All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[MiddleMan]

Not every Republican is not part of this cult. You can't paint them (or any of us) with a broad brush. There are other reasons to be a Republican, there are many reasons to be a Democrat, or an Independent, or whatever.

they are all a part of the cult until proven otherwise

when Republicans start speaking out publicly and vociferously EVERY DAY against the ludicrous and dangerous actions this administration has perpetrated, they are all part of the cult

[Tami]

Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint

Twitter has disabled a campaign-style video retweeted by Donald Trump, citing a copyright complaint.

The video, which included music from the group Linkin Park, disappeared from the president’s Twitter feed late Saturday with the notification: “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

Twitter removed the video, which Trump had retweeted from the White House social media director, Dan Scavino, after it received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from Machine Shop Entertainment, according to a notice posted on the Lumen Database which collects requests for removal of online materials.

Machine Shop is a management company owned by the rock band Linkin Park, according to its LinkedIn page.

“We respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorised representatives,” a Twitter representative said in an email statement.

The band later tweeted that they had issued a cease and desist order over the video and that they did not endorse Trump.

[Mister Mets]

Why conservative justices are more likely to defect

That was interesting. It seems to be we rarely get articulations of progressive legal theory.

I asked the following question on multiple forums recently, and only one got response.

In a lot of the discussions about the Supreme Court rulings, I haven't seen much explanation about the rationale of the liberal position(s). The subtext sometimes seems to be that the court should use whatever pretext possible to get the best policy outcomes, but that doesn't seem correct. So I'm asking if anyone can recommend a good primer on the left-wing approach to the law.

I can appreciate that there may not be one left-wing approach, just as the approaches tied to conservatism: originalism and textualism have some differences, and there are further nuances (a literal interpretation from a text can differ from a consideration of how it would be understood.) But if anyone has a good online source (video, podcast, article) explaining left-wing judicial philosophies, I would like to read it. Does anyone have a recommendation?

The one response was that Breyer wrote some good books on the matter, and that there were some good articles about the unwritten constitution, as well as a discussion between Breyer and Scalia.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/living-constitution
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu...ty_scholarship
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217424961.pdf
https://www.c-span.org/video/?292678...titution-forum

An unresolved further question is how the living constitution theory applies to things outside the constitution. On the conservative side, the arguments on originalism and textualism aren't limited to the constitution, but in determining the meaning of various statutes (Gorsuch's majority opinion on employment discrimination was based on his understanding of the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.) How does the living constitution approach consider legislation? Is legislation also living, or is that something that isn't the role of the courts the way interpreting a document that hasn't been formally amended during many of our lifetimes is?

[Kuro no Shinigami]

States vote for Democratic candidate Biden and the number of electoral votes:

California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 20
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
Wisconsin 10

Total: 279 electoral college votes

EDIT: If Trump gets one vote from Maine again like in 2016, the total would be 278 electoral votes for Biden.

[Kuro no Shinigami]

With another poll giving Biden an outside the margin of error lead in Michigan, the 270towin web site has moved the state to "leaning Biden" which gives the Democrat more than 270 electoral votes for the first time this season.

56 still considered toss-ups.

It seems they are not counting out the possibility of faithless electors.

Washington State's faithless electors cost Hillary Clinton 4 votes in 2016 election.

DC's faithless elector cost Al Gore one vote

Minnesota's faithless elector cost John Kerry one vote.

[AnakinFlair]

I am not comfortable with all these projections as I worry it might result in complacency. What's more, that doesn't take into account Republicans emptying the arsenal of dirty tricks to change the results in their favor. Democrats need to ignore this nonsense, act like Biden is DOWN ten or more points and fight like demons to help him win.

I won't celebrate until Biden is sworn in on January 20. The last election proved that polls don't mean a damn thing.

I'm all for that, problem is, that'll lead Trump to scream bloody murder that the election was rigged if he gets blown out like a Division-3 football team playing Alabama. Remember, with a SDNY trial hovering over his head and his freedom literally on the line, a desperate Trump will say anything to win and stay in office.

That is, unless whatever toady that Barr installs in SDNY doesn't throw the case out.

[Tami]

It seems they are not counting out the possibility of faithless electors.

Washington State's faithless electors cost Hillary Clinton 4 votes in 2016 election.

DC's faithless elector cost Al Gore one vote

Minnesota's faithless elector cost John Kerry one vote.

The Supremem Court has ruled on that, decreasing the chances of there being faithless electors.

[Tami]

That was interesting. It seems to be we rarely get articulations of progressive legal theory.

I asked the following question on multiple forums recently, and only one got response.

In a lot of the discussions about the Supreme Court rulings, I haven't seen much explanation about the rationale of the liberal position(s). The subtext sometimes seems to be that the court should use whatever pretext possible to get the best policy outcomes, but that doesn't seem correct. So I'm asking if anyone can recommend a good primer on the left-wing approach to the law.

I can appreciate that there may not be one left-wing approach, just as the approaches tied to conservatism: originalism and textualism have some differences, and there are further nuances (a literal interpretation from a text can differ from a consideration of how it would be understood.) But if anyone has a good online source (video, podcast, article) explaining left-wing judicial philosophies, I would like to read it. Does anyone have a recommendation?

The one response was that Breyer wrote some good books on the matter, and that there were some good articles about the unwritten constitution, as well as a discussion between Breyer and Scalia.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/living-constitution
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu...ty_scholarship
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217424961.pdf
https://www.c-span.org/video/?292678...titution-forum

An unresolved further question is how the living constitution theory applies to things outside the constitution. On the conservative side, the arguments on originalism and textualism aren't limited to the constitution, but in determining the meaning of various statutes (Gorsuch's majority opinion on employment discrimination was based on his understanding of the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.) How does the living constitution approach consider legislation? Is legislation also living, or is that something that isn't the role of the courts the way interpreting a document that hasn't been formally amended during many of our lifetimes is?

I don't think I'm qualified to answer, but I'll give my brief brief anyway (legal joke).

It seems to me that one side, conservatives, sees the Constitution as fixed, literal, and immutable. Much as many Evangelicals see the bible as fixed, literal, and immutable.

The other side, Liberals, sees the Constitution as a framework or a foundation. That, as times change, the interpretation of the Consitution must change with it. That those founding fathers who wrote the original Constitution, while being brilliant in many ways and farsighted in some, could not possibly have seen far enough into the future to anticipate everything. Admittedly, there are some things that they should have done, however the fact that they left some sections open and vague did create room to adapt it in the future.

[4saken1]

It seems they are not counting out the possibility of faithless electors.

They are also not counting the 56 toss-ups, of which Biden will assuredly get some.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint

I’m sure Trump won’t like that and will whine like a five year denied cookies before dinner about how his free speech rights were abused, yadda yadda yadda.

[The no face guy]

That was interesting. It seems to be we rarely get articulations of progressive legal theory.

I asked the following question on multiple forums recently, and only one got response.

In a lot of the discussions about the Supreme Court rulings, I haven't seen much explanation about the rationale of the liberal position(s). The subtext sometimes seems to be that the court should use whatever pretext possible to get the best policy outcomes, but that doesn't seem correct. So I'm asking if anyone can recommend a good primer on the left-wing approach to the law.

I can appreciate that there may not be one left-wing approach, just as the approaches tied to conservatism: originalism and textualism have some differences, and there are further nuances (a literal interpretation from a text can differ from a consideration of how it would be understood.) But if anyone has a good online source (video, podcast, article) explaining left-wing judicial philosophies, I would like to read it. Does anyone have a recommendation?

The one response was that Breyer wrote some good books on the matter, and that there were some good articles about the unwritten constitution, as well as a discussion between Breyer and Scalia.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/living-constitution
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu...ty_scholarship
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217424961.pdf
https://www.c-span.org/video/?292678...titution-forum

An unresolved further question is how the living constitution theory applies to things outside the constitution. On the conservative side, the arguments on originalism and textualism aren't limited to the constitution, but in determining the meaning of various statutes (Gorsuch's majority opinion on employment discrimination was based on his understanding of the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.) How does the living constitution approach consider legislation? Is legislation also living, or is that something that isn't the role of the courts the way interpreting a document that hasn't been formally amended during many of our lifetimes is?

It was an interesting article though it doesn't supply any evidence to back up its claim. It does make sense though. Generally speaking country club Republicans (White collar/William Buckly/Thurston Howell) tend to lean libertarian, and are therefore part of the socially liberal gentry class, as the article states on issues of gender and immigration. While the rural evangelical, and white working class base tend to be much more socially conservative on the issues above.

In terms of left wing jurisprudence, traditionally both the center left & right look at the law objectively, as it is written word for word, though it is often cited that liberals tend to leave more room for interpretation, which is why Franklin Roosevelt attempted to stack the Supreme Court in his favour in order to implement the New Deal that was being blocked by a conservative supreme court.

When you move to the far left, objectivity breaks down because you enter the realm of "Critical Legal Theory" Those who prescribe to this theory believe that practicing legal objectivity is not possible because people are unconsciously bias when approaching the law as a result of their race, gender and social class. Thus those who prescribe to critical legal theory often become the liberal "activist judges"

There is merit to this argument, as this is what the article is essentially saying in regards to conservative liberals belonging to a gentry class, and therefore often dissenting and voting socially liberal.

I however am weary of critical legal theory because it essentially favours subjectivity over objectivity, which then turns the law into an exercise of pure political power and ideology. I think the center left option of being more open to interpretation (Visa vi the New Deal) as opposed to the more rigid hardline word for word interpretation of the constitution often administered by conservative judges, is the best route to take.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I understand Trump was interviewed by Chris Wallace this morning, and it was an absolute clusterfuck consisting of lies, prevarications and made up **** from Caramel Caligula.

[Tami]

I understand Trump was interviewed by Chris Wallace this morning, and it was an absolute clusterfuck consisting of lies, prevarications and made up **** from Caramel Caligula.

I could be wrong, but I think Chris Wallace might be making amends for what he did in 2016.

[Username taken]

But despite Trump being a total disaster, he still leads amongst white voters (much much lower than 2016 though)


I'm from a multiracial family but haven't really spent much time with my white relatives but I'm really curious about why a still substantial number of white people still buy the nonsense Trump is peddling.

That's putting aside the fact that he's an obnoxious, corrupt bully that doesn't respect the rule of law. The man is totally uncouth so I'm genuinely disturbed that he still leads the polls amongst white voters.

[PwrdOn]

But despite Trump being a total disaster, he still leads amongst white voters (much much lower than 2016 though)


I'm from a multiracial family but haven't really spent much time with my white relatives but I'm really curious about why a still substantial number of white people still buy the nonsense Trump is peddling.

That's putting aside the fact that he's an obnoxious, corrupt bully that doesn't respect the rule of law. The man is totally uncouth so I'm genuinely disturbed that he still leads the polls amongst white voters. among

At the end of the day, nobody really cares about corruption or rule of law, they just care about preserving their own interests. For most white conservatives, their continued economic viability relies on keeping the current racial and sociopolitical hierarchy intact, even if they may not personally hate minorities, any gains that black and brown people make will come at their expense and they will naturally be opposed to that. The appearance of genteel civility that the Republicans tried and failed, to cultivate over the past century has completely disintegrated at this point revealing what had been underneath all along, and Trump is perhaps the most perfect representation of that you could hope for. There is no going back to a sensible, moderate GOP because that party never actually existed to begin with, and honestly even if you try and go back and listen to the way that "cultured" conservatives like Buckley actually talked, that would hardly strike anyone as civil or respectful. No one is just going to give up their power and privileges willingly, white people will resort to every dirty trick in the book to retain their status, principles be damned.