Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Why isnt he giving a bunch of the money to the Chicago inner cities?

    And his legacy died the second Trump was elected.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
      I get it. He doesn't need the money. It looks bad. There's no upside for his legacy to do that ****.
      He's a private citizen now. I don't care if he takes it and spends it all on hookers and blow. If he wants to get enough to set his family up for generations, good for him.

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Originally posted by Rover View Post
        if you consider yourself to be a progressive. I mean, aren't we supposed to be the smart people? Yet we're too smart to participate when it actually counts.
        Maybe if progressives weren't so condescending and dismissive of people who did not agree with them totally, and tried to frame their arguments in terms that appeal to those other people, they might be more persuasive? Calling people stupid isn't exactly the best way to win them to your side, as all those "deplorables" and "Gruberites" who turned out in droves last November demonstrated.

        and maybe finding issues that had more mainstream appeal than gender correctness or income inequality might help.

        Income inequality is a losing argument in the heartland because secretly everyone wants to be rich; and overplaying it as an issue means you are turning away lots of people you otherwise might attract. For the voter who thinks "I may not be rich today, but someday I hope to get there," why not demonstrate how your policies will help bring that about?

        (assuming you actually have any policies that would do that.... )
        "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

        "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

        "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

        "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

        Comment


        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          "dollars have 14th amendment protection"
          um, I thought that it was the First Amendment that said that people have the right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances?
          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
            Maybe if progressives weren't so condescending and dismissive of people who did not agree with them totally, and tried to frame their arguments in terms that appeal to those other people, they might be more persuasive? Calling people stupid isn't exactly the best way to win them to your side, as all those "deplorables" and "Gruberites" who turned out in droves last November demonstrated.

            and maybe finding issues that had more mainstream appeal than gender correctness or income inequality might help.

            Income inequality is a losing argument in the heartland because secretly everyone wants to be rich; and overplaying it as an issue means you are turning away lots of people you otherwise might attract. For the voter who thinks "I may not be rich today, but someday I hope to get there," why not demonstrate how your policies will help bring that about?

            (assuming you actually have any policies that would do that.... )
            I absolutely agree that we should be as hypocritical as GOP politicians and tacticians who keep their disdain for the apes on the D/L. Mitt Romney was in many ways the first honest Republican in decades (Richard Spencer is the second) and we all saw what that got him.

            Back when the Democrats had an active labor wing they summed up the message you suggest in a pithy saying: "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." Bill Clinton was a master at that line of talk. You are right we should return to it. (We have done so with blacks and Latinos by essentially saying "if you want to live like Whitey...") One of the biggest mistakes we made was walking away from hard core leftist economic messaging on the campaign trail. There used to be a strong progressive middle America -- the Progressive Movement started in rural middle America and led directly to the policies that were able to rip down the 19th century Gilded Age plutocracy.

            There have been some "prairie populists" that moved in the right general direction but something always did them in (plus, to be honest, other than Wellstone they lacked all charisma). I was hoping maybe the Udalls might make this their brand -- the smart one has the policy chops and the pretty one can be the Pied Piper (c.f. Bobby and Jack Kennedy) but they've gone silent. The Castros are the next ones up to bat but the entry barrier with midwestern populism is racism and I'm not sure brownie's gonna play in Davenport.

            Apropos of nothing, this is cool.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
              um, I thought that it was the First Amendment that said that people have the right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances?
              They nailed campaign finance reform on the 14th -- violation of due process.

              It is of course equally idiotic to argue that corporations or unions have 1st amendment rights. Only the people in them do. Anything else the Courts tell you is just a payoff for Groundswell kickbacks, carefully laundered through the spouse.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                They nailed campaign finance reform on the 14th -- violation of due process.

                It is of course equally idiotic to argue that corporations or unions have 1st amendment rights. Only the people in them do. Anything else the Courts tell you is just a payoff for Groundswell kickbacks, carefully laundered through the spouse.
                The Court a long time ago ruled on the personhood of a corporation.

                Now, they have discovered ANOTHER penumbra in the 14th Amendment. You don't like this interpretation but like others?

                We need a convention of the States to rectify some holes in the Constitution. You (we) won't get anything out of this (or any other) Congress.
                CCT '77 & '78
                4 kids
                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                - Benjamin Franklin

                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by joecct View Post
                  The Court a long time ago ruled on the personhood of a corporation.
                  Fictive personhood for contract considerations is one thing.

                  Corporate personhood implying civil rights like speech and religion is so evil it rivals the 1920s courts using the 14th Amendment to strike down child labor laws.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by joecct View Post
                    We need a convention of the States to rectify some holes in the Constitution.
                    Yeah, no. Not with the crazies running around right now. Let's give it about fifty years to cool the f-ck down.

                    I hate it when people say "I'll leave the country if..." but if the f-ckstains in the current GOP got their dream convention they would literally destroy democratic government in the United States. There would be no reason to stay in their sick police state, and every reason to skip town and add our energy and effort to the free world. Not to mention to start building the army that would eventually have to contain/defeat their inevitable militarism.
                    Last edited by Kepler; 05-26-2017, 08:54 PM.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                      Yeah, no. Not with the crazies running around right now. Let's give it about fifty years to cool the f-ck down.

                      I hate it when people say "I'll leave the country if..." but if the f-ckstains in the current GOP got their dream convention they would literally destroy democratic government in the United States. There would be no reason to stay in their sick police state, and every reason to skip town and add our energy and effort to the free world.
                      I'm headed for Vancouver if that happens, and inlaws have said Quito is good.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        Fictive personhood for contract considerations is one thing.

                        Corporate personhood implying civil rights like speech and religion is so evil it rivals the 1920s courts using the 14th Amendment to strike down child labor laws.
                        So fix the Constitution that it is impossible for it to happen. The Court is reluctant to change precedent.

                        If the Convention of the States turns into a circus, I'll be right behind you - but probably headed to Oz. However, I have faith and to ensure that faith, nobody who has or is serving in any elective office at the State or Federal level is eligible to attend.
                        Last edited by joecct; 05-26-2017, 09:00 PM.
                        CCT '77 & '78
                        4 kids
                        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Yeah, the Koch brothers are inching toward ramming through a convention as is.
                          "I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites


                          Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Originally posted by burd View Post
                            I'm headed for Vancouver if that happens, and inlaws have said Quito is good.
                            York.

                            Luckily they're too dumb to figure out how the nukes work even if we leave them. They'll be like the Iraqi airforce 8 months after we leave.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by joecct View Post
                              So fix the Constitution that it is impossible for it to happen. The Court is reluctant to change precedent.
                              The civil right of personhood for corporations was a complete invention. The only good thing about it is it gave the lie to the obvious hypocrisy of the "strict constructionist" fig leaf that Scalia et al. hid behind. At least privacy can be inferred. This right was an absolute invention from wholecloth. And the right, in all their glorious integrity, said?

                              Nothing.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                                The civil right of personhood for corporations was a complete invention. The only good thing about it is it gave the lie to the obvious hypocrisy of the "strict constructionist" fig leaf that Scalia et al. hid behind. At least privacy can be inferred. This right was an absolute invention from wholecloth. And the right, in all their glorious integrity, said?

                                Nothing.
                                (I hate to go here, but) The lack of personhood in a fetus is equally as shocking.
                                CCT '77 & '78
                                4 kids
                                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X