All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Farealmer]

A vote about Supreme Court justices usually favors Republicans. Polls consistently show their voters caring more about it, and that if it made a difference in 2016, it was to encourage more voters to back Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/29/175110...kennedy-retire

I'd also argue there's a better argument for the conservative view of jurisprudence (an understanding of laws should be based on the original intent of the lawmakers and/ or the ordinary understanding of the law) versus the liberal view (all conservative legal arguments are pretext to get what they want; this is not actually an argument for a particular vision of legal understanding although the subtext is the left should act in the same way.)

Also I asked the same person this question I asked the immigration question you asked earlier in the thread. They said this.

I think that the first part of the statement is correct. Conservatives care more about the courts than the left does most of the time. But its kind of minsunderstanding the conservative view of the law. It isn't original intent that is supposed to be the controlling factor. Its original meaning, what the people who ratified the constitution or amendment in question thought they were authorizing. We do know that the idea that originalism is just a rationalization for conervative tendencies is wrong because of cases like Texas V Johnson, where Scalia ruled that Flag-burning is protected speech despite his own wishes. But there are actually now lots of left-wing originalists. So its kind of a moot point. I don't know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a left-wing originalist. But some of her public statements about the civil war amendments and her dissent in Macdonald V Chicago kind of hint at it.
I guess more to the point, the fact that there are now left-wing originalist think-tanks proves that originalism isn't just a rationalization for conservative tendencies.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Just out of curiosty--why is the policy that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime?

Like, is that in any situation at all? Like, if a president murdered someone in front of a ton of witnesses and it could be easily proven, the only course would be to see if both sides of elected representative leadership agree the president should be removed from office?

Also, on the topic of **** in our system that is nuts, is that it is the elected representative leadership that decides if the president should be removed. The people vote to get the president elected (kind of--obviously the EC decides who is elected, but symbolically, the people get a vote), but if that president is not good, not doing a good job, mentally in decline or turns out not to be fit, the only people who can decide to remove him from office is a really really really small group of people who are pretty much controlled by corporations anyway.

So like basically, Tylenol and the NRA are the only ones who can decide who should be president.

The more I think about it, the more surprised I am it's taken this long for the American Empire to crumble.

You need to get them out of office first

[ZombieHavoc]

You need to get them out of office first

I feel like that sets the stage for some seriously messed up stuff--and I can't believe it hasn't been exploited. Maybe it has, I don't know. History is good at covering stuff up. Just ask the kids in 2207 attending Donald J. Trump, Jr., middle school, in honor of the 47th president, or the activists in 2215 trying to get the school's name changed after learning about the horrendous stuff DJT Jr. did while in office.

[aja_christopher]

To determine whether Shapiro's a problem, it's more important to look at what he actually does.

And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

-----
"McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

"In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

That was then.

Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st

[aja_christopher]

"Charging the president with a crime is something we could not consider."

So now Congress should be given access to all relevant information -- including the unredacted report -- so that they can do their job and impeach if necessary.

That said, we know most Republicans will fight against that to the end because they put loyalty to party above loyalty to country.

[Gray Lensman]

And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

-----
"McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

"In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

That was then.

Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st

I have never seen anyone as proud of his hypocrisy as the Mitchocrite.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

"Charging the president with a crime is something we could not consider."

So now Congress should be given access to all relevant information -- including the unredacted report -- so that they can do their job and impeach if necessary.

That said, we know most Republicans will fight against that to the end because they put loyalty to party above loyalty to country.

Maybe I read too much between the lines, or read it altogether wrong, but I got the feeling Mueller didn't want the responsibility (or the blame) for bringing the hammer down on a sitting president, even one as blatantly corrupt as Trump for whom there had been evidence against. So Mueller made like Pontius Pilate, washed his hands of the whole stinking mess and dropped it in the collective lap of Congress, saying in effect, "Here you go, boys. Finish what I started". Problem is, the cowardly Republicans in the Senate weren't about to throw Trump under the impeachment bus, and everyone, INCLUDING Mueller knew it too. So now, we're down to the last gasp, voting Trump out next year, and even that is far from a certainty.

[kidfresh512]

The one takeaway from Muller's little conference that he may not have wanted. Is that seeing the words come out of his mouth and hearing them actually does have impact and matter. That's exactly why Congress wants his testimony. Even though he didn't say anything new here. Seeing him flat out say that we would have completely cleared the president if that was our finding. It clearly was not our finding so we didn't. We knew that, but him emphasizing it has impact. And can wake people up who aren't about to read a 400 page report and just go off trump tweets that it completely exonerated him.

[ZombieHavoc]

If I compile all the facts from people who claim to know what they are talking about, here is what 2020 is going to look like:

-Trump wins in a landslide;
-Trump loses in a crushing defeat;
-Joe Biden has no chance of beating Trump;
-Joe Biden is the only dem with a chance of beating Trump;
-Bernie is the only dem with a chance of beating Trump;
-Because of stigma against socialism, Bernie has no chance of beating Trump;
-Trying to impeach Trump will help secure a democratic win when everything is out in the open;
-Trying to impeach Trump will help secure a Trump landslide win;
-Polls all indicate Bernie would win;
-Polls all indicate Biden would win;
-All polls indicating Bernie would win are biased and skewed;
-All polls indicating Biden would win are biased and skewed;
-We should pay attention to polls;
-We should not pay attention to polls;
-2016's swing states are gonna turn blue as hell
-2016's swing states and every state except CA and NY are going to rurn red as hell

Probably some others. Everything is shaping up nicely. We all know everything and it is all pre-determined.

[ZombieHavoc]

Also, as expected even prior to Mueller opening his mouth this morning to pretty much say nothing, the right are taking their 20th victory lap.

The fact that some people are still clinging to this impeachment thing as if it should even be attempted. Jeez.

The dude needs to be voted out. Anything else is just going to tear things further and further down. Not that we can go back up from where we are, but you know.

I really need to stop paying attention to the news. It doesn't, like, help things to know what's going on. It just pisses you off. No good comes from it.

[numberthirty]

Wait, wait, wait. You think I'm a Trump supporter?

Shhhhh whenever anybody disagrees with whatever the fashionable take in this thread is you get called a Trump supporter/Republican.

Anyways I called the Mueller report from the jump. It would be messy and inconclusive enough for nothing to result from it and Trump had enough smart people protecting him from anything flagrant

What's in blue was pretty good for a chuckle.

[Farealmer]

Also, as expected even prior to Mueller opening his mouth this morning to pretty much say nothing, the right are taking their 20th victory lap.

The fact that some people are still clinging to this impeachment thing as if it should even be attempted. Jeez.

The dude needs to be voted out. Anything else is just going to tear things further and further down. Not that we can go back up from where we are, but you know.

I really need to stop paying attention to the news. It doesn't, like, help things to know what's going on. It just pisses you off. No good comes from it.

We don't have a choice when you are reporting the blow by blow in the most pessimistic way possible.

[JCAll]

I have never seen anyone as proud of his hypocrisy as the Mitchocrite.

It's not hypocrisy, McConnell's position has always been that only a Republican could fill a Supreme Court seat. It Hillary had won, that seat would have stayed empty until a Republican was in the White House. Anyone who tells you that the Supreme Court debacle was ever anything other than a partisan power grab is either a fool or a liar.

[Mister Mets]

Not really. The only thing Avenatti did was expose more of trump's Christian values.

For the most part elected Democrats didn't embarrass themselves by getting on the Avenatti bandwagon. The main exception was Democrats who referred to the gang rape allegations against Kavanaugh as credible.

The media did get kinda nuts in slobbering over Avenatti, though.

https://twitter.com/Krasssentein/sta...93942723620871

The most obnoxious kick my Cult of Shapiro ex-friend got on was just hardcore railing about how white priveledge doesn't exist. He would say it's not white priviledge, it's American priviledge--every one has the same oppurtunity as everyone else because it's America. All while posting condecending **** about people who are in debt. He is not in any debt, because his parents paid for his college, after which he received a well paying job.

It always seems those who go hardest against the idea of white priviledge are the ones who are the most priviledged.

Ugh, that dude sucks. I get so annoyed when I think of the 20+ years I wasted in friendship with him.

Technically, the point on American privilege isn't a white supremacist one, since it doesn't suggest there should be efforts to keep minorities down.

Who knows. I think Ben Shapiro, as a person, is bad. I don't think he is trying to turn people into full on nazis. That's about as much of a compliment as I'm willing to pay him.

Fair enough, but these are different arguments.

Listening to this Robert Muller press conference. All he did was reiterate that his team would have said if they came to the conclusion that trump and the administration was clean. They DID NOT make that conclusion. And stating again that he feels they were bound by DOJ regulations that he couldn't charge the president with anything while in office if he wanted too.

Basically saying he left it up to Congress and their processes. And he wont say another word outside the report even if subpoena to testify. He feels like its all in the report there is nothing outside the report to discuss.

He did suggest that there haven't been any serious redactions, so that is useful to know.

The problem is most of those laws were made in a time when lawmakers were hostile or apathetic to the needs of marginalized groups.

Sure. And the solution would be to make new laws to take this into account.

Also I asked the same person this question I asked the immigration question you asked earlier in the thread. They said this.

Conservative view on the law seems to fall into two categories: originalism and textualism. Originalism looks at the original intent. Textualism is more about what the law specifically says.

The fact that left-wing justices are making originalist arguments isn't necessarily an indication that they're on board with the idea, but that they see it as a way to persuade their colleagues. It shows that originalism has gone mainstream.

[Mister Mets]

Uh, yeah, obviously. 2016 is proof that we on the left can't get our **** together, even it means destroying the country via the Supreme Court for 40 years.


Conservative view of jurisprudence hahahahahahahahahahaha original intent of the lawmakers hahahahahahahahahaha.

Okay.

That isn't exactly disproving my take on the liberal view.

Just out of curiosty--why is the policy that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime?

Like, is that in any situation at all? Like, if a president murdered someone in front of a ton of witnesses and it could be easily proven, the only course would be to see if both sides of elected representative leadership agree the president should be removed from office?

Also, on the topic of **** in our system that is nuts, is that it is the elected representative leadership that decides if the president should be removed. The people vote to get the president elected (kind of--obviously the EC decides who is elected, but symbolically, the people get a vote), but if that president is not good, not doing a good job, mentally in decline or turns out not to be fit, the only people who can decide to remove him from office is a really really really small group of people who are pretty much controlled by corporations anyway.

So like basically, Tylenol and the NRA are the only ones who can decide who should be president.

The more I think about it, the more surprised I am it's taken this long for the American Empire to crumble.

If the President murdered someone in front of witnesses, and it was easily provable, Congress would impeach and the cabinet would likely invoke the 25th amendment.

We probably wouldn't want to make it possible to arrest under specific circumstances with a lot of evidence and no doubt that something illegal occurred because that could set a bad precedent that complex cases should never be tried.

It's not hypocrisy, McConnell's position has always been that only a Republican could fill a Supreme Court seat. It Hillary had won, that seat would have stayed empty until a Republican was in the White House. Anyone who tells you that the Supreme Court debacle was ever anything other than a partisan power grab is either a fool or a liar.

It was pretty much a partisan power grab, although part of it is that Obama and Democrats played a bad hand poorly.

Republicans had a majority in the Senate. They were not going to vote to give liberals a 5-4 majority. In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton remained vague on whether she would put Merrick Garland on the court, which took away the moral power of the argument.

And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

-----
"McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

"In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

That was then.

Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st

There are several issues with the comparison of Shaprio on white supremacism to Democrats on immigration.

Ben Shapiro's has written and spoken often against white supremacism. Democratic officeholders and candidates tend to be vague on key questions about immigration, namely who they want to kick out of the country who already came in, and what limiting principle they have on legal immigration. Their general actions are against efforts to kick out people who came into the country illegally.

Shapiro's a commentator so he's able to take controversial positions. It's largely understood that Democratic officeholders are going to keep quiet about issues that would be unpopular with voters. Other commentators are willing to move the overton window by advocating for open borders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double (This is getting turned into a graphic novel with of Zach Weinersmith of SMBC on art.)

Democrats are free at any point to object to them as vociferously as Ben Shapiro objects to white supremacism. They choose not to.