax cuts help "the average American", when in reality almost all of the gains went to the top 1%, and the people who passed it immediately used the huge deficits they gained as a result as an excuse to go after things that really do benefit the average American, like Medicare and Social Security. And "deregulation"? Sure, okay, let's hear how deregulation helps the average American. And if you want to say "it's good for the economy", please bring actual receipts on which regulations were cut and what effect they are estimated to have on the economy.

It's kind of telling that all Aim_Deep can come up with is this vague boilerplate and a tax cut that really doesn't amount to much. And even he's not stupid enough to support Trump's border wall. Hey guys, newsflash - the points on our border where it would be useful or valuable to have a wall? We already have a wall!

USA is supposed to be a free country bro not one you take from others and give to others. And I mean free in all facets financial movement speech etc.

I'm a open borders republican like libertarians are. Maximum freedom. Maximum competition.

I dont like the socialist wing of the republican party either who wants to protect labor markets, their public schools class size which we shouldn't have, or whatever from competition.

Thats why I oppose walls not so much ineffective which they are too mostly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of activist jurisprudence — which is my name for anything that isn't originalist jurisprudence. I was explaining why it is tempting to me, and hopefully came close to explaining why it's tempting to large numbers of duly elected and appointed judges around the country. Ultimately I still believe it is not the best way, but let me reiterate: my polite rejection is by no means to be interpreted as a contemptuous dismissal.

I mean... the name itself is rather dismissive, isn't it? It really implies that if you're not an originalist, your opinion doesn't have much to do with the constitution. "Pragmatist" is a slightly less loaded term, albeit perhaps a bit too euphemistic in the other direction.

"

You have a good point here, but it's levied more at "originalists" than originalism. You're pointing out how justices can have a partisan agenda and practice activist jurisprudence while cloaking themselves in the pretense of originalism. Originalists in name only, if you will. Or perhaps more accurately: originalists when it's convenient.

This seems a bit like saying, "I'm not a liar, I only lie when it's important!"

Now, it isn't fair to pin this on you, as you seem to be explicitly avoiding this, but in the larger cultural context, originalism isn't simply a judicial philosophy that competes with pragmatism or natural law theory. It is also a cudgel used by the right wing to imply that anyone who isn't an originalist is a bad judge. Anyone who isn't an "originalist" is an "activist" who cannot be trusted to actually uphold the law, and whose opinions are worthless, whereas originalist judges do uphold the law.

But this principle is only really valuable to the point where it is consistent. And there isn't a consistent originalist on the supreme court. Some right-wing judges will explicitly appeal to originalism, but it's not particularly helpful in finding the "activist" judges in this case. I see the majority in Shelby County to be one of the most disgusting pieces of judicial activism in our recent history, and NIFLA vs. Beccera is also pretty high on that list. And in both cases, it was the alleged "originalists" who penned the majority opinion splitting with the existing jurisprudence of Casey v. PP based on a distinction without a difference, and the alleged "activists" who adhered to it.

Again, I realize I'm kind of talking past you specifically, and kudos to you for not being part of that... thing, but I feel like establishing the larger cultural context is important here so you understand why I see "originalist" as such a loaded term.

"

The sad truth is that they're all activist judges, a microcosm of our larger partisan landscape. Even the retired centrist Justice Kennedy had a healthy dose of activist mentality, even if he perhaps wasn't as partisan about it. A part of me really would like to believe that there are true originalists on the bench, but that's because it's a pleasant fiction. The other part of me knows that the reason conservative justices say the things I like hearing is because they're hypocrites, and the liberal justices are at least open about doing the opposite of what I'd like to see, rather than pretending they're something they're not.

SCOTUS as an institution was already pretty messed up before the republicans blatantly stole a seat on it. :/

"

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the tax cuts represent a significant boon to typical Americans that pretty much everyone with a W-2 is feeling right about… now. It's refund season, and you're acting as if it's not different this year.

Because, well, it isn't. "Double the standard deduction"? That's nice, how much money does it actually amount to? It looks like a few hundred bucks.

Your elitism is so thick I could cut it with a knife.

I linked this article in the quote.

https://itep.org/we-crunched-some-numbers-to-show-what-tax-reform-for-working-people-really-looks-like/

Two things.

Firstly, while people in the middle 60% got a few hundred to a little over a thousand on average (and the poorest 20% got basically fucking nothing), the richest 1% got, on average, $50,000 back. Which seems like a lot, especially since the top 1% ain't exactly struggling at the moment; they need a tax cut the way someone who still thinks Hillary is relevant needs repeated severe head trauma*.

Secondly, the article goes ahead and compares that to the proposed GAIN act, a tax cut put forward by Ro Khanna and Sherrod Brown (which for some reason didn't go anywhere, I wonder why). In that tax cut, the middle class gets substantially more, and the top 1% gets... nothing. Which is good, because the top 1% needs a tax cut the way a cue ball needs a hairdresser.

When we're talking about a "significant boon"... Well, okay, $700 isn't exactly "nothing". It's a decent chunk of change. But we need to consider the overall cost, and also the opportunity cost. If it was just about the tax break... Well, the GAIN act would have cost less while giving significantly more to those in need and not wasting a bunch of money on tax breaks for the rich, who need a tax cut the way Xav needs reasons to hate muslims. And given that the overall cost now seems to include "massive cuts for social safety net programs", and that this was obviously the goal from the beginning... I'm sorry, it's not worth it. It's yet another wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the super-rich, one which has not, as tax cuts consistently fail to do, paid for itself.

And that's without getting into things like the passthrough tax (which Trump personally benefits from), the estate tax (which Trump personally benefits from), and the corporate tax (do I even have to say it?), all of which are massive giveaways to the rich and to large corporations.

*This is almost a good analogy but I feel like anyone who gets my joke is going to also find at least one reason why it means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Progressive Seattle is dying as are most places were you give them full control (LA, SF etc)

Sad video. Real journalism not this Trump conspiracy theories 24/7 MSM does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

Socialism and not enforcing private property and Rule of Law didnt work before and doesnt work now. It will never work. Get over it Budget player and stop trying. It can only lead to ruin.

Bigger govt gets more Gini index grow. I wonder why? Because then the rich only have to buy off a few venal pol for their profits instead of all Americans.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

USA is supposed to be a free country bro not one you take from others and give to others. And I mean free in all facets financial movement speech etc.

So can I take this to mean you haven't really given much thought to the question "which regulations are helpful in what ways"?

"

I dont like the socialist wing of the republican party

I think I need to have a little lie-down.

And a few very stiff drinks.

"Socialist wing of the republican party"

Jeeeeeeeezusssssss.

"

their public schools class size which we shouldn't have,

Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't have public schools?

EDIT: sorry, that's not fair, that statement is inherently unserious, as is anyone saying it. I should have said, "Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't have public schools?"

The Federal government shouldnt be involved in Public schools. It's not in the enumerated powers congress is allowed and has proven a disaster. Private schools destroy them at all levels and localized public schools in the past before DOE got involved did as well. As a general rule I'm not in favor of them. Not only do you have to take by force from others to make them they go unappreciated because they are free, get bloated bureaucracies which do nothing to educate. But states are free to choose them. They are the labs for Democracy not the Feds.

"

"Socialist wing of the republican party"

Jeeeeeeeezusssssss.

They are very socialist. Tariffs. Never seen a weapons system they didnt like (and spread out to all 50 states so everyone gets a piece of the action), Farm Aid, etc.

They are just less so than the other party.

As they say we have to choose lessor of two evils in this two party system. Republicans are only a little closer to what founders had in mind so I vote there. Not any great love for Trump and I'm honest about him.

"

So can I take this to mean you haven't really given much thought to the question "which regulations are helpful in what ways"?

I do all the time and the results are pretty bad. Since gov got involeed on war on poverty GINI grows. Since they got involved on war on drugs - drug use soars and cartels flourish causing the immigration crisis we see at the Southern Border. WOT, Education, HC costs, pretty much everything they touch gets worse. And I'll explain why. The systems are co opted by the rich, unaccountable bureaucrats, and their venal politicians and community, volunteerism, and charity dies because those with means feel gov should be taking care for all they pay in taxes.

Even progressives get very very selfish as the Seattle video highlights as they walk past street peoples all day long as if they are not there because they are taxed sky high there.