(09-29-2018 04:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

Well you're not supposed to appreciate it, but it seems like an accurate take. You declared that unelected, unaccountable, but enlightened experts must take it upon themselves to "right" the "wrongs" which they discern, regardless of written law. So did those others. It's this philosophy that's beneath you -- beneath any civilized person.

Isn’t that the whole point of the Supreme Court? Evaluating written law and determining its constitutionality, and thus legality?

Just because a law is passed, does not mean it is right, or moral, or really anything. It just means it passed through Congress and was signed by the POTUS.

My take is that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution in the context of the real world in order to evaluate current laws under question.

That’s why I asked you your opinion on rulings that limited free speech. Your principled stance would lead me to think you would disagree with both rulings.

(09-29-2018 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My take is that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution in the context of the real world in order to evaluate current laws under question.

No, that wasn't your take, for two reasons. First, no one has said that the Supreme Court should NOT "interpret the Constitution in the context of the real world in order to evaluate current laws under question". In fact, several of discussed in great length how Fourth Amendment jurisprudence admirably does exactly that. Your take was absolutely clear that this approach (interpreting constitutional provisions in the context of the real world) was NOT sufficient. Second, you explicitly went a great deal further: you declared that ultimately the Supreme Court should "right" those things it perceives to be "wrongs" EVEN IF there is no Constitutional basis for doing so. That's a decisive difference, and a frightening one.

If you mis-spoke then, and you wish to modify your earlier declaration to conform to what you're saying now, I will withdraw my criticism. I will do the same (with apologies) if you affirm in good faith that that’s not what you declared. But as I recall, that is what you declared, and what put you in the company of history's gallery of tyrants.

(09-29-2018 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

Well you're not supposed to appreciate it, but it seems like an accurate take. You declared that unelected, unaccountable, but enlightened experts must take it upon themselves to "right" the "wrongs" which they discern, regardless of written law. So did those others. It's this philosophy that's beneath you -- beneath any civilized person.

Isn’t that the whole point of the Supreme Court? Evaluating written law and determining its constitutionality, and thus legality?

Just because a law is passed, does not mean it is right, or moral, or really anything. It just means it passed through Congress and was signed by the POTUS.

Correct. Most take Marbury v. Madison as the ability for the SCOTUS to render as to the Constitutionalilty of the resulting law. But even the ability of the SCOTUS as the arbiter of constitutionality can be an issue; there is nothing in the Constitution that inherently provides for this.

Quote:My take is that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution in the context of the real world in order to evaluate current laws under question.

That is certainly your right to believe in. It is my belief that such a Living Constitution theory is not just anathema to the idea of ordered justice, it is actually inherently unstable and an inherently dangerous philosophy to adopt based on the subject matter (i.e. the cornerstone of all law and legality in our system).

Quote:That’s why I asked you your opinion on rulings that limited free speech. Your principled stance would lead me to think you would disagree with both rulings.

When you read about Schenck, it is actually a cornerstone in many areas. The abse finding of the actual case (i.e. distributing pamphlets criticizing recruitment efforts being a criminal offense) I would vehemently disagree with.

But there are threads, discussed and relied upon even to this day, within Schenck that are agreeable.

And, to be honest, Schenck could be used a poster child for what I would view as the worst problems of a Living Constitution theory being followed -- literally within Schenck there is verbiage that says 'typically this law would be a problem within view of the First Amendment -- but this is wartime so everything changes.'

Brandenburg is actually one I very much agree with. The discussion of the base follows much of the reasoning of Schenck, but severely dials back the effect of Schenck while not abandoning it completely.

The base issue in Brandenburg is some cracker who distributed some pretty rank racial characterizations. The takeaway base finding is that mere advocacy for position cannot be criminalized. And that is a position (both legal and political) that I am strongly in favor of.

(09-29-2018 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

Well you're not supposed to appreciate it, but it seems like an accurate take. You declared that unelected, unaccountable, but enlightened experts must take it upon themselves to "right" the "wrongs" which they discern, regardless of written law. So did those others. It's this philosophy that's beneath you -- beneath any civilized person.

Isn’t that the whole point of the Supreme Court? Evaluating written law and determining its constitutionality, and thus legality?

Just because a law is passed, does not mean it is right, or moral, or really anything. It just means it passed through Congress and was signed by the POTUS.

I think I see a source of confusion here: when I said “written law” in my post, I meant written law in its general sense, specifically including the Constitution as the supreme example of written law. Your reply seems to assume that I was contrasting the Constitution from written law. I was not.

(09-29-2018 04:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The Kavanaugh DC hearings forced Cruz's team to postpone Sunday's debate (makes sense). But then after the even crazier turn of events on Saturday, Cruz's team told O'Rourke's team they were available to debate after all. But O'Rourke has supposedly made other plans so the debate is off for now. I imagine they'll re-schedule one before the election. I'm not sure it made sense to do them so far in advance of the election anyway.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...ady-booked

The October 16 debate is still scheduled, correct?

Yes

(09-29-2018 01:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't they be hate speech only if they said "WOMEN ARE TRASH"? So many things in liberal world are dependent on which group(s) you attack and which you champion.

OK to attack: Old, White, Men.

Not OK: the rest.

*That* explains the drumbeat of old white men relating to the Kavanaugh hearings.

But it still begs the question of what 'old' and 'white' has to do with anything related to the issues of the hearings. Maybe Robert can tell us since he is the ostensible Texas expert (all over Texas, in fact, including Booker) on intersectionality and social justice these days. I mean, even the question of him in the debate on whether he tried to bolt from the DWI crash was somehow integral to the idea of social justice.

They were worried about the impact of old white men questioning her. But several of the Democrats questioing her were old white men. Blumenthal would scare a Sasquatch.

(09-29-2018 08:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 01:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't they be hate speech only if they said "WOMEN ARE TRASH"? So many things in liberal world are dependent on which group(s) you attack and which you champion.

OK to attack: Old, White, Men.

Not OK: the rest.

*That* explains the drumbeat of old white men relating to the Kavanaugh hearings.

But it still begs the question of what 'old' and 'white' has to do with anything related to the issues of the hearings. Maybe Robert can tell us since he is the ostensible Texas expert (all over Texas, in fact, including Booker) on intersectionality and social justice these days. I mean, even the question of him in the debate on whether he tried to bolt from the DWI crash was somehow integral to the idea of social justice.

They were worried about the impact of old white men questioning her. But several of the Democrats questioing her were old white men. Blumenthal would scare a Sasquatch.

Before Blumenthal goes after Kavanaugh for "lying about getting drunk" maybe Blumenthal should remember how he lied about being stationed in Vietnam.

(09-29-2018 10:23 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 08:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 01:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't they be hate speech only if they said "WOMEN ARE TRASH"? So many things in liberal world are dependent on which group(s) you attack and which you champion.

OK to attack: Old, White, Men.

Not OK: the rest.

*That* explains the drumbeat of old white men relating to the Kavanaugh hearings.

But it still begs the question of what 'old' and 'white' has to do with anything related to the issues of the hearings. Maybe Robert can tell us since he is the ostensible Texas expert (all over Texas, in fact, including Booker) on intersectionality and social justice these days. I mean, even the question of him in the debate on whether he tried to bolt from the DWI crash was somehow integral to the idea of social justice.

They were worried about the impact of old white men questioning her. But several of the Democrats questioing her were old white men. Blumenthal would scare a Sasquatch.

Before Blumenthal goes after Kavanaugh for "lying about getting drunk" maybe Blumenthal should remember how he lied about being stationed in Vietnam.

When Blumenthal *opened* with “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, considering Kavanaugh's mode at the time ('what do *you* like to drink?') I was halfway expecting Kav to refer back to the question by saying 'Yes I do, Staff Sergeant Barnes'.

Link to SSgt Barnes

For some reason, when Blumenthal speaks, the words “Self-righteous, smug, lying, holier than thou hypocrite” come to mind. JMHO.

He is definitely white and male. Is he old enough to qualify as an “old white man”, and if so why was he allowed to question Ford when they terrify her?

Quote:HOUSTON - Texas has set a new voter registration record of 15.6 million people ahead of the highly anticipated Senate race between Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke.

https://www.ksat.com/news/texas-voter-ro...ent=ksat12


The Kavanaugh hearings may close the energy gap between the two parties.

The choice is stupendously clear:

Air drumming in the car through the Whataburger drive through; or

Grabbing a cold twelve pack of Shiner at Buccee's.

I think the only other 'true' all Texan icon that needs to be trotted out is who will suck down the first Dr Pepper via Twitter.

(10-27-2018 02:18 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

Is that real? If so, that's spectacular.

Nice sign. It should help Republican Super Pacs realize that it's pronounced BET-oh (as in GET-off my lawn) instead of BAY-toe.

And here's an interesting article on Ted Cruz whom the author claims has done nothing in Washington as a Senator because he's too focused on the present and not the future. This paragraph is interesting.

Cruz’s tea party base sent him to Washington, D.C., to break stuff, not do stuff. He’s an obstructionist, not a problem-solver. In that respect, he sits well outside a long, bipartisan tradition in which the Texas congressional delegation understood its primary responsibility to be advancing Texas’ material interests. He’s not alone in that — he’s part of a trend. And whenever I think about that trend, I think about Waxahachie.

https://www.texasobserver.org/ted-cruzs-...ng-record/

(10-28-2018 06:50 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Nice sign. It should help Republican Super Pacs realize that it's pronounced BET-oh (as in GET-off my lawn) instead of BAY-toe.
And here's an interesting article on Ted Cruz whom the author claims has done nothing in Washington as a Senator because he's too focused on the present and not the future. This paragraph is interesting.
Cruz’s tea party base sent him to Washington, D.C., to break stuff, not do stuff. He’s an obstructionist, not a problem-solver. In that respect, he sits well outside a long, bipartisan tradition in which the Texas congressional delegation understood its primary responsibility to be advancing Texas’ material interests. He’s not alone in that — he’s part of a trend. And whenever I think about that trend, I think about Waxahachie.
https://www.texasobserver.org/ted-cruzs-...ng-record/

Maybe it is in Texas's best interests to break stuff. I certainly think there is a lot of stuff in Washington that needs breaking.

Not a fan of Cruz. But given a choice between Cruz with all his faults and somebody who voted with Nancy Pelosi 90+% of the time, I don't think Cruz loses that comparison. One thing for sure, anybody with that voting record is no part of any long, bipartisan tradition.

Why does the left spend so much time attacking the other side? Can you not come up with anything positive about your own side? Can you give me one good reason why I should vote FOR O'Rourke, instead of just bashing Cruz? And it's not BAY-toe or BET-oh, it's Robert. Elizabeth Warren is more Native American than he is Hispanic.

I don't understand the uproar about Beto. Is it even an Hispanic name? I've never met anyone with that name before. I certainly wouldn't hear it and immediately assume it's an Hispanic name.

Both sides attack each other with equal veracity. Have you watched any television in the last month? How is Nancy Pelosi doing in her house race against John Culberson?

One thing Beto O'Rouke is doing is running about the most level-headed, high-profile political race in decades. Yes, there are some Democratic Super Pacs doing some negative campaigning (although I'd argue that the Richard Linklater ads are more tongue-in-cheek than truly incendiary), and Beto has had a few honest answers to questions he's immediately regretted (saying he'd vote for Trump to be impeached and bringing up the Lyin' Ted moniker in a debate). But for the most part, he's been about uniting Texas and being positive.

In these days, with the Florida pipe bomber and then the Pittsburgh shooter yesterday (both of whom were filled with hatred fueled by an unhealthy thirst for social media sites about politics), I think Beto's tone is exactly what Texas and this country needs to at least begin the path for healing. Much like Bobby Kennedy helped America get through the dark days of the late 1960's, I think Beto can help in that regard.

(10-28-2018 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 06:50 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Nice sign. It should help Republican Super Pacs realize that it's pronounced BET-oh (as in GET-off my lawn) instead of BAY-toe.
And here's an interesting article on Ted Cruz whom the author claims has done nothing in Washington as a Senator because he's too focused on the present and not the future. This paragraph is interesting.
Cruz’s tea party base sent him to Washington, D.C., to break stuff, not do stuff. He’s an obstructionist, not a problem-solver. In that respect, he sits well outside a long, bipartisan tradition in which the Texas congressional delegation understood its primary responsibility to be advancing Texas’ material interests. He’s not alone in that — he’s part of a trend. And whenever I think about that trend, I think about Waxahachie.
https://www.texasobserver.org/ted-cruzs-...ng-record/

Maybe it is in Texas's best interests to break stuff. I certainly think there is a lot of stuff in Washington that needs breaking.

Not a fan of Cruz. But given a choice between Cruz with all his faults and somebody who voted with Nancy Pelosi 90+% of the time, I don't think Cruz loses that comparison. One thing for sure, anybody with that voting record is no part of any long, bipartisan tradition.

Why does the left spend so much time attacking the other side? Can you not come up with anything positive about your own side? Can you give me one good reason why I should vote FOR O'Rourke, instead of just bashing Cruz? And it's not BAY-toe or BET-oh, it's Robert. Elizabeth Warren is more Native American than he is Hispanic.

Well, given that he’s running as a liberal, it makes sense that he won’t align with your views on many issues.

But reasons to vote for Beto that I’m guessing you can get behind. I could give you more reasons as to why I support his candidacy, but I doubt you’d agree.

- Legalization of cannabis
- Not wasting tax dollars on a wall along the southern border
- increasing funding for veteran benefits
- Per his website: Ensuring the government works more efficiently and costs less by eliminating redundant or outdated federal regulations and improving transparency and oversight of federal agencies.

Beto especially has been running very much on his stances and why people should vote for him, as opposed to focusing on negative attacks against Cruz. If you want to see what attacking the other side looks like, just take a leak at the governor’s race in Florida, where that is all that is happening between the two candidates.

(10-28-2018 07:26 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't understand the uproar about Beto. Is it even an Hispanic name? I've never met anyone with that name before. I certainly wouldn't hear it and immediately assume it's an Hispanic name.
Both sides attack each other with equal veracity. Have you watched any television in the last month? How is Nancy Pelosi doing in her house race against John Culberson?
One thing Beto O'Rouke is doing is running about the most level-headed, high-profile political race in decades. Yes, there are some Democratic Super Pacs doing some negative campaigning (although I'd argue that the Richard Linklater ads are more tongue-in-cheek than truly incendiary), and Beto has had a few honest answers to questions he's immediately regretted (saying he'd vote for Trump to be impeached and bringing up the Lyin' Ted moniker in a debate). But for the most part, he's been about uniting Texas and being positive.
In these days, with the Florida pipe bomber and then the Pittsburgh shooter yesterday (both of whom were filled with hatred fueled by an unhealthy thirst for social media sites about politics), I think Beto's tone is exactly what Texas and this country needs to at least begin the path for healing. Much like Bobby Kennedy helped America get through the dark days of the late 1960's, I think Beto can help in that regard.

If I were running on a 90+% Nancy Pelosi voting record in Texas, I'd be long on platitudes and short on specifics too. You are right (although perhaps you didn't exactly intend it this way), he has had very few honest moments, and most of those he has regretted.

If you can't convince them with facts, you baffle them with BS. Yeah, Robert is trying to come across as a healer, but he's a super-partisan leftist, and super-partisans on either side are not healers. He's smooth, but more than anyone else I know, the O'Rourkes are a family that lives on politics. To paraphrase RADM Painter (the Fred Thompson character in Red October) they don't take a dump without planning the political implications. Robert's candidacy strikes me as a Trojan horse attempt to use a toothy grin to elect a candidate whose views are contrary to those of most Texans. And Ted Cruz has done a spectacularly poor job--almost a Claytie Williams poor job--of exposing exactly who Robert O'Rourke is.

(10-28-2018 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, given that he’s running as a liberal, it makes sense that he won’t align with your views on many issues.
But reasons to vote for Beto that I’m guessing you can get behind. I could give you more reasons as to why I support his candidacy, but I doubt you’d agree.
- Legalization of cannabis
- Not wasting tax dollars on a wall along the southern border
- increasing funding for veteran benefits
- Per his website: Ensuring the government works more efficiently and costs less by eliminating redundant or outdated federal regulations and improving transparency and oversight of federal agencies.
Beto especially has been running very much on his stances and why people should vote for him, as opposed to focusing on negative attacks against Cruz. If you want to see what attacking the other side looks like, just take a leak at the governor’s race in Florida, where that is all that is happening between the two candidates.

He's not running as a leftist, he IS a leftist. He's running as some sort of bipartisan healer. He is nothing of the sort. He would go to Washington and be Chuck Schumer's lapdog, just as he has been Nancy Pelosi's lapdog. I'm not going to vote for someone who aligns with Pelosi or Schumer 90+% of the time.

If he wanted to run as a liberal, he should say, "I voted with Nancy Pelosi 90+% of the time. If that's what you want in the senate, then vote for me." Of course, he wouldn't get to first base in Texas with that approach, so that's not what he does. If I had his voting record, I would do exactly what he is doing. His lack of honesty and transparency causes me to doubt anything he says.

(10-28-2018 07:26 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  But for the most part, he's been about uniting Texas and being positive.
In these days, with the Florida pipe bomber and then the Pittsburgh shooter yesterday (both of whom were filled with hatred fueled by an unhealthy thirst for social media sites about politics), I think Beto's tone is exactly what Texas and this country needs to at least begin the path for healing. Much like Bobby Kennedy helped America get through the dark days of the late 1960's, I think Beto can help in that regard.

These are exactly the kinds of comments that O'Rourke has run his campaign to evoke, and I find them incredibly annoying.

The lesson of Obama: You can't be a unifier from the fringe. You have to be somewhere near the center to be a unifier. Obama wasn't, and O'Rourke isn't.

If elected, O'Rourke is going to be a back bench lapdog for Chuck Schumer, just as has been for Nancy Pelosi. Ask Alabama how Doug Jones has turned out, after running the same sort of campaign. You can't be a unifier and be an extreme partisan.

As I said, I think this is some sort of democrat Trojan horse strategy. Get left wingers elected in conservative states by having them campaign on fluff. Don't let anybody know where the really stand, and maybe we can sneak them through. It worked in Alabama, mainly because of Roy Moore. If it works in Texas, that'll be two, and I expect dems to keep trying it. They don't really have any other way to appeal to Texas voters.

So why is Cruz letting him get away with it? Beats the hell outta me.