Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Short version: gerrymandering over the last 20 years has reduced the number of genuinely competitive House seats to a scary low number.
Not surprising, really, but it definitely makes me want to push for a politically independent group to be the one drawing the lines. I don't care if it means I'm still sitting in a red district, right is right (pun not intended).
In an age of almost hyper partisanship, and with the population drifting further apart in their political views, how would one find a politically independent group and keep it's work independent in the face of an inevitable propaganda campaign against it?
The same ways as we have gotten every other non-partisan committee or oversight group ever?
Plus, if districts are more competitive, it's likely to decrease partisanship, as congresspeople will have to be more moderate to stay elected.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Short version: gerrymandering over the last 20 years has reduced the number of genuinely competitive House seats to a scary low number.
Not surprising, really, but it definitely makes me want to push for a politically independent group to be the one drawing the lines. I don't care if it means I'm still sitting in a red district, right is right (pun not intended).
In an age of almost hyper partisanship, and with the population drifting further apart in their political views, how would one find a politically independent group and keep it's work independent in the face of an inevitable propaganda campaign against it?
There's got to be some way to do it. Give a grant to some enterprising geographical data department somewhere to develop a computer model that would divide up a state by equal population. Don't tell them what it will be used for. Heck, one probably already exists that was made for other purposes. Or if you think it will still be politicized, hire a foreign firm to develop the model. Recompute every census. Or if you really want it random, divide a state into a grid of equal sized boxes. The number of boxes equal to the number of districts. Then every four years, shift the grid exactly the same direction by exactly the same amount. Or better yet, roll a scatter dice. some years some boxes will be more valuable than others, but it would make for a more non politicized map at least.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/08 16:31:05
Wasn't there a study that showed that gerrymandering was part of the reason for hyper-partisanship? That when one lives in an echo chamber the need to listen to everyone is incredibly lessened and that it increase the "us vs. them" thinking that leads people to seeing those with different viewpoints not as having different viewpoints but being the enemy. It encouraged bifurcated thinking.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Short version: gerrymandering over the last 20 years has reduced the number of genuinely competitive House seats to a scary low number.
Not surprising, really, but it definitely makes me want to push for a politically independent group to be the one drawing the lines. I don't care if it means I'm still sitting in a red district, right is right (pun not intended).
In an age of almost hyper partisanship, and with the population drifting further apart in their political views, how would one find a politically independent group and keep it's work independent in the face of an inevitable propaganda campaign against it?
The same ways as we have gotten every other non-partisan committee or oversight group ever?
Short version: gerrymandering over the last 20 years has reduced the number of genuinely competitive House seats to a scary low number.
Not surprising, really, but it definitely makes me want to push for a politically independent group to be the one drawing the lines. I don't care if it means I'm still sitting in a red district, right is right (pun not intended).
In an age of almost hyper partisanship, and with the population drifting further apart in their political views, how would one find a politically independent group and keep it's work independent in the face of an inevitable propaganda campaign against it?
The same ways as we have gotten every other non-partisan committee or oversight group ever?
Which is....
Depends on the state and area.
But I think you know that already and are just being obtuse in an attempt to score points.
Short version: gerrymandering over the last 20 years has reduced the number of genuinely competitive House seats to a scary low number.
Not surprising, really, but it definitely makes me want to push for a politically independent group to be the one drawing the lines. I don't care if it means I'm still sitting in a red district, right is right (pun not intended).
In an age of almost hyper partisanship, and with the population drifting further apart in their political views, how would one find a politically independent group and keep it's work independent in the face of an inevitable propaganda campaign against it?
The same ways as we have gotten every other non-partisan committee or oversight group ever?
Which is....
Depends on the state and area.
But I think you know that already and are just being obtuse in an attempt to score points.
I am unsure how I am attempting "to score points" by asking how you keep a non-partisan body non-partisan, especially given that previous discussions on the redrawing of districts have frequently gotten bogged down in accusations of gerrymandering.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems like your argument is that having a justice in line with your political views is worth the ineptitude of Trump's presidency, is that correct? Honest question.
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump. Marco Rubio was my preferred candidate but he didn't get very far, did he? On election day, I had a choice to vote for Donald Trump or vote in protest. His choice of Mike Pence as his running mate assuaged most of my feelings of trepidation and his promise to nominate an originalist to the Supreme Court pretty much sealed the deal given the other choices I was faced with. In the end, I cast my vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence but I viewed it as a vote against Hillary Clinton and what her Presidency would mean for the country. Still, the question remained, "Did I make the right choice?" That question was answered affirmatively when President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate finally confirmed him. I view the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as a major positive outcome of the election. Gorsuch will be on the bench for a long time and I truly and honestly believe he'll be good for the country, not just for Republicans.
As for President Trump. You called his administration inept and I think there's more than a small amount of truth to that but let's take off our partisan glasses and look honestly at his three months in office thus far. His executive orders, like President Obama's before him, have turned out to be more bark than bite. The Republicans are gridlocked with infighting as everyone knew they'd be. Many of President Trump's council picks leave much to be desired (le sigh...) and the President just can't seem to help himself when it comes to spouting off on Twitter. Yes, he certainly does appear inept. Given all that, there really hasn't been any fundamental affect on things here or abroad, aside from the missile strike on Syria, that is. Well, I suppose our relations with Mexico have soured a bit and that's certainly unwelcome but not to the breaking point where it's affecting trade or anything like that. Even with all eyes on Mexico and the border wall project, I think the President's immigration policies are causing bigger headaches for us in Europe and South America as tourists are being used as proxy punching bags at customs checkpoints. It also appears that other bad decisions are slowly being corrected as we've seen with Steve Bannon being removed from the security council.
The biggest concern I see so far is the appearance that he's a part time President. He and his family appear far more concerned with their business than with being the President. His wife certainly doesn't seem to care about being a First Lady and he's always flying off to his place in Florida to golf with the rich and famous. None of this is doing his credibility any favors. I expect that sooner or later the pressures of the White House will force him to make a decision and I expect his choice will be to not seek re-election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 02:28:01
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems like your argument is that having a justice in line with your political views is worth the ineptitude of Trump's presidency, is that correct? Honest question.
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump. Marco Rubio was my preferred candidate but he didn't get very far, did he? On election day, I had a choice to vote for Donald Trump or vote in protest. His choice of Mike Pence as his running mate assuaged most of my feelings of trepidation and his promise to nominate an originalist to the Supreme Court pretty much sealed the deal given the other choices I was faced with. In the end, I cast my vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence but I viewed it as a vote against Hillary Clinton and what her Presidency would mean for the country. Still, the question remained, "Did I make the right choice?" That question was answered affirmatively when President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate finally confirmed him. I view the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as a major positive outcome of the election. Gorsuch will be on the bench for a long time and I truly and honestly believe he'll be good for the country, not just for Republicans.
As for President Trump. You called his administration inept and I think there's more than a small amount of truth to that but let's take off our partisan glasses and look honestly at his three months in office thus far. His executive orders, like President Obama's before him, have turned out to be more bark than bite. The Republicans are gridlocked with infighting as everyone knew they'd be. Many of President Trump's council picks leave much to be desired (le sigh...) and the President just can't seem to help himself when it comes to spouting off on Twitter. Yes, he certainly does appear inept. Given all that, there really hasn't been any fundamental affect on things here or abroad, aside from the missile strike on Syria, that is. Well, I suppose our relations with Mexico have soured a bit and that's certainly unwelcome but not to the breaking point where it's affecting trade or anything like that. Even with all eyes on Mexico and the border wall project, I think the President's immigration policies are causing bigger headaches for us in Europe and South America as tourists are being used as proxy punching bags at customs checkpoints. It also appears that other bad decisions are slowly being corrected as we've seen with Steve Bannon being removed from the security council.
The biggest concern I see so far is the appearance that he's a part time President. He and his family appear far more concerned with their business than with being the President. His wife certainly doesn't seem to care about being a First Lady and he's always flying off to his place in Florida to golf with the rich and famous. None of this is doing his credibility any favors. I expect that sooner or later the pressures of the White House will force him to make a decision and I expect his choice will be to not seek re-election.
I know the question seemed like a loaded one, but I didn't really have of a better way to word it. In hindsight I should have spent more time thinking about how to phrase the question. All I can say now is that I meant it as an honest attempt to better understand your point of view. It seems that you see the benefit of a SCOTUS pick more in line with your political views as outweighing the cons of a Trump presidency, it's a view I disagree with but its also one I can respect. I can see how the value of one could outweigh the other for someone with different views than mine, and further it's clear that you have put thought into it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 03:20:04
Gordon Shumway wrote: Or if you really want it random, divide a state into a grid of equal sized boxes. The number of boxes equal to the number of districts. Then every four years, shift the grid exactly the same direction by exactly the same amount. Or better yet, roll a scatter dice. some years some boxes will be more valuable than others, but it would make for a more non politicized map at least.
This doesn't work at all, and is an example of why the redistricting problem is so difficult. If you have random boxes you end up doing things like splitting towns down the middle, so instead of having their interests represented by a single person they're split between districts and lose influence. So yeah, it's a map that doesn't reflect partisan bias, but it's also a map that doesn't have anything to do with the state it's dividing. This is why the solution is a non-partisan districting group, you have the human factor to make sure that districts are related to natural borders between regions of the state, but neither side gets to gerrymander everything to their advantage.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Or if you really want it random, divide a state into a grid of equal sized boxes. The number of boxes equal to the number of districts. Then every four years, shift the grid exactly the same direction by exactly the same amount. Or better yet, roll a scatter dice. some years some boxes will be more valuable than others, but it would make for a more non politicized map at least.
This doesn't work at all, and is an example of why the redistricting problem is so difficult. If you have random boxes you end up doing things like splitting towns down the middle, so instead of having their interests represented by a single person they're split between districts and lose influence. So yeah, it's a map that doesn't reflect partisan bias, but it's also a map that doesn't have anything to do with the state it's dividing. This is why the solution is a non-partisan districting group, you have the human factor to make sure that districts are related to natural borders between regions of the state, but neither side gets to gerrymander everything to their advantage.
Oh, I know, it is using a jackhammer when a chisel would be better. It is also against federal law which requires districts to have about the same population as nearly as practicable. I was just throwing out ideas. As to the splitting of cities, I actually think that would be beneficial to an extent as the dark red and dark blues of the electoral maps would look a whole lot more purple. People would have to actually talk to each other to get stuff done. Of course, I personally don't have a horse in the game (other than how national politics bleeds over to everything) as I live in a state with a single district.
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump.
This is going to sound more like an attack on you than I mean it to, but you start off your explanation by claiming that you've never been a supporter of Donald Trump and then go on to explain why you voted for him. Voting for him IS supporting him. You're just willing to make the tradeoff of Trump in the White House for a Justice you like on the bench in SCOTUS. I get what you're saying, you've never agreed much with Trump's objectives or policies, but you don't actually have to in order to support him. I guess I'm just nitpicking.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to the splitting of cities, I actually think that would be beneficial to an extent as the dark red and dark blues of the electoral maps would look a whole lot more purple.
I am extremely skeptical that this is a good thing. Remember, it's not just red vs. blue we're talking about here, it's things like urban vs. rural areas where you have regions with conflicting interests. Ideally you want those various regions to have their own representatives, people who can look out for the needs of the region without having to worry about unrelated or even conflicting needs from some other region that is thrown in to form a single district.
People would have to actually talk to each other to get stuff done.
Not necessarily. Remember, there is only one representative per district, once they're elected they're working with representatives from other districts, not with various factions in their own district. If they can secure a block of voters that is sufficient to win they can ignore everyone else. The only thing that changes compared to the current system is how those representatives are elected, not what they do once in office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: This is going to sound more like an attack on you than I mean it to, but you start off your explanation by claiming that you've never been a supporter of Donald Trump and then go on to explain why you voted for him. Voting for him IS supporting him. You're just willing to make the tradeoff of Trump in the White House for a Justice you like on the bench in SCOTUS. I get what you're saying, you've never agreed much with Trump's objectives or policies, but you don't actually have to in order to support him. I guess I'm just nitpicking.
No, it's not nitpicking at all. I'm getting really tired of seeing people who voted for Trump trying to claim that they didn't really support him, so it's not fair to blame them for his actions. If you voted for Trump you supported him, period. You don't get to separate out the parts you like, you voted for Trump's worst parts along with everything else. And you need to take responsibility for your decision to support Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 10:00:13
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump.
This is going to sound more like an attack on you than I mean it to, but you start off your explanation by claiming that you've never been a supporter of Donald Trump and then go on to explain why you voted for him. Voting for him IS supporting him. You're just willing to make the tradeoff of Trump in the White House for a Justice you like on the bench in SCOTUS. I get what you're saying, you've never agreed much with Trump's objectives or policies, but you don't actually have to in order to support him. I guess I'm just nitpicking.
It isn't nitpicking he supported trump just because he wanted a justice on the bench, he didn't care about how morally repugnant trump is or his views on the future (because lets be honest protectionism never works out) for american because "lol got muh justice"
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump.
This is going to sound more like an attack on you than I mean it to, but you start off your explanation by claiming that you've never been a supporter of Donald Trump and then go on to explain why you voted for him. Voting for him IS supporting him. You're just willing to make the tradeoff of Trump in the White House for a Justice you like on the bench in SCOTUS. I get what you're saying, you've never agreed much with Trump's objectives or policies, but you don't actually have to in order to support him. I guess I'm just nitpicking.
It isn't nitpicking he supported trump just because he wanted a justice on the bench, he didn't care about how morally repugnant trump is or his views on the future (because lets be honest protectionism never works out) for american because "lol got muh justice"
He actually explained in detail why he feels the SCOTUS pick is worth it, and it came across as much more reasonable than you are right now. Blanket disdain for Trump voters does no one any good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 16:20:26
It does make sense. A president, you have to deal with for a maximum of eight years (and Trump looks to be well on the road to four) but a Justice in the SC is probably there for at least 20-30 years and maybe more.
Now whether the difference between those Justices are enough to outweigh the cons of a Trump precidency is another question.
To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Is there a particular case in recent history one can point to and say: If Garland had been in the SC instead of Scalia, it would have swung this way but with Gorsuch it would have swung that way?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/09 16:50:42
Zywus wrote: It does make sense. A president, you have to deal with for a maximum of eight years (and Trump looks to be well on the road to four) but a Justice in the SC is probably there for at least 20-30 years and maybe more.
While a President may only be in office for up to 8 years, the consequences of the actions of that President can be felt for decades, too. And SCOTUS is not in charge of the military or our foreign policies.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
It's difficult to discuss this given the prejudice you've attached to your question but I will try to answer you as best I can. I am a conservative and yes I mostly vote for Republicans but I am not and never have been a supporter of Donald Trump.
This is going to sound more like an attack on you than I mean it to, but you start off your explanation by claiming that you've never been a supporter of Donald Trump and then go on to explain why you voted for him. Voting for him IS supporting him. You're just willing to make the tradeoff of Trump in the White House for a Justice you like on the bench in SCOTUS. I get what you're saying, you've never agreed much with Trump's objectives or policies, but you don't actually have to in order to support him. I guess I'm just nitpicking.
It isn't nitpicking he supported trump just because he wanted a justice on the bench, he didn't care about how morally repugnant trump is or his views on the future (because lets be honest protectionism never works out) for american because "lol got muh justice"
He actually explained in detail why he feels the SCOTUS pick is worth it, and it came across as much more reasonable than you are right now. Blanket disdain for Trump voters does no one any good.
No he really doesn't explain it, he wanted an originalist someone who was "good for the country" when more likely than not we would of gotten Garland if HRC was elected. Bret decided to be okay with everything trump has done when he voted for him, just like he has derided those who voted for HRC and her short comings (which by contrast are nothing (in before, but her emails))
Zywus wrote: It does make sense. A president, you have to deal with for a maximum of eight years (and Trump looks to be well on the road to four) but a Justice in the SC is probably there for at least 20-30 years and maybe more.
While a President may only be in office for up to 8 years, the consequences of the actions of that President can be felt for decades, too. And SCOTUS is not in charge of the military or our foreign policies.
Yes, but the evaluation of the potential harm/good and how they balance out has a large degree of subjectivity. Breotan feels that the benefits of the SCOTUS pick will outweigh the downsides of Trump's management, which isn't an irrational conclusion to draw. Personally I largely disagree, but then my political views don't line up very well with Gorsuch so that pick isn't a good thing to me. But assuming the SCOTUS pick was one that did align with my views I would have to think about it; Trump's reign so far has done more damage to himself and the GOP than it has to anyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: No he really doesn't explain it, he wanted an originalist someone who was "good for the country" when more likely than not we would of gotten Garland if HRC was elected. Bret decided to be okay with everything trump has done when he voted for him, just like he has derided those who voted for HRC and her short comings (which by contrast are nothing (in before, but her emails))
No, he decided that while he is NOT okay with everything Trump has done it is worth overlooking that to gain a SCOTUS pick he favors. Which is really the same for everyone evaluating a candidate; when I voted for Clinton it wasn't because I decided to be okay with everything she's done, it was because I felt she was best candidate of the choices we had.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 17:28:13
Zywus wrote: It does make sense. A president, you have to deal with for a maximum of eight years (and Trump looks to be well on the road to four) but a Justice in the SC is probably there for at least 20-30 years and maybe more.
While a President may only be in office for up to 8 years, the consequences of the actions of that President can be felt for decades, too. And SCOTUS is not in charge of the military or our foreign policies.
The consequences of SC rulings can be felt for decades as well.
I agree though, but that fall under the question of whether the difference between Justices are enough to outweigh the cons of a Trump presidency.
What I mean is that the equation itself makes sense (even if we may disagree on the values put into it) and can rationalize why someone would vote (end thereby support) Trump while acknowledging that he's a poor choice for president.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 17:32:20
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.
Well that is your opinion, whether or not it you believe it is legitimate is irrelevant. your opposition does not make it illegitimate, which in my opinion is equally socially toxic. The idea that the other side is wrong because I do not agree or share their concerns.
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
So, would it be fair to say that the primary difference in the legal interpretations of Garland and Gorsuch is the interpretation on the right to bear arms?
I.e, Garland would be more likely to find it constitutional if the government attempted to introduce various restrictions such as those in place today in many european countries?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/09 21:48:56
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
So, would it be fair to say that the primary difference in the legal philosophies of Garland and Gorsuch is the interpretation on the right to bear arms?
I.e, Garland would be more likely to find it constitutional if the government attempted to introduce various restrictions such as those in place today in many european countries?
hard to say, Garland is IMO more conservative than Gorusch in a lot of things. I am ok with Gorusch but would have been just fine with Garland. I think the primary difference in them is more focussed on workers rights as opposed to gun rights. I believe that Garland, a Texan, even if a "liberal" Texan (which I dont believe him to be a liberal) would be far more gun friendly than say "conservative" Gorusch from Boulder Colorado ( a liberal bastion in a sea of red). I am not an expert on either, but just what I have seen, Garland would be a more gun friendly judge. (for full disclosure here, I do not own a gun, will not allow one on my property, and quite personally despise them, I just wont tell someone else they can or cannot have one when the constitution is clear they can)
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.
Well that is your opinion, whether or not it you believe it is legitimate is irrelevant. your opposition does not make it illegitimate, which in my opinion is equally socially toxic. The idea that the other side is wrong because I do not agree or share their concerns.
There is no evidence for it. No politician made it likely to happen and the constitutional protections make it very unlikely to happen until there is fundamental societal change in the US. That's what makes it not legitimate.
Legitimate:
able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
"a legitimate excuse for being late"
synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
The very fact of being unreasonable makes it not legitimate.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Zywus wrote: To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?
Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.
Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.
The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.
Well that is your opinion, whether or not it you believe it is legitimate is irrelevant. your opposition does not make it illegitimate, which in my opinion is equally socially toxic. The idea that the other side is wrong because I do not agree or share their concerns.
There is no evidence for it. No politician made it likely to happen and the constitutional protections make it very unlikely to happen until there is fundamental societal change in the US. That's what makes it not legitimate.
Legitimate:
able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
"a legitimate excuse for being late"
synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
The very fact of being unreasonable makes it not legitimate.
Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable, your lack of knowledge of how things work in the US is pretty apparent. Also you are not aware of what has been happening on the state and local levels to restrict access to and abiltiy to own firearms, so snarkily putting in the definition of legitimate is just that, useless snark.
some years some boxes will be more valuable than others, but it would make for a more non politicized map at least.
