Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRik Sunn
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.221)
    Bush's speech last night was a whole new world of crazy.

    The Republicans have established their '08 strategy already, and it doesn't matter who they run. It has a lot more to do with who they can exclude from the voter rolls in key states than it does any kind of platform.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLokiZero
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.222)
    I took a taxi home last night, and the cabbie was listening to a talk radio station. The shit this guy said on the radio almost made my brain explode. His theory is that Barack Obama is a construct of the Clintons, created to make Hillary look good, and now Frankenstein is looking better than she is. He went on to call Bush "Franklin Delano Bush" and that he was a socialist democrat in disguise.
    • CommentAuthorGiuseppeM
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.223)
    Question:
    With the conspiracy theories running rampant after the 2000 Florida fiasco and the close 2004 election, what will the reaction be if Barack(who at this point in time is heralded as the 2nd coming) beats Hilary, but loses to the Republican.

    Would somne extremists see this as the last straw?

    Just wonderin'
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.224)
    I took a taxi home last night, and the cabbie was listening to a talk radio station. The shit this guy said on the radio almost made my brain explode. His theory is that Barack Obama is a construct of the Clintons, created to make Hillary look good, and now Frankenstein is looking better than she is. He went on to call Bush "Franklin Delano Bush" and that he was a socialist democrat in disguise.


    Yeah, those people are nuts. On my way through Indiana once I heard some nut refer to Ronald Reagan as a Trotskyist.

    I just don't get how people think that politicians are these master manipulators who just "know" how the x-factors they allegedly introduce into the system will play to their advantage. My grandparents, for example, were convinced that the elder Bush had paid--yes, paid--Ross Perot to enter the presidential race in 1992 to steal the race from the Democrats.

    What I find even more frightening is how much influence "mainstream" voices like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley have. I mean, I'm dispositionally conservative, but these guys are just mindless thugs and the fact that millions of Americans take them seriously angers me to no end.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.225)
    Question:
    With the conspiracy theories running rampant after the 2000 Florida fiasco and the close 2004 election, what will the reaction be if Barack(who at this point in time is heralded as the 2nd coming) beats Hilary, but loses to the Republican.

    Would somne extremists see this as the last straw?

    Just wonderin'


    I think it really depends on whom the Republicans nominate and what you mean be conspiracy. I think a McCain victory could be seen by people as plausible. As for conspiracies, while I don't buy into the extent of the conspiracy theorists of either year--that the entire result of either year were entirely predetermined and micromanaged all the way to victory--I do think voter suppression efforts were undertaken by the GOP in both years, and could be again this year. That matters in close races, which '00 and '04 were. I think a McCain candidacy won't even be close.
    • CommentAuthorGiuseppeM
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.226)
    I always thought that the voter suppression meme was the most extreme of the bunch, so I don't think we are of the same mind on this one. I am just worried that a rejection of an Obama Presidency will enlarge the already too big, though improving race divide.

    Here in Canada we are a little too obnoxious always questioning whether the US can handle a Black president. Well where the heck is our visible minority representive? Why do we not start looking inwards before we critique others.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.227)
    By "voter suppression" I just meant the disproportionately low number of voting machines that turned up in a lot of traditionally African-American polling places, that's all.

    And as for the race divide, I think you raise a good point. An Obama loss could definitely leave a lot of African-Americans feeling even more alienated from the process. I think, too, that a brokered convention with anyone other than Obama getting the nomination could do much the same thing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLokiZero
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.228)
    What I find even more frightening is how much influence "mainstream" voices like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley have. I mean, I'm dispositionally conservative, but these guys are just mindless thugs and the fact that millions of Americans take them seriously angers me to no end.


    This guy said, "I have a very large, literate audience, despite what the media will tell you, and I have 4 books published."

    I have no idea who he was, but christ, what a nutsack.

    Some people are just basically full of shit, and that's all they have to contribute. But I guess it keeps them in print and on the air, because there are a lot of people who eat that shit up. HATE HATE HATE, that's all they want.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.229)
    This guy said, "I have a very large, literate audience, despite what the media will tell you, and I have 4 books published."


    I once picked up a book that Limpballs wrote, mostly out of curiosity to his appeal. It was basically comprised of one and two syllable words laid out in simple sentence form. Most of it read like a series of bumper stickers with the occasional fortune cookie thrown in. Rush, Hannity, and Oreilly also believe that Frost was being literal when he wrote "good fences make good neighbors", it never occurred to them that Frost was being ironic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.230)
    originalism does not take the view that law or jurisprudence either is or should be stagnant/unchanging: it takes the view that change can legitimately come only from the political branches through statute--i.e., if you're against/for laws limiting/requiring/permitting a practice on which the Constitution is silent, get the relevant legislature to change the law--or constitutional amendment. And, if there isn't the political critical mass necessary to effect those changes, then maybe the world hasn't changed sufficiently to justify the claim that society, and thus the Constitution's requirements, has experienced some "evolvution" that it is the role of the judiciary to divine.


    How does this not negate the power of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government? Not once has the Court written a law. It has provided guidelines that laws must follow in order to maintain constitutionality, something that is inherent in its purpose of interpreting the laws, but even that has only occured in laws that have made it to the Court. Not only that, but the ninth and tenth amendments reserve the rights not enumerated in the constitution for the states and the people respectively. So really, we're free to do what we please unless a specific law tells us otherwise. We don't need the relevant legislature to change the law or amend the constitution.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.231)
    How does this not negate the power of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government? Not once has the Court written a law. It has provided guidelines that laws must follow in order to maintain constitutionality, something that is inherent in its purpose of interpreting the laws, but even that has only occured in laws that have made it to the Court. Not only that, but the ninth and tenth amendments reserve the rights not enumerated in the constitution for the states and the people respectively. So really, we're free to do what we please unless a specific law tells us otherwise. We don't need the relevant legislature to change the law or amend the constitution.


    But, on your ninth and tenth amendment arguments, that means that the states, and their citizens, have the right to govern themselves. The Supreme Court, however, in reading the Constitution beyond its original meaning and injecting into it rights to, say, buy contraceptives, has limited the ninth and tenth amendment rights of the states and their citizens to, if they choose, prohibit the sale of contraceptives.

    Now, I suspect you and I agree that contraceptives ought to be available for sale, which is fine. The Supreme Court, however, has taken that determination away from the states and the people and constitutionalized that policy decision. That is the kind of move that principled originalists are bothered by: not the policy result (legal contraception) but the manner in which it's achieved (through litigation rather than the political process). In constitutionalizing these kinds of policy decisions on its own action, the Supreme Court has "written a law," and that kind of move should properly be regarded by anyone who values self-government as illegitimate.

    Limiting the Court to the application of the words of the Constitution as originally understood, however, still leaves the Court with a huge role in the system: applying that Constitution as originally understood. That doesn't mean that people can't seek to amend the law: it just means that they have to do it through the political process, not litigation.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.232)
    I think you're stretching what the Court did. They didn't stop states and municipalities from prohibiting contraceptives. They affirmed that reproductive rights are protected in the Constitution. I realize that this can be framed as basically a semantic diffference, as the latter directly leads to the former, but the difference is all the difference.

    The purpose of an independent Judiciary, though, is to determine what laws mean and how they relate to the Constitution. If they violate the Constitution, then the action(s) the law attempts to curtail (as laws are meant almost always to curtail behavior) is(are) constitutionally protected behavior. There is no way that a law would be passed that says "states are legally allowed to sell contraceptives if they so choose" because it's something that doesn't need to be legislated. If you don't want to use contraceptives, don't use them and educate your children and the children in your community in such a way (misguided as I may think it to be) that they will choose not to use them as well. I guess what I'm saying is that the law that Roe was challenging is what ended up bringing legal abortion into being. The only way for it to be decided whether reproductive rights are enshrined in the Constitution (barring an arguably needless amendment) is through litigation.

    And the ninth and tenth amendments serve to illustrate my point that Georgia made at the Constitutional Convention: just because there are certain rights protected doesn't mean that these are the only protected rights.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.233)
    I think you're stretching what the Court did. They didn't stop states and municipalities from prohibiting contraceptives.


    Then I think you might want to go back and reread Griswold, because there the Court said that the right of privacy--which it invented in Griswold-- barred the states from prohibiting contraceptives. Again, I think that contraceptives should be available, but I think that people are free to support and get enacted laws with which I disagree, or even find downright dumb.

    There is no way that a law would be passed that says "states are legally allowed to sell contraceptives if they so choose" because it's something that doesn't need to be legislated. If you don't want to use contraceptives, don't use them and educate your children and the children in your community in such a way (misguided as I may think it to be) that they will choose not to use them as well.


    But people could have gone to their legislatures to get laws that outlaw contraceptives repealed. Also, you are obscuring the point that if something isn't prohibited expressly by law, it's legal.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the law that Roe was challenging is what ended up bringing legal abortion into being. The only way for it to be decided whether reproductive rights are enshrined in the Constitution (barring an arguably needless amendment) is through litigation.


    And, similarly, this obscures the point that something can be legal without being constitutionally guaranteed. If you want contraceptives, or abortion, or whatever, legal, and there were a law against it, one can go to the legislature to get it legalized. The only exception, of course, is when the Constitution expressly prohibits something from being legal--like, say, ex post facto laws. But the Constitution is silent on the issues of, say, contraceptives or abortion, and so the people are free to effect their policy wishes in those areas, to either criminalize, legalize, or something in the middle (or at least they would be if the federal courts had not written those issues into the Constitution). This is one of the key theoretical points of originalism: making sure that policy decisions that the Constitution has not taken from the political branches stay in the political branches.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.234)
    i raise my cup to lyons, a man full of snap and mightiness.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.235)
    Well, I don't know about "snap"....
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (438.236)
    "Here in Canada we are a little too obnoxious always questioning whether the US can handle a Black president. Well where the heck is our visible minority representive? Why do we not start looking inwards before we critique others."

    Not quite the same thing I know but:



    Michaƫlle Jean, CC CMM COM CD [mi.ka.?l ???], (born September 6, 1957, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti) is the current Governor General of Canada. Jean was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, on the recommendation of Prime Minister Paul Martin, to succeed Adrienne Clarkson and become the 27th governor general of Canada since Confederation in 1867. Prior to this, Jean was a journalist and broadcaster on Radio-Canada and the CBC. She is the first person of Afro-Caribbean heritage to serve as Governor General, the third woman, and the second immigrant.
  1.  (438.237)
    Thanks to all for keeping this adult and reasoned so far. You all impress me.

    Carry on.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008 edited
     (438.238)
    Florida exit polls show McCain on 34%; Romney on 31; Giuliani on 17% and Huckabee on 13%.

    Giuliani's been claiming there's a huge absentee vote and that he'll win decisively there. But I doubt he has a hope in hell of even getting within 10% of the leaders. In theory, if he wins big next Tuesday he could still win - or go to a contested
    convention and win the nomination there - but it's starting to look unlikely.

    I thought Thompson's withdrawal would help Huckabee but it looks like the religious conservatives are mostly supporting Romney.

    Clinton won big in Florida which is kind of ironic - the decision to strip Democratic state parties of their delegates for running early primaries seems to have been intended to make it easier for her to win on Super Tuesday. Now it's looking like the loss of delegates from Florida and Michigan will hurt her.
  2.  (438.239)
    Lyons,

    The argument put forward by my Con Law prof, which sold me then and I hold too know, is this: (paraphrased but quoted, because its not my original thought)

    There is no a single fair interpretation of any given clause in the Constitution, rather there is a range in which we try to place our findings. What is called judicial activism is no more. and no less then the judiciary interpreting the body itself within that range of both possible and reasonable interpretations. That fact those interpretations, might in part, change overtime is inherent in the notion. We can only look with the eyes we have now and the knowledge we have now upon he document. Putting ourselves into the minds of the framers is not possible and in fact not desirable as such ahistorical acts are no different from any other attempt at interpretation. Those that claim to read clear and unambiguous notions from the document mistake their own choice within the range for the only possible interpretation.



    From this logic I do believe in the penumbra, but I will grant you this: while I disagree with your interpretation, I do think its an well stated one. And I would be very pleased with a privacy amendment which codified the penumbra and removed all doubt arising from the realm of legal theory.

    I do think Scalia is crazy, hearing him talk you either fall in love or get very worried. I find Thomas and Alito to have dreadful legal acumen. Roberts is brilliant, and if he would only not give such incredible deference to the Executive I might respect him on the Bench like I do his record before the Bench. On the other hand, I think Souter is the best mistake the right ever made, and he sometimes competes with Stevens for my favorite Justice.

    What, doesn't everyone rank the Supremes?
  3.  (438.240)
    JTraub,

    Most of my legal knowledge comes second hand through my ConLaw addict girlfriend, but from what I can tell you're spot on with that post. Well said.

    Also, for what it's worth, my original leaning toward Scalia as crazy had less to do with the positions he takes (though I find many of them abhorrent) and much more to do with the way he speaks in transcripts from the court and the opinions that he has written which I have read. In my admittedly less than expert reading, there seems like quite a bit of bad wiring there.

    Moving on...

    What are we looking at now, people? (In the wake of Florida, I mean). Looks like my Pick Hit Romney isn't going to make the final mile after all (he could always blow the rest of his fortune on Super Tuesday...sort of the Presidential Politics version of going "all in" on a poker hand...but it still might not work). Word is Giuliani is dropping out and endorsing McCain today anyway, which would seem likely to throw the race to the Senator. Which means that (looking at poll matchups) if Clinton manages to wrest the nomination back we'll be looking at President Maverick in Jan of 2009. Heck, Obama's only got about a 50-50 shot at beating McCain and that's the best odds of any Democrat. November is looming large and menacing on the horizon.

    But first, the fun part: assuming McCain takes it, what is the ticket going to look like? McCain needs to shore up support from one or more power centers of the Republican party. Who does that for him? McCain-Giuliani? That would bring over the Bush family and NewsCorp. McCain-Thompson? That would appeal more to the GOP base, but they might be a little too redundant in their senior citizen appeal. Plus, as we've seen, Thompson is hideous at campaigning. McCain-Huckabee? Might shore up some evangelical support but would enrage the core of the party establishment, and could lead them to push McCain under the bus in exchange for a better shot in four years with one of their own. Certainly not McCain-Romney, as the one thing all the GOP candidates seem to unite in is their hatred for the Mitt from Massachusetts.

    Likely it would be someone not yet on the stage, maybe someone slightly youthful, to counter worries about McCain's age. Though, personally, I wouldn't discount Giuliani completely.

    Open guesses: Who will be Nixon to McCain's Ike?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.