(06-27-2011 06:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-27-2011 09:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning. I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it. (Not that liberal and evangelical are mutually exclusive.)

It's an interesting example of what happens when we let contentious questions be decided through the political legislative process, rather than asking judges to rule by fiat. Perhaps we could try that with other social issues?

So what's your opinion of Brown v. Board of Ed?

(06-27-2011 05:44 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Still shaking my head on this one...here's the the continued quality of the Republican candidates for president:

Quote:The wrong John Wayne: In her well-received presidential announcement speech, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) doubled down on Iowa and her roots there. But she made one minor gaffe about her birthplace, saying “John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.” John Wayne the legendary movie star is from Winterset — a three -hour drive away. John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer, lived in Waterloo.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-..._blog.html

While I tend to find the focus on such gaffes to be a silly distraction, I must say I'm impressed by the quality of this:



Interestingly, it looks like it's been up for a while, part of a series done by some guy photoshopping clown makeup onto Republicans.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40034648@N0...otostream/

(06-28-2011 05:04 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So what's your opinion of Brown v. Board of Ed?

The decision (to forbid de-jure-segregation in public education) was constitutionally correct, socially humane and farsighted. The judicial Opinion which accompanied and explained that decision was weak, muddled, fraught with irrelevancy, and rooted in a false concept of judicial power.

(06-28-2011 05:04 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2011 06:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-27-2011 09:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning. I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it. (Not that liberal and evangelical are mutually exclusive.)

It's an interesting example of what happens when we let contentious questions be decided through the political legislative process, rather than asking judges to rule by fiat. Perhaps we could try that with other social issues?

So what's your opinion of Brown v. Board of Ed?

Well, one thought is that if the Court had simply followed the Constitution in Plessy, Brown would never have come up. As important as Brown was, the underlying greatness in that jurisprudence ultimately rests less in the decision than in the piercing mandate of the Reconstruction amendments themselves, to which even the Supreme Court eventually had to yield.

When the Supreme Court acts like a mini-legislature (Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner, Griswold, Roe), it arguably causes more problems than it solves. Some examples:
- In Lochner, Griswold and Roe, the court gave constitutional status to "rights" that the people had never given such status to. Conferring that status is the people's job, not the Court's.
- In Plessy, the court failed to protect a right which the people had explicitly given constitutional status.
- In Dred Scott, the court made up a whole bunch of crap.

And given the role of precedent in the judical process, fixing judicial errors can take an awful long time. In the case of Dred Scott, the fix may have been accelerated, but the blood of half a million was the accelerant.

Philosophically I think the Court should be rather ruthless in enforcing constitutional rights and quite modest in creating new ones. Admittedly that's a fairly malleable statement, the devil being (as always) in the details. In practical terms, I'd rather have a dumb but constitutional law left to its political fate, and have constitutional silence corrected by constitutional amendment, than have an appointed tribunal assume a broad duty to discern and correct the "oversights" of the people.

"Admittedly that's a fairly malleable statement, the devil being (as always) in the details."

And there's the rub.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...". But what are those privileges and immunities? And who decides? And how? One man's judicial activisim is another man's justice. Courts do make up a lot of crap sometimes. But so do legislators.

Quote:Courts do make up a lot of crap sometimes. But so do legislators

but the people can vote the legislators out of office after (typically) 2 or 4 years (6 for US Senators). Having no such power over the judges, the judges should accordingly be trusted with less power over the people.

Well, still unclear what Perry is going to do. Seems like some R's think he is a great general election candidate, whereas I'd say he's closer to Palin and Bachman in that regard than he is to Romney or Huntsman...

So, as someone who wants to see Obama reelected, I say, please, nominate Perry!

The last time (and only time) that I ever voted for a republican for president was Reagan in 1980. I would have voted for anyone but Carter, but fortunately Reagan was actually someone that I could vote FOR, and he won. Most elections, I didn't think Texas was close enough that my vote would decide it, so I have felt that supporting someone aligned with my actual beliefs and protesting the sorry choices available meant that the best use of my vote was to vote libertarian.

For 2012, I'll vote for anyone but Obama, but I don't see any republican out there with a chance to be Reagan. My favorites, in order, would be 1) Ron Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Herman Cain, 4) anybody but Obama.

(07-01-2011 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Well, still unclear what Perry is going to do. Seems like some R's think he is a great general election candidate, whereas I'd say he's closer to Palin and Bachman in that regard than he is to Romney or Huntsman...

So, as someone who wants to see Obama reelected, I say, please, nominate Perry!

If the economy doesn't improve, the GOP could nominate Bristol Palin and still come very, very close.

Obama is in deep water here, and while some of his suPporters seem to get that, others are oblivious

(07-01-2011 08:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Well, still unclear what Perry is going to do. Seems like some R's think he is a great general election candidate, whereas I'd say he's closer to Palin and Bachman in that regard than he is to Romney or Huntsman...
So, as someone who wants to see Obama reelected, I say, please, nominate Perry!

If the economy doesn't improve, the GOP could nominate Bristol Palin and still come very, very close.
Obama is in deep water here, and while some of his suPporters seem to get that, others are oblivious

The economy is not going to improve.

That means that Obama's re-election will depend on vilifying his opponent and peddling more lies as campaign promises. That will probably be the republican strategy as well, just with different lies. It is going to be very ugly. Which is probably exactly what we deserve.

(07-01-2011 08:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  If the economy doesn't improve, the GOP could nominate Bristol Palin and still come very, very close.

Obama is in deep water here, and while some of his suPporters seem to get that, others are oblivious

I think most of his supporters, like me, get that, and are frustrated because we don't get the impression that HE gets that. (Though I'm sure he does.)

I get the impression that they are hoping demographic changes will push them over the line. Long term, I think demographic changes do favor Dems, but the election isn't long term, it's next year.

(07-01-2011 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The last time (and only time) that I ever voted for a republican for president was Reagan in 1980. I would have voted for anyone but Carter, but fortunately Reagan was actually someone that I could vote FOR, and he won. Most elections, I didn't think Texas was close enough that my vote would decide it, so I have felt that supporting someone aligned with my actual beliefs and protesting the sorry choices available meant that the best use of my vote was to vote libertarian.

For 2012, I'll vote for anyone but Obama, but I don't see any republican out there with a chance to be Reagan. My favorites, in order, would be 1) Ron Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Herman Cain, 4) anybody but Obama.

I think that in the end, for a lot of people the choice will be between Obama and notObama. If the notObama vote doesn't get fractured, the Republican nominee has a shot, whoever that may turn out to be.

I think he is losing voters who supported him in 2008. Whether they vote against him or just stay home, it will be more difficult for him. Changes in the Electoral college are working against him.

I put more stock in the senatorial races. I think it is very possible for Obama to squeak by but lose the Senate as well as the House.

(07-01-2011 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I put more stock in the senatorial races. I think it is very possible for Obama to squeak by but lose the Senate as well as the House.

I think this is probably my most likely result at this point. And given that I don't care too much for what either party is trying to do, four years of gridlock sounds to me like the best possible result.

I'm not sure we can really afford four years of gridlock in our current mess, but I'm fairly certain that four years of gridlock is better than four years of going where either the republicans or the democrats want to lead us.

(07-01-2011 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The last time (and only time) that I ever voted for a republican for president was Reagan in 1980. I would have voted for anyone but Carter, but fortunately Reagan was actually someone that I could vote FOR, and he won. Most elections, I didn't think Texas was close enough that my vote would decide it, so I have felt that supporting someone aligned with my actual beliefs and protesting the sorry choices available meant that the best use of my vote was to vote libertarian.

For 2012, I'll vote for anyone but Obama, but I don't see any republican out there with a chance to be Reagan. My favorites, in order, would be 1) Ron Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Herman Cain, 4) anybody but Obama.

I think that in the end, for a lot of people the choice will be between Obama and notObama. If the notObama vote doesn't get fractured, the Republican nominee has a shot, whoever that may turn out to be.

I think he is losing voters who supported him in 2008. Whether they vote against him or just stay home, it will be more difficult for him. Changes in the Electoral college are working against him.

I put more stock in the senatorial races. I think it is very possible for Obama to squeak by but lose the Senate as well as the House.

That's where it usually is with an incumbent - I see this as potentially a lot like 2004. Voters weren't real happy with Bush, but just weren't ready to fire him for Kerry. So a lot depends on the R nominee passing some threshold. And if s/he doesn't and Obama is re-elected, there will be a subset of Republicans who will be just as bewildered as I was when Bush beat Kerry...

Another factor could be if some conservatives would stay home if Romney or Huntsman is the nominee. I wouldn't bank on that too much if I were Obama though. I think the states where anti-Mormon feelings among the Christian right might affect turnout significantly are probably also states where Obama has zero chance anyway and Republicans are generally better at rallying around the nominee than Dems...

(07-01-2011 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think that in the end, for a lot of people the choice will be between Obama and notObama.

+1.

More generally, I think every election comes down to a choice between Incumbent and Not-Incumbent. This tends to be true even when (as in 2000 and 2008) the Incumbent is not literally running for re-election. But it's definitely true when the Incumbent's name is literally on the ballot.

Quote:If the notObama vote doesn't get fractured, the Republican nominee has a shot, whoever that may turn out to be.

You never know, but right now I would be shocked if all the third-party candidates combined, exceed 2.0% of the overall popular vote.

Quote:I think he is losing voters who supported him in 2008. Whether they vote against him or just stay home, it will be more difficult for him.

I think, in terms of the Electoral College, Obama's best-case scenario is winning 332-206. This scenario involves Obama losing all the states that he lost last time (173 Electoral Votes), plus Indiana and North Carolina and the Omaha-district in Nebraska (27), plus the reapportionment changes following the Census (net loss to Obama of 6).

Obama carried Indiana, NC, and Omaha by <1% each, and I have a hard time believing his standing hasn't declined by at least 1% since November 2008. The next "rung" is Florida (Obama by 3%) Ohio (4%) and Virginia (6%). Those three states have a combined Electoral Vote of 60, and Obama could lose all three of those, plus the others I've already mentioned, and still win the College, 272-266. Beyond Ohio-Virginia-Florida, you get into states like New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and I don't think anyone can predict those states this far ahead of time. I would note, however, that Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the US, plus a substantial Mormon/LDS element. That could be significant if Romney turns out to be the GOP nominee.

Quote:I put more stock in the senatorial races. I think it is very possible for Obama to squeak by but lose the Senate as well as the House.

Until redistricting is over, it's difficult to handicap the House. But right now, I'd have to think that the odds are in favor of the GOP holding the House and making at least some advances in the Senate, although not necessarily enough to take majority-control.

(07-01-2011 10:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I see this as potentially a lot like 2004. Voters weren't real happy with Bush, but just weren't ready to fire him for Kerry. So a lot depends on the R nominee passing some threshold. And if s/he doesn't and Obama is re-elected, there will be a subset of Republicans who will be just as bewildered as I was when Bush beat Kerry...

I can honestly say, there was never a single moment throughout the 2003-04 campaign where I thought Kerry had a better than 33% chance of defeating Bush. If anything, I am impressed that he came as close as he did.

For now, I very clearly admit Obama could win again. I have thought for a couple of years now he had a 50/50 shot at a second term, and I still think that now.

Quote:I think the states where anti-Mormon feelings among the Christian right might affect turnout significantly are probably also states where Obama has zero chance anyway

That is a very perceptive point...

Quote:Republicans are generally better at rallying around the nominee than Dems...

You really think so? My observations in 1992 (Bush-Quayle), 1996 (Dole-Kemp) and 2008 (McCain-Palin) were that when GOP voters see the writing on the wall, they just stay home, lock the doors, and wait for the storm to pass.

Say what you will about Doug Wilder, the candidate and leader (and it's generally not overwhelmingly positive). But I've always found his political instincts (through op-eds, etc.) to be top notch. He sees things and gets it. Which, if you're an Obama supporter, should give you pause after your read something like this from a true-blue Democratic Party supporter.

http://wildervisions.com/2011/06/how-rel...e-in-2012/

This is Obama's dilemma as I see it. In 2008 he told every group whatever particular lie he needed to tell them--and every group believed him. He told moderate leftists that he was a moderate leftists. He told centrists that he was a centrist. He told socialists that he was a socialist. He promised to give everyone everything that he or she wanted, and to make somebody else pay for it. He got away with it on the campaign trail because everyone was so disgusted with Shrub that they wanted to believe him, and because the media wanted him so badly that they fell down on their job of kicking the tires of all candidates.

Now he has to make all those lies come through, or disappoint some part of his constituents. I think his best strategy would be to move toward the center and portray the republican nominee as the return of Shrub. His far left constituents aren't going to vote for the republican, but the folks he loses from the center might very well do so. That would make the best republican strategy to run away from Shrub and make Obama the issue.

(07-01-2011 02:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is Obama's dilemma as I see it. In 2008 he told every group whatever particular lie he needed to tell them--and every group believed him. He told moderate leftists that he was a moderate leftists. He told centrists that he was a centrist. He told socialists that he was a socialist. He promised to give everyone everything that he or she wanted, and to make somebody else pay for it. He got away with it on the campaign trail because everyone was so disgusted with Shrub that they wanted to believe him, and because the media wanted him so badly that they fell down on their job of kicking the tires of all candidates.

Reminiscent of Huey Long, who would campaign in northern, Protestant Louisiana as a born-again Protestant and in Cajun country as a cradle Catholic. And "Every man a king!"

(06-28-2011 08:44 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-28-2011 05:04 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2011 06:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-27-2011 09:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning. I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it. (Not that liberal and evangelical are mutually exclusive.)

It's an interesting example of what happens when we let contentious questions be decided through the political legislative process, rather than asking judges to rule by fiat. Perhaps we could try that with other social issues?

So what's your opinion of Brown v. Board of Ed?

Well, one thought is that if the Court had simply followed the Constitution in Plessy, Brown would never have come up. As important as Brown was, the underlying greatness in that jurisprudence ultimately rests less in the decision than in the piercing mandate of the Reconstruction amendments themselves, to which even the Supreme Court eventually had to yield.

When the Supreme Court acts like a mini-legislature (Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner, Griswold, Roe), it arguably causes more problems than it solves. Some examples:
- In Lochner, Griswold and Roe, the court gave constitutional status to "rights" that the people had never given such status to. Conferring that status is the people's job, not the Court's.
- In Plessy, the court failed to protect a right which the people had explicitly given constitutional status.
- In Dred Scott, the court made up a whole bunch of crap.

And given the role of precedent in the judical process, fixing judicial errors can take an awful long time. In the case of Dred Scott, the fix may have been accelerated, but the blood of half a million was the accelerant.

Philosophically I think the Court should be rather ruthless in enforcing constitutional rights and quite modest in creating new ones. Admittedly that's a fairly malleable statement, the devil being (as always) in the details. In practical terms, I'd rather have a dumb but constitutional law left to its political fate, and have constitutional silence corrected by constitutional amendment, than have an appointed tribunal assume a broad duty to discern and correct the "oversights" of the people.

While I agree with you on most of these cases, I think the Lochner decision is misunderstood in our time and has been spun as an awful decision by its critics, FDR's New Dealers and the Legal Realists. It was certainly controversial from its decision in 1905, but as a decision based on jurisprudential development from 1865 onward, I think it carries merit. It also wasn't nearly as cut-and-dry as its detractors made it out to be. Further, the case was much more principled in its development of the law than the later legal realists would be, who claim that every judge's decisions can be traced to their underlying political philosophy. The judges in the Lochnerian tradition often went against their own politics in when they thought the law required something else.

Lastly, one should consider the Progressive alternative to Lochner at the time. Go read the supposedly progressive jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Buck v. Bell, which upheld Virginia's forced sterilization law while playing fast and loose with the precedent, stating, "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes," and concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

As a statement of law, I don't think Lochner was correct, but it wasn't the demon it's been made out to be.