Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Aaah yes, the old "2 Americas". The inference is, of course, that one America is good and the other somewhat less so. But really, it's ****y-ass weak sauce. There certainly is a group making that claim. But it's not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Aaah yes, the old "2 Americas". The inference is, of course, that one America is good and the other somewhat less so. But really, it's ****y-ass weak sauce. Or that both America's are equally crazy/misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Yeah, but comparatively you're wrong. You're claiming that Im not scared of that? Or that Im not AS scared? Or that both America's are equally crazy/misinformed. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 There certainly is a group making that claim. But it's not me. No claim..a suggestion or presumption. And yes, you are absolutely making it. Or that both America's are equally crazy/misinformed. We are all a little crazy and all frequently misinformed. That's not what the "2 Americas" thing is about at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No claim..a suggestion or presumption. And yes, you are absolutely making it. No he's not. He's always been clear it's about difference of opinion and how differently the two sides see things. I haven't once heard him claim or even suggest it the way you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No claim..a suggestion or presumption. And yes, you are absolutely making it. We are all a little crazy and all frequently misinformed. That's not what the "2 Americas" thing is about at all. Im absolutely not doing that. Im saying that they are both the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Actually Larry called them a moron. To be fair, Larry called Scalia (and only Scalia) a moron based on 2 specific rulings. And that Scalia was equally a moron with the gay marriage decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I don't think Scalia was a moron. I think he's an ideologue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Maybe we should do a Presidential Candidate Look-a-Like thread. I do fondly remember back in '08, I started one based on a then-recurring Stadium tradition, in the form of "How the candidates see themselves". I remember two of my contributions to that thread that I thought were pretty good: vs. How the Democrats want people to see the election: vs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I don't think Scalia was a moron. I think he's an ideologue. How is that appropriate then for a SCOTUS judge? Or really..any judge? Do we want judges to have missionary complexes? To have preconceived decisions and are unwilling to deviate from them because they uncompromising and dogmatic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary picking justices isn't really scary. Her picks could very well go rogue to the right, like O'Connor and Souter went rogue left, since more than likely she'll be picking moderately liberal people. And if you like corporations having power, rejoice, there's a good chance she'll throw pro-business people up there. Indeed, it's probably one of the biggest reasons Citizens United wouldn't be overturned between 2017 and 2021/25 (and longer) with a Clinton presidency, her appointees likely would be on the side of keeping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Aaah yes, the old "2 Americas". The inference is, of course, that one America is good and the other somewhat less so. But really, it's ****y-ass weak sauce. Nah, I'm pretty sure it was an attempt at "I deny the reality that you're pointing out, (without actually making or supporting a thing, I simply wave my hand and announce that it doesn't exist), and claim that the fact that our realities don't match proves that we're both equally correct." I don't think Scalia was a moron. I think he's an ideologue. I agree with you. I picked a really bad word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 How is that appropriate then for a SCOTUS judge? Or really..any judge? Do we want judges to have missionary complexes? To have preconceived decisions and are unwilling to deviate from them because they uncompromising and dogmatic? I don't think hes any different from the other Justices. I think they all have preconceived decisions and biases. Can you list the political based cases that Ginsburg has ruled like a Conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Im enjoying all of the people who have different views than Kilmer on political issues, telling Kilmer there is no reason to be concerned about Justices Clinton (whom they support) appoints You all really don't get what he said, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary picking justices isn't really scary. Her picks could very well go rogue to the right, like O'Connor and Souter went rogue left, since more than likely she'll be picking moderately liberal people. And if you like corporations having power, rejoice, there's a good chance she'll throw pro-business people up there. Indeed, it's probably one of the biggest reasons Citizens United wouldn't be overturned between 2017 and 2021/25 (and longer) with a Clinton presidency, her appointees likely would be on the side of keeping it. Suspect you may well be right. It's certainly a possibility. Although, when it gets to pro-corporate decision, I remember one of the few times Predicto actually weighed in on his opinions on the current SC. (I assume he tries not to comment on things like that. Probably due to a desire to keep his job. but that's just my theory.) And he wrote a fairly long piece about how the court has been interpreting federal law governing arbitration agreements, to rule that employers can impose employment contracts on employees which take away employee rights (like, to a civil suits or to class action), even though state labor laws state that employers cannot take away such rights. It was something that I certainly hadn't heard of. It doesn't get the big headlines that gay marriage gets. But it's certainly important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 our medical training is among the most advanced in the world, as are our procedures/technology....and more expensive to provide Kinda like our space program Point 1 "Our medical training is among the most advanced in the world".....agreed Point 2 "as are our procedures/technology"....agreed Point 3 "and more expensive to provide".....obviously not *see figures on bloated pharma costs, and inflated insurance billing rates for q-tips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary = more Ginsbergs/Sotomayors. Rubio = more Roberts/Kennedys Cruz = more Thomas/Scalias Trump???? Maybe Mark Cuban and Jimmy Fallon I'm not up to speed on current far left jurists, so I have no idea who Bernie would appoint. Nonsense. Cruz = more Thomas/Scalias Rubio = more Thomas/Scalias pretty much every GOP candidate = more Thomas/Scalias Here's what Rubio himself says: "One of the things the President is going to do is nominate Supreme Court Justices, maybe as many as four,” Rubio told his crowd. “We need to appoint Supreme Court Justices that understand that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It is supposed to be interpreted and applied as originally intended.” "I don’t believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.” “The next president of the United States must nominate Supreme Court justices that believe in the original intent of the Constitution and apply that. We need more Scalias and less Sotomayors.” Rubio would pack the court with ultra-conservative originalists. He says so himself. Meanwhile, you ask: I'm not up to speed on current far left jurists, so I have no idea who Bernie would appoint. Answer: there aren't any. Even Democrats appoint their federal judges pretty much entirely from the pool of former prosecutors and big firm corporate lawyers. Occasionally they appoint a token law professor, but never a leftist. Hell, Sotomayor, the one the right loves to complain about - she was a tough on crime prosecutor before she was elevated to the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I still think it'd be tons of fun to watch President Trump appoint Cruz to the SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think the Courts ruling on Obamacare was an outrage. And I would support any candidate who would use that as a litmus test, IE- Would you have ruled the other way? Then you qualify. One of the most conservative courts in decades (arguably generations) and you want them to be MORE conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why? I mean, ol' chip has spent the last six months telling us that she's a corporate Republican. When he's not telling us she's a wild eyed communist. Or a lesbian. Or John Dillinger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 When he's not telling us she's a wild eyed communist. Or a lesbian. Or John Dillinger. She is everything to everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 One of the most conservative courts in decades (arguably generations) and you want them to be MORE conservative? Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 But it is interesting to note the number of justices over the past 50 years appointed by GOP Presidents that were liberal Justices compared to the number appointed by Dem Presidents that were Conservative. The GOP is late to the game of packing the court with absolute known idealogues. Holy crap this is so wrong. 100000 percent wrong. Jesus christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I still think it'd be tons of fun to watch President Trump appoint Cruz to the SCOTUS. He'd appoint himself. Four times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 When he's not telling us she's a wild eyed communist. Or a lesbian. Or John Dillinger. Nonsense. I have never even hinted at any of those in the slightest. It's your defense mechanism in trying to revert every argument into a Fox News or racist play. The liberal way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.