Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is not at all clear to me that Alito would actually vote to reverse Roe. He is not particularly radical.

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this Board if that day comes! superduper!

S_A_M

eta: Nor does Alito seem to be a "results-oriented" judge. That is, he doesn't appear to start with a result in mind and reason backwards to justify it.

That's what Scalia is for. Alito will just sign on to that one.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
Interesting.

The Founders views were relevant when you thought Washington denied Andre any process and summarily hanged him, but are irrelevant once you are shown to have been mistaken.

It bears relevence to what the founder would have done at the time but does not bear relevance to what we should do today. In other words, the founding fathers would have not been very respectful of a muslims terrorists rights but I don't think that has much bearing on how we should treat these prisoners. Since they seemed OK with slavery (and thereby the torturing of African Americans after they tried to run away) then we should not turn to them when deciding what our standards should be.

However, I did find it ridiculous when someone tried to claim that the founding fathers would have been respectful of the rights of muslim terrorists. I think that is absurd.

My position never changed. You just weren't paying attention.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Captain
You could probably spend the rest of the evening here , going through likely scenarios.

Historically, I believe incumbent Presidents lose seats in mid term elections, particularly in their second term. I cannot believe there is any reason for that historical trend to differ this time, unless Bush can come up with some substantial accomplishments for himself and the Senate in the next six months, before they all leave to campaign.

Turning the SupCt to the right, continued success with constitutional democracy in Iraq, perhaps a successful attack on Iran's nucular facilities, real tax reform and an economy that continues to grow.

I'm with Hank, it is a 3 seat gain for the Republicans, at a minimum.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It bears relevence to what the founder would have done at the time but does not bear relevance to what we should do today. In other words, the founding fathers would have not been very respectful of a muslims terrorists rights but I don't think that has much bearing on how we should treat these prisoners. Since they seemed OK with slavery (and thereby the torturing of African Americans after they tried to run away) then we should not turn to them when deciding what our standards should be.

However, I did find it ridiculous when someone tried to claim that the founding fathers would have been respectful of the rights of muslim terrorists. I think that is absurd.

My position never changed. You just weren't paying attention.

2.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
It bears relevence to what the founder would have done at the time but does not bear relevance to what we should do today. In other words, the founding fathers would have not been very respectful of a muslims terrorists rights but I don't think that has much bearing on how we should treat these prisoners. Since they seemed OK with slavery (and thereby the torturing of African Americans after they tried to run away) then we should not turn to them when deciding what our standards should be.

However, I did find it ridiculous when someone tried to claim that the founding fathers would have been respectful of the rights of muslim terrorists. I think that is absurd.

My position never changed. You just weren't paying attention.

Back in those days, the world viewed us as the terrorists. And we, of course, viewed the Indians as the terrorists.

The question being discussed was the attitude the founders would towards whether the government has limited powers when acting abroad or only at home. I was arguing that the founders fundamentally believed in a government of limited powers in all respects.

I agree that the founder's views were colored by an extremely deep racial bias that led them to view blacks as essentially not human and by attitudes toward women that led them to simply disregard women as having virtually no rights. Many but not all founders also had very different attitudes toward men of property tan toward men without property.

That doesn't change the idea that if you believe in a government of limited powers, which is one of the great gifts the founders made to our history, it is intellectually difficult to find a way to justify our government treating foreign persons as being without rights. The cases you will be led to rely on are cases like Korematsu, and even the people I know willing to defend Korematsu as representing the right constitutional outcome seem unwilling to defend the underlying acts at issue on a moral basis. (And, for those of us who are fans of limited government, Korematsu is a total disaster).

[Captain]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Turning the SupCt to the right, continued success with constitutional democracy in Iraq, perhaps a successful attack on Iran's nucular facilities, real tax reform and an economy that continues to grow.

I'm with Hank, it is a 3 seat gain for the Republicans, at a minimum.

Can he do those things in 6 months, and reverse his current poll numbers? I believe that is about how much time he has.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What was Plessy, a superduperprecedent? Is Brown the example of a superduperprecedentoverturner?

I wonder what case will be the superprecedentoverturner of Roe?

If you insist on conflating segregation with a women's rights issue, you'll wind up on more ignore lists than even you can tolerate.

They are not analogous for an innumerable number of reasons you very well know.

Roe is unique. Abortion is unique. Nothing is analagous. Thus, the "superprecedent."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Nice PoPD. Your hatemasters Rove and Cheney would be so proud of you.

This is just dumb. No one is a hate monger. These people do what they do for dollars. Politics is a business. The currency is dollars, and the chips are rube voters who are piled by crafting the best ideological pitch.

I think you believe Rove and Cheney actually care about an ideological revolution. I don't think they do. There is no "hate" - there is just methodical manipulation of voters to roll back New Deal policies to make a climate favorable to people who sign huge checks for people like Rove and Cheney.

"Hate" is an allegation the Left uses far too much in describiong politicians. Its wrong because it ascribes to those people a level of human feeling they don't have. Its business. Dems, Inc. v. GOP, Inc.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is just dumb. No one is a hate monger. These people do what they do for dollars. Politics is a business. The currency is dollars, and the chips are rube voters who are piled by crafting the best ideological pitch.

I think you believe Rove and Cheney actually care about an ideological revolution. I don't think they do. There is no "hate" - there is just methodical manipulation of voters to roll back New Deal policies to make a climate favorable to people who sign huge checks for people like Rove and Cheney.

"Hate" is an allegation the Left uses far too much in describiong politicians. Its wrong because it ascribes to those people a level of human feeling they don't have. Its business. Dems, Inc. v. GOP, Inc.

Generally, yes.

But it is a funny kind of business because you measure your success not by money, but by power, and so they are all power mad. Which leads all politicians to play to any old hatemonger who will give them power.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Roe is unique. Abortion is unique. Nothing is analagous. Thus, the "superprecedent."

I think we balance rights all the time, even rights that are fundamental even though they are not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. And I think Roe is a case balancing the rights of the mother against those of the fetus.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The boycott of the pork is displaced. It's not like you're talking sweetbreads, here, man.

Perhaps Penske can have it both ways and enjoy pork yet still reject pork in solidarity with his co-Deists. Pork is a wonderful thing, anyone who denies enjoying pork when they can get it is lying or delusional, but everyone should have to pay for their own pork.

I think we should all join Penske in lobbying against publicly pork until pork ceases to be funded out of general revenues. All other pork is a-OK, of course.

BR(so is pulling the pork, natch)C

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Captain
Can he do those things in 6 months, and reverse his current poll numbers? I believe that is about how much time he has.

All of them are done or in process, although tax reform needs more work.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think we balance rights all the time, even rights that are fundamental even though they are not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. And I think Roe is a case balancing the rights of the mother against those of the fetus.

This is the clearest explanation of how the three branches actually, practically work that I have ever heard. Its also an explanation of how they should work. The Right has tried to disrupt that work by using an absurdist orginalist argument.

Originalists of just about all stripes are idiots. Conservatives and liberals may debate how far we stretch the words of the contract, but originalists are just plain flat out imbeciles. Ever argue a contract issue with a fool who tries to argue the "four corners" approach in the face of obviously changed circumstances? That's kind of how I view Scalia - an embarrassing absurdist (unfortunately not the Python/Naked Gun/Airplane sort).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
Back in those days, the world viewed us as the terrorists. And we, of course, viewed the Indians as the terrorists.

The question being discussed was the attitude the founders would towards whether the government has limited powers when acting abroad or only at home. I was arguing that the founders fundamentally believed in a government of limited powers in all respects.

I agree that the founder's views were colored by an extremely deep racial bias that led them to view blacks as essentially not human and by attitudes toward women that led them to simply disregard women as having virtually no rights. Many but not all founders also had very different attitudes toward men of property tan toward men without property.

That doesn't change the idea that if you believe in a government of limited powers, which is one of the great gifts the founders made to our history, it is intellectually difficult to find a way to justify our government treating foreign persons as being without rights. The cases you will be led to rely on are cases like Korematsu, and even the people I know willing to defend Korematsu as representing the right constitutional outcome seem unwilling to defend the underlying acts at issue on a moral basis. (And, for those of us who are fans of limited government, Korematsu is a total disaster).

I was not commenting on any of that. I am just saying the founding fathers would probably have had no trouble treating brown, non christian terrorists in the way that we are. To invoke their name when critizising the way we deal with terrorists is absurd.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Perhaps Penske can have it both ways and enjoy pork yet still reject pork in solidarity with his co-Deists. Pork is a wonderful thing, anyone who denies enjoying pork when they can get it is lying or delusional, but everyone should have to pay for their own pork.

I think we should all join Penske in lobbying against publicly pork until pork ceases to be funded out of general revenues. All other pork is a-OK, of course.

BR(so is pulling the pork, natch)C

I like bacon. I like sausage. I hate ham. I hate pork. I hate pulled pork tenderloin. I hate pork bbq. Where's that leave me?