The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Compel**

I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.

In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.

**A Town Called Malus**

Compel wrote:
I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.

In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.

I wouldn't say that, as ordinary people can appeal a decision up to the Supreme Court which cannot happen with the House of Lords, to my knowledge. Also once a law is passed, the House of Lords cannot overturn it like the Supreme Court can.

Also, the people on the Supreme Court are actual professional judges, rather than the political cronies and landowners which fill up the House of Lords.

We do have our own Supreme Court here in the UK, which acts in a similar capacity to the US one, being the final court in the appeals process.

**LordofHats**

Compel wrote:
I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.

In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.

My understanding is that the House of Lords is more akin to the Senate pre-17th Amendment. Prior to the passage of the 17th, senators were appointed by the States and served as a check against 'electoral pandering' and representatives of state interests in Federal government. Senators however were not permanent appointees. They served until a new legislature was elected in the state and then the new legislature appointed a new senator.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, then voted on by Congress (so I can see why it would look similar

). Once on the Court they can only be removed via impeachment, stepping down, or death. Most judges step down or die. Only one Court Justice has ever been impeached and that was like... 100 years ago I think, and he was acquitted of the charges against him in the end so remained on the court.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sounds like the US could use a separate consitutional court whose sole job would be to determine the constitutionality of new laws.

**LordofHats**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sounds like the US could use a separate consitutional court whose sole job would be to determine the constitutionality of new laws.

In general, Congress and the White House have teams of lawyers at their disposal to advise them on this. For example, Obama consulted the White House legal team when he started looking at making new Executive Orders on Gun Control.

Establishing a preliminary court I think has the same problem I had before when Whembly brought up the idea. How can a court function when the case being brought before it is hypothetical?

**dogma**

BrotherGecko wrote:
You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology.

That would be pretty much impossible as there's no way you spend that much time thinking about law without developing an ideology which can be considered political.

BrotherGecko wrote:

They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law. Unless they already are of course. I see a higher level of education with their experience should help them be more objective.

No current member of the Court has a doctorate in law (very few such programs even exist), but all of them have studied, practiced, and taught law extensively.

BrotherGecko wrote:

Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to. So make a severe pushiment to lobbyists that try to influence judges. An automatic loss of position if a politican tries to influence them. A loss of the judge's position if they allow themselves to be influenced rather than reporting the incident.

How would you determine what constitutes "influence"?

BrotherGecko wrote:

Another approach is to also increase their face in public. So people are more aware of them and what they do and say. As of right now because judges are politically and ideologically motivated, people only hear positive things about the ones they are told are good and only learn negative things about the ones they are told are bad. This is all to further party rhetoric and cement ideology.

So, basically, you want Justices to be on the campaign trail? As it stands the opinions of Justices are freely available, people just don't read them because they lack the patience and relevant background knowledge.

**Grey Templar**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

So, you'd be okay with the federal/state/whatever government introducing a law which banned all marriages as they are not a right?

Seems to me that some people not having access to a privilege just because they happen to not be heterosexual is still pretty damn discriminatory.

[sarcasm]After all, when schools were segregated there were black schools so why did blacks need to go to white schools? It wasn't their right to get an education in a white school, it was just the whites privilege to be able to go there.[/sarcasm]

**Jihadin**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

So, you'd be okay with the federal/state/whatever government introducing a law which banned all marriages as they are not a right?

I back that. Gets all form of government in the US out the marriage debate

Separation of Church and State
The wedding license fee is to much a cash cow for states
Joint Filing for Taxes is a cash cow...well maybe...

**Tannhauser42**

Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

They're all privileges, there are no "rights". (language warning, because George Carlin)

Anyway, the best way to curtail any perceived overreach on the part of SCOTUS? It's the answer I gave earlier regarding these proposed amendments: elect better people. If Congress did their job properly to begin with, by writing good, clear, and intelligent laws, and actually following that whole concept of "liberty and justice FOR ALL", then 75% of the cases that go to the Supreme Court every year wouldn't happen to begin with.

That's Congress's check against the Supreme Court: do their job right and the Court doesn't get a chance to get involved. That's the Court's check against Congress: the Court gets involved when Congress does their job badly.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

And when exactly did SCOTUS declare marriage a right? They struck down DOMA as a violation of the Due Process clause, not as a violation of the 'right to marry.'

And I'll add, the court that rendered that decision has been fairly conservative from a Constitutional standpoint.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Grey Templar wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought that the judges were not held accountable to the people to prevent tyranny of the majority situations.

That was the original intent, unfortunately the opposite has been what happened.

To what are you referring? I haven't seen any indication that this was the case.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Prestor Jon wrote:

SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.

Some have, and some havent. As I mentioned, I cannot recall the exact case, but one of the Justices is/was married to a woman who was an executive for a very large gun lobby group. He did not recuse himself from a case regarding gun control, even though it should be quite obvious to most of us lay-people that there was ample opportunity and a high probability that his wife "helped" his decision (either by kicking him to the couch for a few nights or, ya know... whatever old wives do

).

One article I found through google when searching for SCOTUS recusing, was that right-wing religious groups were calling for Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the gay marriage rulings last February because she had in the past spoken in favorable terms toward the LGBT community. But, to me, those mere statements, especially the quotes provided in the article are not signs that she'd have shown special favor or been unable to properly do the job of a Justice. Now, if she turned out to be lesbian, or was married to an executive member or a pro-LGBT lobby group, or once owned a LGBT "help" business or something, then I can see a conflict of interest.

My point here is, really, that Justices NEED to recuse themselves, not merely have the option for it.

**d-usa**

Well, if someone lacks even a very basic understanding of why the court ruled the way it did with regards of marriage then it makes sense that they might think SCOTUS is inventing rights.

**Ouze**

Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

I assume you where equally upset with the SCOTUS for the Heller vs DC decision, where they invented a constitutional right to self defense out of thin air where none previously existed.

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.

Some have, and some havent. As I mentioned, I cannot recall the exact case, but one of the Justices is/was married to a woman who was an executive for a very large gun lobby group. He did not recuse himself from a case regarding gun control, even though it should be quite obvious to most of us lay-people that there was ample opportunity and a high probability that his wife "helped" his decision (either by kicking him to the couch for a few nights or, ya know... whatever old wives do ).

One article I found through google when searching for SCOTUS recusing, was that right-wing religious groups were calling for Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the gay marriage rulings last February because she had in the past spoken in favorable terms toward the LGBT community. But, to me, those mere statements, especially the quotes provided in the article are not signs that she'd have shown special favor or been unable to properly do the job of a Justice. Now, if she turned out to be lesbian, or was married to an executive member or a pro-LGBT lobby group, or once owned a LGBT "help" business or something, then I can see a conflict of interest.

My point here is, really, that Justices NEED to recuse themselves, not merely have the option for it.

Actually those exact statements showed she is unable to deliver an impartial verdict on the matter. And yes, that other judge should also have stepped down from that case as well.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

I assume you where equally upset with the SCOTUS for the Heller vs DC decision, where they invented a constitutional right to self defense out of thin air where none previously existed.

How dare they legislate from the bench!

**Grey Templar**

Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

But it isn't in the Constitution, so I guess the Court overreached when they handed it out, or is it only an overreach when you don't like the decision?

"If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. By the way, I did not just call you 'fools.' The new state of Georgia did." ~ Some guy who had sense to recognize that the Constitution and BoR should never be taken as exclusive

**Ouze**

Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

I would definitely agree that, just as I would agree it's a woman's fundamental right to have an abortion or that one consenting adult is free to enter into a marriage with another legally consenting adult.

That's why "well, there is no right to x in the constitution", "legislating from the bench" and "creating rights out of thin air" are problematic arguments. I strongly suspect that you have an issue with 2 out of 3 of those, despite the fact that all of them came to be in identical manners. You can't decide self-defense isn't provided for, but it's ok because reasons while also handwaving away the others without looking like a pretty big hypocrite.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

**whembly**

Now *this* seems like a pre-emptive leak:
FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015. On their official website, the FBI lists "public corruption as the FBI's top criminal priority."

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

"The pressure on the lead agents is brutal," a second source said. "Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry."

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned ... and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper."

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."

Wow... the FBI probe appears to have significantly expanded the investigation.

**Breotan**

Well, given how the politically connected seed to get away with murder (metaphorically) I don't know what to expect from this.

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

Yes, the former Attorney General declined to prosecute. I have to wonder what the current one will do, given Hillary is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. Does she uphold the law? Or does she maintain party loyalty?

**Grey Templar**

Goliath wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

The funny thing about editing quotes is you can make anybody say anything you want.

**kronk**

Jihadin wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.

So, you'd be okay with the federal/state/whatever government introducing a law which banned all marriages as they are not a right?

I back that. Gets all form of government in the US out the marriage debate

Agreed.

#NoMarriageTaxPenaltyDipwads

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

The funny thing about editing quotes is you can make anybody say anything you want.

I would guess that the vast majority of people who use Dakka know how to scroll.

**kronk**

I was going to quote you and change "scroll" to "troll", but I hate getting my quick reply taken away from me for 3 to 5 days!

**sirlynchmob**

Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

well I say that falls under the right to life. which is ironic in a way, they call it a unalienable right, yet the cops and some states will take away that right.

**A Town Called Malus**

kronk wrote:
I troll to get my quick reply taken away from me for 3 to 5 days!

Aha! Finally a confession! Your reign of rhythmic, cowbell infused terror will at last come crumbling down!

Breotan wrote:Yes, the former Attorney General declined to prosecute. I have to wonder what the current one will do, given Hillary is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. Does she uphold the law? Or does she maintain party loyalty?

Hopefully, if there is enough evidence to support prosecution, then she will uphold the law. Now, peoples opinions of enough evidence will vary quite a bit, though.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

Grey Templar wrote:
Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

The funny thing about editing quotes is you can make anybody say anything you want.

It's almost as if I was drawing a comparison between the three cases using your own line of logic.

If you actually think I was trying to make it look like you said those then I don't really know what to say. I mean, I kind of assumed that the average Dakkanaut would be willing to scroll up the three comments it would require to verify.