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.
I would prefer a moderate. But then, I've got this crazy idea that judges should be impartial and should not belong to a political party. I know, naive, right?
I don't want a moderate. I don't want a conservative. I don't want a liberal.
I want a jurist who'll simply read the text of the law and not create "stuff" out of thin air to justify their beliefs.
whembly wrote:As long as he thinks he can be president (you know that's his ultimate goal) I don't think he'd want it.
Exactly. If he ever became President (again... *shudder*), I could see him following in Taft's footsteps and accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Kilkrazy wrote:Is Crux even an experienced judge? Is the qualification for the highest seat of jurisprudence in the land the expectation that he will carry out the government's wished?
As much as I dislike Cruz, I think he's qualified to be a Justice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 16:48:10
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Ustrello wrote: Then you want cruz because he believes in an old document literally and believes that it never changes
The irony being that, under Cruz's constitutional philosophy, he actually would not have been eligible to run for President. That is obviously not the case in today's practice and definition, but going by the whole literal reading and original meaning thing, yeah, no President Cruz.
"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
Kilkrazy wrote: Is Crux even an experienced judge? Is the qualification for the highest seat of jurisprudence in the land the expectation that he will carry out the government's wished?
Cruz... not Curx.
Acedemically and Professionally... he's absolutely qualified:
-Harvard Law School graduate
-the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas history
-An Adjunct Professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he focused on U.S. Supreme Court litigation.
-Liberal icon Alan Dershowitz stated he was one of the most brilliant student he ever had.
Personally/Politically:
His political opponent called him "The Zodiac Killer".
It seemed like you were arguing against a pretty self-evident fact.
I mean the statement that Trump voters are saying (in however fashion) that it's okay to put a racist in the Whitehouse is a silly argument. (while you ignore Clinton's racial past).
The people were given two absolute gak choices... flip a god damn coin yo.
Says the Johnson voter?
This is a really weird thing for you, of all people, to be arguing against.
To be fair, experience as an actual judge is not necessary. Knowledge of the law, of course, is practically mandatory.
"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
whembly wrote:As long as he thinks he can be president (you know that's his ultimate goal) I don't think he'd want it.
Exactly. If he ever became President (again... *shudder*), I could see him following in Taft's footsteps and accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Kilkrazy wrote:Is Crux even an experienced judge? Is the qualification for the highest seat of jurisprudence in the land the expectation that he will carry out the government's wished?
As much as I dislike Cruz, I think he's qualified to be a Justice.
I don't. He's shown that he's a political stooge. He's shown that he's willing to be a divisive force and what's more, he's a petulant manbaby who got the candidate he and his party deserved for their obstructionist crap the past 8 years.
The only downside to them getting their comeuppance is that their party wasn't punished for it. Nope. They were rewarded for it, and now everyone has to deal with the results.
But hey. Who cares. She was just such a nasty woman right?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 17:17:03
To be fair, experience as an actual judge is not necessary. Knowledge of the law, of course, is practically mandatory.
Exactly, there's no constitutional requirement for having prior experience as a jurist. In fact, some of the most important Justices in the history of the Supreme Court had only a background in the practice of law before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
whembly wrote:As long as he thinks he can be president (you know that's his ultimate goal) I don't think he'd want it.
Exactly. If he ever became President (again... *shudder*), I could see him following in Taft's footsteps and accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Kilkrazy wrote:Is Crux even an experienced judge? Is the qualification for the highest seat of jurisprudence in the land the expectation that he will carry out the government's wished?
As much as I dislike Cruz, I think he's qualified to be a Justice.
I don't. He's shown that he's a political stooge. He's shown that he's willing to be a divisive force and what's more, he's a petulant manbaby who got the candidate he and his party deserved.
A stooge he may be, but professionally, he's more than qualified.
I think that's too important to overlook when the Senate votes on nominations. The first question should be: is this person qualified for the position based on their experience and knowledge of law? For Cruz, that answer is a resounding yes. He's a really smart guy and he knows a gak-ton about law, something even his staunchest critics will concede.
The second question should be: is this person a complete feth-wad? For Ted Cruz, that answer is also a resounding yes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 17:19:05
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.
There is a fairly large group of people who thought that there were certain things that most people thought would disqualify anyone from getting people's vote. They thought stuff like bragging about molesting women or calling a judge incapable of deciding on his case because of his ethnic background would be the kind of thing that should automatically disqualify someone from being voted for by ordinary citizens.
Clearly, they were wrong. It turns out for a lot of voters those kinds of comments are tolerable. They may not be liked or believed by many, but they're also not beyond the limits of acceptability to 60 million American voters.
This is something that a lot of people are going to have to come to terms with.
The first group coming to terms with this are the liberals, who have learnt that things they thought utterly repugnant actually don't bother a lot of other people all that much. Right now a lot of them are dealing with this by concluding that people must be okay with this language because they are also racist. Others are coming up with pet theories where lots of people are so under stress (because of the economy or something) that they're willing to embrace Trump despite his racism. Both these theories are pretty weak. In time there'll probably be a more complex, nuanced answer, that will in part come down to 'they just aren't as bothered by racist talk as you guys are', and 'partisan politics means ignoring how gak your candidate is'.
In time, the conservatives will also have to deal with what happened. At some point, 4 or 8 years from now Trump will be out of power and there will be no reason to continue pretending what Trump was acceptable. And in time, as modern fears drift away*, the shittiness of Trump's rhetoric is only going to be more obvious. Republicans will have to explain how they turned out 60 million votes for that gak, the same number they turned out for McCain and Romney. I have no idea how conservatism will try to explain that.
*To be replaced by a whole new batch of fears.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: They're trying to kick the Zodiac Killer out of the Senate by any means possible.
I think they're trying to maintain Scalia's traditional of hilariously grumpy dissenting opinions. Justice Cruz probably couldn't match Scalia for wordplay, but he could more than match him in bitterness and condescension.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Acedemically and Professionally... he's absolutely qualified:
As others have pointed out, normally a nominee has spent some time on the bench. Being a solicitor general is great experience, but you really expect some time as a judge so people have seen how you might decide a case and present your ruling.
I mean sure, having served no time on the bench doesn't disqualify Cruz in any formal sense. But it is highly unusual in this day and age, and given how politicised the appointment by Trump would be, it would an easy peasy one for Democrats to block. But then that may be the idea, put Cruz up as the easy knock down, so that Trump's next nomination can get through with enough Democrats getting scared of knocking down two nominations and looking bolshy.
Personally/Politically: His political opponent called him "The Zodiac Killer".
Actually that was just made up by some goofballs on the internet. It's hilarious, but it has nothing to do with any of Cruz' actual opponents.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 17:44:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don't agree with everything Ken White writes, but I'm an avid follower because of his ardent defense of the 1st Amendment. (look at his RICO post... hoooboy):
Getting Back To Work The Day After
NOVEMBER 9, 2016 BY KEN WHITE 133 COMMENTS
So: Donald Trump, President-elect of the United States.
I said before that I think he's the worst Presidential candidate in my lifetime, a genuinely awful human being, and an existential threat to America. I'm not going to retcon that in a futile gesture towards cheering anyone up. Nor will I try to cheer you up, if you're upset about it.
But I'm going to ask what we're prepared to do about it, here in the aftermath.
Will we wallow, or fight? Will we proceed with campaign slogans, or with reflection and hard work?
Let's talk about it.
This is not the end of political or electoral history. To put Trump's victory in context, reflect for a moment how often you've been told that some election result shows a sea change in American politics. 1994 was the "year of the angry white man," touted as a new wave of white conservative power thwarting Democratic choices. Ask Bob Dole how that turned out. 2000 and 2004 were the years of "permanent Republican majority," sold as another end to Democratic chances. That lasted into Obama's victory in 2008, sold to us as the crest of a demographic wave that would crush the Republican party. Apparently not.
"This is the hugest change ever" is popular with media and pundits. It gets clicks. It hasn't been true so far.
America is equal to this: Assume the very worst about how Trump will govern for the moment, and then look at our forebears and what they endured.
Nearly three-quarters of a century ago my grandfather enlisted in the Navy after Pearl Harbor. He was a peaceable man — he didn't even like loud talk — but it was what his country required. He and my grandmother married quite quickly and moved to Boston, his hometown, so he could complete supply officer training. He stayed at Harvard (then used as a site to train officers) while my grandmother stayed with his parents, whom she had just met. When she went into labor with my mother, she forbade anyone to reach out to him on campus:
Judy was born at the Chelsea Naval Hospital on January 14, 1943. When labor pains began a week early, I didn't want Paul [my grandfather] to know, because he had a major test in the morning that would influence his assignment in the Navy. There was a blizzard going on, so I sent Mother D [grandpa's mother] home from the hospital in the taxi we came in. I always prided myself on my independence, but having a baby alone was something else. It was worth the struggle though — Paul got a good assignment, and we named Judy after St. Jude, the patron saint of the impossible.
Grandpa went on to serve honorably and quite effectively in the unglamorous position of supply officer on a seaplane tender in the Pacific, winning a Bronze Star for his effectiveness at the job but not seeing combat, not counting the time a kamikaze destroyed his room while he was off-ship.
When I look at my grandparents and the dangers and uncertainties they faced alongside their generation, I am filled with confidence in American endurance. I feel the same when I look at how America came through the hellish abattoir of the civil war. I feel it when I see how Jehovah's Witnesses persevered, and eventually prevailed, in their fight to exercise their conscience even in the face of widespread bigotry. I feel it when I see how African-Americans fought through lynchings and murders and fire hoses and dog attacks and beatings along march routes and explicitly racist laws to secure some measure of legal equality and an African-American President. I feel it when I see that Americans who believed that the state has no right to regulate whom we love fought from Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas in less than a generation.
America has fought wars of every stripe, against ourselves and others. We've plumbed the depths of economic misery. We've survived race riots and nativist strife. And so we shall again. The task ahead isn't easy. It's daunting. But we're up to it.
America is our project: Donald Trump will be the President of the United States in January. I support and defend the United States of America. That means that, though I do not support Trump personally or based on policy, he is my President. He is the President delivered by the Constitution I love and want to defend. I wish him well — meaning that I wish for him the health and strength and resolve to meet the challenges he'll face. I do not wish him success on many of his stated projects, but I hope that he will perform his Constitutional obligations effectively and to the benefit of the country. I will not be saying "not my President" but "for better or worse, my President." Though I hope he will not succeed in many parts of his stated agenda, I do not wish failure on his Presidency, and I do not think that defeating him in the next election should be his opposition's top priority. Our top priority should be opposing bad programs and policies he proposes, making the case for the rightness of our positions, and trying to use what consensus we can find to better govern America.
Our values endure: Our values do not die just because you might interpret an election as rejecting them (more on that later). You don't hold on to your values because they're popular, you hold onto them because they're right and just and they make you who you are. America's history is full of popular fidelity to our stated values ebbing and flowing, and of Americans stubbornly holding on to those ideas in the dark times.
Salena Zito — one of the more perceptive journalists documenting Trump's success — famously said "The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." Some of the things Trump said — taken literally — should offend our fundamental values. Did he mean them? Will he try to make policy based on them? That remains to be seen — identifying Trump's stance is often like shoveling smoke. I think it's entirely possible that Trump won't even attempt to do most of the things he's said, or that he'll attempt them in extremely watered-down desultory ways.
We must be prepared to fight against policies that conflict with our values. But that requires, first, some soul-searching about what those values are, whether we have already compromised them, and whether we have been effective and credible advocates for them. The rule of law, the equality of all people (feeble or powerful) before that law, freedom of thought and speech and worship, strict limits on the power of the state over the individual — those are a few I care about. I've been arguing for a while that neither major American party is a reliable friend to those values. It may be a little late to speak out for them if we stood by while "our team" demeaned them. But as I believe in grace and redemption, I believe in the possibility of a renewed commitment to values and a new fight for them.
What makes us Americans? What core rights do we have that the state cannot violate? What are we willing to do to protect them? Now, more than ever, we need to be willing to ask those questions. When President Trump works on his agenda, we need to examine it clearly and honestly and fight what's wrong. It is essential that we persuade. We can't rely on asserting that a policy is wrong because Trump offers it, or because "everyone" knows it is awful. That was the argument against Trump's election, and it lost. We need to return to forceful advocacy of our values and how they apply to policy choices. It's not about popularity. Miscegenation laws were once extremely popular, but they were wrong and violated core American values without regard to their popularity. In striking them down the Supreme Court did not ride a tide of popular support (there wasn't much) but recognized fundamental values embodied in the Constitution. We need to return to using those values as our tools of persuasion and not rely upon the fickle support of culture or popularity or authority. We need to earn support, not assume it.
Charity and Malice: Claiming that Donald Trump won because 40% of the country is made up of irredeemable racist misogynists is not a sustainable path towards recovering political power or governing. It's not even a good way to endure the next 4-8 years. Premising your politics on the Other being horrible may bring short-term successes but not long-term ones. Governor Romney's infamous "47%" remark was so damaging because it conveyed that he viewed half the country as an impediment, as inherently not part of the right team. Hillary Clinton's comments about "deplorable" and "irredeemable" people wound up conveying the same sentiment. It would be a mistake to build an new opposition to President Trump on the foundation of hating a plurality of the country and considering it worthless and evil.
Of course there are racists and misogynists in America. Of course both those things continue to play a significant role in American life. (How significant? That depends on how much money you have.) Of course some of Trump's supporters are very explicitly racist and misogynistic, and of course Trump courted those groups as part of his base.
But attributing a Trump victory to racism and misogyny is a quick, cheap, easy way out. People aren't that simple. Americans didn't conclusively reject racism by electing President Obama, and didn't conclusively embrace it by electing President Trump. Trial lawyers know this: people don't make decisions like computers. People don't tend to weigh all the evidence or consider all the factors or evaluate every counter-argument to every argument. People tend, in small decisions and big ones, to latch on to a few main ideas, come to a conclusion, and then stop considering contrary evidence. A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest. Obama's election didn't mean Americans were free of racism; it meant that Obama effectively communicated big ideas that connected and shut down the other voices whispering in our ears. Certainly some Trump supporters are avowedly racist, but some of them latched on to big ideas and stopped listening to the rest — like his troubling flirtation with evil.
Hillary Clinton won an epic, historic struggle to be the worst Presidential candidate ever. Ultimately she won that struggle — and thus lost the Presidency — because she did not persuade. She did not articulate her core ideas effectively enough, and so not enough people latched onto them and disregarded the bad things about her. Trump dallied with racism — hell, Trump nailed racism in the coat closet and walked out smirking — but Clinton still did worse with Latinos, African-Americans, and Asians than Obama did. It may be that she was doomed from the start — too much baggage, too many vulnerabilities. Or it could be that she lacked Obama's power to persuade. She couldn't get them to accept her simple pitch and shut everything else out. Trump could.
It falls to realistic Trump opponents not to crush the people who voted for him, but to persuade them. In this election the GOP showed that it could fight back against demographic change — not just by marshaling high percentages of white voters, but by persuading higher-than-expected percentages of minorities. The Democrats can't respond to that by writing 40% of the country off as irredeemable.
Hubris and Entitlement: The catastrophic polling failures of 2016 reflect the fatal pride of Clinton's team and what I'll call "the establishment."
Americans are stubborn and proud. They'll be persuaded, but they won't be told who to vote for like you'd tell a recalcitrant child to eat his vegetables. The media, childishly obsessed with Donald Trump (and frankly unenthused with Hillary Clinton) promoted a us-versus-them mentality. It was far more class-based than race-based — it was the message "isn't it unbelievable and hilarious that those people support Trump." The message was "of COURSE vote Clinton, you idiot" or "you're pretty dim but at least you can see how to vote on THIS one." Generally people can't be expected to embrace stories that demean them.
There was another way, but hardly anybody took it. There was the way of "let me earn your vote by persuading you why these policies are right," conveyed as part of an effective set of ideas. There were far too few forceful and effective advocates of how free trade makes us richer and freer. There were too few people willing to risk a genuine discussion of the costs of frequent military intervention. Everyone was too busy arguing what immigration policies they didn't support to debate specific policies that they did support.
The anti-Trump message was based too strongly on entitlement — based on who you are, we are entitled to your vote, by right. You can see that in the frothing rage at third-party voters after Clinton's defeat. You'll see it in the ugly backlashes coming at the minority voters who didn't vote "correctly." But voting isn't a matter of entitlement. "Vote for me because the other guy's horrific" is not an effective method to persuade or get out the vote. It's an idea that focuses on the other guy, not you. You've got to deserve victory. Clinton didn't. Clinton stank of entitlement to rule, the media conveyed that message, and that message fatally amplified Clinton's scandals, conveying that Clinton was entitled to follow the rules differently, to act differently, to be treated preferentially.
The apotheosis of hubris may have been the Huffington Post's imbecilic (and deeply humiliating in retrospect) attack on poll maven Nate Silver for not favoring Clinton's odds heavily enough. At common law, it was treason merely to encompass the death of the king — that is, to verbalize the possible circumstances. In the media's echo chamber, it was a sin to express doubt, and damn the actual facts. Clinton and the establishment relied on things being true because we wanted them to be and because there was a polite consensus, not because of facts.
Your Facebook Page Is Not The World: We were told that the internet would expose us to more people, different people, different cultures. In reality, 2016 helps show us how we can shape our own private internet to confirm our beliefs. People mistook all their friends hating Trump for the whole country hating Trump. People mistook the unanimity of those they had chosen to follow as general unanimity. The exceptions tended to prove the rule. Twitter was notorious for bigoted pro-Trump trolls, but their existence may have served to make pro-Trump sentiment seem extreme, isolated, not formidable, and easily noticed. The closer we look at the internet and how it touches us, the more we should be called to a healthy skepticism.
We Are Not All Equally Vulnerable: Not everyone feels the same way about a defeat, because we don't share circumstances.
This result is genuinely horrifying to many people, and reasonably so. We can hope that Trump does not pursue policies overtly hostile to minorities of all sorts, and we can fight like hell if he tries. But whether you think Trump is racist or not, whether you think the result was an endorsement of racism or not, Trump's campaign was accompanied by a groundswell of explicitly bigoted sentiment, one that I maintain he courted and did not effectively reject. Across the country, ethnic and religious and sexual minorities are afraid of what will happen to them. My daughter, like many, has heard talk about which classmates would no longer be allowed to stay in America. I know people who are genuinely afraid, and I don't blame them — I think Trump's rhetoric invited the fear, some segments of his supporters made it a realistic fear, and that there will likely be an upsurge in bigotry and violence. As a well-off white guy in the suburbs I'm lucky — my kids, not white, are somewhat less lucky. My friends and neighbors, of various ethnicities and religious and identities, are even less.
It falls upon all decent people of good faith to defend our friends and neighbors and countrymen. It falls to us to speak out at bigotry even in the face of sneers and shouts of "Trump Trump Trump." If falls to us to continue to call out bigotry even when we are told that we've lost that fight. It falls to us to monitor, and resist, individuals who feel that Trump's election is a green light for bigoted violence. It especially falls to us to stand up and do our part to resist any state-sanctioned bigotry that President Trump might possibly pursue. That fight may involve pro bono help by lawyers, financial contributions to litigation and campaigns, personal support to the targeted, and tireless advocacy in public. It could, conceivably but (I hope) improbably, involve a commitment to violence.
It's a big, complex country. There are a lot of issues. You won't be able to stand up for them all, nor should you try. I submit that every American appalled or outraged by President Trump's election should pick an issue that is important to them, educate themselves thoroughly about it, and come together with fellow Americans to fight for that issue — to defend people in various circumstances who cannot defend themselves. The First Amendment remains my issue, and I will continue to ask for help defending it. More on that to come.
As we prepare to fight against bigotry, we should keep three things in mind.
First, as I said above, the internet is not the world. The most vivid and aggressive bigots online are, for the most part, profoundly marginal people. They were marginal before Trump and they'll be marginal after Trump. They are shock troops for campaigns, but they lack the ability to participate meaningfully in governing. That's why they're trolls. In assessing how bad things will be with President Trump, do not conclude that Twitter trolls will suddenly be striding the halls of power. They'll still be misfits.
Second, the wave of genuine overt ethnic nationalist political candidates will come next, emboldened by Trump. We will fight them. We will take them more seriously than we took Trump.
Third, it might be a good time to reflect on how we talk about race, gender, and sexuality. Trump struck a chord by fighting "political correctness." I've argued that blasting political correctness often involves whinging that we can't act like a dick without being called a dick any more. But it would be foolish not to inquire why Trump's message resonated. The steadily growing social consensus against bigotry is a good thing. But people are flawed — okay, people are donkey-caves — and the consensus gets twisted and distorted and expressed in foolish, counter-productive ways. Some of America's admirable opposition to bigotry has been filtered through human frailty to become obnoxious, counter-productive, petty, and sanctimonious, an obsession with form over substance. I'm not saying you shouldn't explain what pronouns you prefer. I'm suggesting that maybe the way you convey the message might have an impact on your audience's receptiveness to other messages. It's just possible that "we'll grind these bigots under our heel until they talk right" is ineffective and might actually be more about our character flaws than winning. I'm saying there may be a better way.
The Button: Oh yeah. And we may face the end of human civilization, if Trump acts as President the way he acted as a candidate. My fear of Clinton was that she'd start the apocalypse after careful consultant with advisers and based upon thoughtfully crafted policies. My fear of Trump is more that he'll Trump himself into a geopolitical corner and use nukes out of petulance. So. We have that going for us. Good luck, I suppose, with all that.
In summary: think about what values are important to you, think about how best to come together to fight for them, and fight.
sebster wrote: As others have pointed out, normally a nominee has spent some time on the bench. Being a solicitor general is great experience, but you really expect some time as a judge so people have seen how you might decide a case and present your ruling.
Forty-one of the 112 seated justices have had no prior judicial experience, included some of the big names as Chief Justice: John Marshall, William Rehnquist (outside of three years as an Associate Justice), and Earl Warren.
I'll absolutely grant that it's more common to have judicial experience but with a record like Cruz's (and a friendly Senate to vote on his nomination), it could happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, the real reason I don't want Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court is this:
He's obviously an immortal vampire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/12 18:37:01
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
sebster wrote: As others have pointed out, normally a nominee has spent some time on the bench. Being a solicitor general is great experience, but you really expect some time as a judge so people have seen how you might decide a case and present your ruling.
Forty-one of the 112 seated justices have had no prior judicial experience, included some of the big names as Chief Justice: John Marshall, William Rehnquist (outside of three years as an Associate Justice), and Earl Warren.
I'll absolutely grant that it's more common to have judicial experience but with a record like Cruz's (and a friendly Senate to vote on his nomination), it could happen.
The most recent appointment, nominated by Obama, Elena Kagan, was never a judge and she was confirmed and is a current SCotUS justice. Democrats didn't complain of a lack of bench experience when Obama nominated Kagan who was previously the WH counsel.
Hillary: “I don’t want a pardon. It makes me look like I did something wrong.” Obama: “Ok, then I won’t.” Trump: “Here’s your pardon”
Don't diss it, given how 2016 is turning out... would this surprise you?!?!
Would she not have to actually be convicted of something to get a pardon?
No. The only requirements for a Presidential pardon is that it be for a federal offense, and that the subject is not currently under impeachment. No conviction needed (see: Ford's pardon of Nixon), or even charges.
Anyway, the main reason I wouldn't want to see a Justice Cruz is the man himself. He's too much of a narcissistic attention whore (only Trump was able to outdo him), and waaaaay too oppositional. While I would like to believe he would keep true faith to the law, I would not be surprised if he would try to find any loophole or technicality he could to strike down anything that's even tangentially related to Obama (or Democrat policy in general). Maybe once he's on the bench his defiance would chill a bit, but I'm just not so sure.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 19:46:41
"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
Hillary: “I don’t want a pardon. It makes me look like I did something wrong.”
Obama: “Ok, then I won’t.”
Trump: “Here’s your pardon”
Don't diss it, given how 2016 is turning out... would this surprise you?!?!
Would she not have to actually be convicted of something to get a pardon?
No. The only requirements for a Presidential pardon is that it be for a federal offense, and that the subject is not currently under impeachment. No conviction needed (see: Ford's pardon of Nixon), or even charges.
Correct... the problem with a Presidential Pardon, is that it's essentially an admission of guilt.
My problem with Cruz as a SCoTUS judge? he does not separate church and state in his thinking and words from him show that. That is the major issue I have with him personally, that he has also inserted his own feet in his mouth nationally is just comedic gold most times.
I am pleased however that states are starting to look at adopting Ranked Voting, that can lead to the start of possible 3rd party wins, but it also means that 3rd parties need to work still at getting their platforms known much earlier and work at informing voters, waiting to the last will not help them gain votes that they need.
that Marijuana is legal in more states now will torque off the Big Pharma as alternative pain relief money eludes them via folks being to raise weeds in their back yards means cheap pain killer/etc.
And yes, though Stein and Johnson may not have won, or gained the % they needed as folks flocked to either Hillary or Donald, the numbers were up,
3rd parties have a lot of uphill struggling to continue, But they have historical precedent as the Republicans were just 4yrs old when they got Lincoln elected and the Whig Party went away as the irrelevant party, and that is what has the duopoly parties worried, once more parties can participate, once seats are divided more largely between more than just the two of them, they may also become irrelevant.
I was actually amused to some extent watching the maps for the electoral votes at Politico and the Guardian as states went and turned colors, I know I voted to help Jill Stein and the Greens in my state, knowing it could not hurt Hillary as she already did so with her anti-coal stance, (My state is attached to Big Coal so heavily it ain't funny). WV went full on red.
Hillary ha popular votes wins mainly in states that still liked her or hardly knew her. She also lost in states that had been blue voters previously, states Obama had won handily in 2008 and 2012 went for Trump. Hillary could not GOTV and spur folks to action the way Bernie had.
Yes, I supported Bernie in the Primaries, but the Primaries should not have started with Hillary already having any super-delegates on her side that early on, they are supposed to sound off at the Convention at the end, and the news kept using them to help inflate her numbers, and there are other issues that came up in the primaries that the MSM refused to cover. So Hillary who could not fill a high school gymnasium was the one they went with, Bernie filled giant stadiums with loudly cheering, high energy voters and people who registered for the first time to help him and he was sidelined. Alan Grayson had commissioned a poll that shwed Bernie would have had 56% over Trump at 44%, I blame the DNC, DWS, HRC an their cronies at the MSM for their inability to win the right states.
Also, that millions of registered voters who could have weighed in decided that they were so disgusted so as to NOT go out and vote are also not mentioned, rather the small numbers 3rd parties got are blamed as usual, and no introspection by the elites at the DNC or their supporters can see the fault is in their ranks, not outside.
I agree with Sebster with the whole thing that Dems misunderstood the rest of the nation being able to disregard the wilder things Trump said as many figured he was either pandering or going over the top and it kinda worked.
I am not a Trump supporter, but that the Russians are breathing easier with him in the seat as opposed to war-hawk Hillary, tht so far TPP is stated as not happening, we may also see many other surprises by Trump that the campaign of fear mongering by HRC-campaign may have lost sight of, of course as neither candidate spoke on details of issues or platforms, as much as they did hurling insults in that "Punch-n-Judy" show, we will have to wait till he is first sworn in, then moves to the WH and see what he actually does.
I am a Progressive, but not all so blindedly SJW brand that I am all the way left on all issues. I may support the Bernie/Jill platforms, but the insane levels of cries against video games, art, gun ownership etc strikes me as parsing hairs.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
The Democrats may have ignored coal workers - supposedly - but the Republicans have promised them the sky while preparing to bury their supporters after winning.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 20:06:02
Ustrello wrote: Anyone who hoped a massive amount of jobs would be brought back to the rust belt was a damn fool
Who else would they have voted for though, the candidate that acknowledged that coal jobs are dying and pointed out that we need a policy that will help restrain coal workers and that we need to bring alternative industries to these regions?
The Democrats may have ignored coal workers - supposedly - but the Republicans have promised them the sky while preparing to bury their supporters after winning.
Which is not surprising at the least. Coal is a horrible fuel in terms of the attached health and environmental risks.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
shasolenzabi wrote: Alan Grayson had commissioned a poll that shwed Bernie would have had 56% over Trump at 44%
Polls like this are really misleading because the republican party didn't much much effort into opposing Sanders. They knew Clinton was going to be the nominee, so they made her the primary target and ignored Sanders just like the democrats ignored all the irrelevant fringe candidates in the republican primaries. It's certainly possible that he could have won, but it's not really fair to compare his unopposed poll numbers to what he would have had after months of being the primary target.
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.
I have no words for this. A joke? How is emotionally torturing your child a joke?
Mom kicks out Trump-supporting son in viral video
A viral video shows a mother disowning her young son for supporting Donald Trump in a mock election.
FRESNO, TX (KTRK) --
A Fort Bend County mother is under fire for a video posted on Facebook that went viral.
It shows her berating her young son, even forcing him out with a suitcase.
The detective we spoke with says the video doesn't appear to show any wrongdoing, so right now no charges have been filed. But it's still very disturbing to people on all sides of the aisle. The mom walked her crying son from their house to the corner, with a suitcase and sign in hand -- all because he voted for Donald Trump in a mock election.
"Get your suitcase," this mother said as her son screamed. "Get your suitcase and get out. Bye."
She made him stand on the corner with a sign in his hand that said, "My mom kicked me out the house because I voted for Donald Trump."
Someone posted the video to social media, and it has been shared thousands of times.
"I think it's crazy," says one of the family's neighbors. "People need to realize when you put certain things on social media, you never know how far it's gonna go."
Neighbors were absolutely shocked to see that this happened right on their street.
"I've been on this street for four years. Awesome family," she says.
While we were in front of the house Friday, CPS came by. Whoever was inside spoke to her through the door. The Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office is also investigating.
"I have personally met with the family and saw the child, his well-being. He appears to be in good health," says Detective Joe Luera.
Detective Luera says he met with the family off-site.
"She explains it was a joke," Luera explained.
She told Eyewitness News the same thing over the phone. She initially agreed to share her story on camera, but later changed her mind.
But, to play devils advocate, the kid now has first hand experience of what it is like to be told to pack your bags and forced out of your home, which is what Trump promised to do to 11 million people.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/12 20:56:07
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Oh boy, here it comes... all the righteous indignation anyone could ever want.
I'm glad CPS and the police were involved because I'm sure they had nothing else better to do then to follow up on a viral video that people on the internet were upset about.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
