Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Trump Administration
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,830
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 58
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #4161
RE: Trump Administration
(07-11-2018 12:50 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It bears remembering that the classic and most consequential example of "liberal" judicial theory is the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney tried to short-circuit an ongoing political debate by declaring constitutional status for an individual "right" (in that case, the "right" to own slaves) which, while vociferously demanded by a minority of the population, was not expressly protected by the Constitution. The vocal minority was adamant that the "right" they sought must not be left to the political branches or to state-by-state policy-making or to the difficult process of Constitutional amendment, but must instead be declared by universal fiat, once and for all. Taney obliged, and that tragic decision help cause nearly a million deaths. Many of the opinions of the "liberal" justices are direct intellectual descendants of Taney and Dred Scott.

In 1984, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (then on the D.C. Circuit) offered the following observation on Roe v. Wade:

"In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. There was a distinct trend in the states, noted by the Court, 'toward liberalization of abortion statutes.' Several states had adopted the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code approach setting out grounds on which abortion could be justified at any stage of pregnancy; most significantly, the Code included as a permissible ground preserva- tion of the woman's physical or mental health. Four states -- New York, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii -- permitted physicians to perform first-tri- mester abortions with virtually no restrictions. This movement in legislative arenas bore some resemblance to the law revision activity that eventually swept through the states establishing no-fault divorce as the national pattern.

...

"...in my judgment, Roe ventured too far in the change it ordered. The sweep and detail of the opinion stimulated the mobilization of a right-to-life movement and an attendant reaction in Congress and state legislatures. In place of the trend ‘toward liberalization of abortion stat- utes’ noted in Roe, legislatures adopted measures aimed at minimizing the impact of the 1973 rulings, including notification and consent requirements, prescriptions for the protection of fetal life, and bans on public expenditures for poor women's abortions.

"Professor Paul Freund explained where he thought the Court went astray in Roe, and I agree with his statement. The Court properly invalidated the Texas proscription, he indicated, because '[a] law that absolutely made criminal all kinds and forms of abortion could not stand up; it is not a reasonable accommodation of interests.' If Roe had left off at that point and not adopted what Professor Freund called a 'medical approach,' physicians might have been less pleased with the decision, but the legislative trend might have continued in the direction in which it was headed in the early 1970s. '[S]ome of the bitter debate on the issue might have been averted,' Professor Freund believed; '[t]he animus against the Court might at least have been diverted to the legislative halls.'

...

"Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advo- cates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

63 N.C. L. Rev. 375, 379-380, 381-382, 385-386 (1985) (citations omitted)

In the same article, Judge Ginsburg approvingly quotes another judge, Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit, who made a similar observation about another legal issue:

"I can speak with feeling because I was to have presided over a three-judge court before which the constitutionality of the old law was being challenged. Although we had not yet heard argument, I could perceive not merely how soul wrenching but how politically disturbing-and I use 'politically' in the highest sense-decision either way would be. If we upheld the old law, we would be disappointing the expectations of many high- minded citizens, deeply concerned over the human misery it was creating, its discriminatory effects, its consequences for the population explosion, and the hopes of the least privileged elements in the community. These people would never understand that if we held the law constitutional, we would not be finding it good. Indeed, some opponents of reform would have claimed we had done precisely that. If we were to decide the other way, many adherents of a deeply respected religion would consider we had taken unto ourselves a role that belonged to their elected representatives and that we had done what the latter, after full consideration, had refused. If they asked what specific provision of the Constitution was violated by this law of more than a century's standing, we would have had to concede that there was none and that we were drawing on what the Supreme Court has euphemistically termed 'penumbras' to construct a new 'fundamental' right. How much better that the issue was settled by the legislature! I do not mean that everyone is happy; presumably those who opposed the reform have not changed their views. But the result is acceptable in the sense that it was reached by the democratic process and
thus will be accepted, even though many will not regard it as right."

Id. at 385 n.81 (1985) (citations omitted)

No wonder she and Justice Scalia could be friends!

The full text is at http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewc...ntext=nclr
Today 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,571
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 463
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4162
RE: Trump Administration
I think Lad does not understand the meaning of "collusion"

So here it is:

col·lu·sion
[k uh- loo-zh uhn]

NOUN
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Now somebody explain to me how the TT meeting in any way matches any part of the definition.
Today 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,684
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 116
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #4163
RE: Trump Administration
Quote:​Words failed Donald Trump. But to some of his staunchest voters, at least the U.S. president hasn't failed them — not even after Trump's shambolic press conference in Finland.

Trump on Monday endorsed Russian President Vladimir Putin's "powerful" denial about Russian meddling in the U.S. election, undermining his own intelligence community in the process. Republican and Democratic critics panned Trump's performance as "shameful," "disgraceful" and "treasonous" before Trump touched down on U.S. soil.

Amid the furor, Trump claimed he misspoke, issuing a clarification on Tuesday: "I accept" American intelligence conclusions, Trump said, somewhat reversing the earlier statements he made under Putin's gaze. (Trump also hedged that wording, adding, "Could be other people also.")

Staunch Trump supporters in a blue-collar pocket of Maryland were unmoved either way, shrugging off Trump's initial remarks favouring Putin's denial, lauding the president for correcting a "wrong," and rationalizing Russia's interference in the U.S. democratic system by noting the U.S.'s own history of using money and propaganda to sway elections.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-puti...-1.4751215
Today 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,684
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 116
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #4164
RE: Trump Administration


Quote: On Monday, after Mr. Trump had seemingly sided with the denial of Vladimir Putin at a joint news conference in Finland, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, quickly issued a statement reiterating that the U.S. firmly believes Russia meddled in the 2016 election, noting “their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.”

Mr. Trump then clarified his comments on Tuesday, in a statement read to reporters – but Wednesday’s remarks seemed to take him back to square one – where the President argues that the Russians are not coming after the U.S.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/07/...on-russia/

Quote:But White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she spoke with Trump who said he was "saying 'no' to answering questions" and not to the reporter's question itself.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...rgeting-us
(This post was last modified: Today 02:14 PM by At Ease.)
Today 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,833
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 157
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4165
RE: Trump Administration
yeah. this non-addition whack a mole is going on ignore. thought id never see that in that amount from a ricey...
Today 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,594
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4166
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think Lad does not understand the meaning of "collusion"

So here it is:

col·lu·sion
[k uh- loo-zh uhn]

NOUN
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Now somebody explain to me how the TT meeting in any way matches any part of the definition.

It could easily fit the definition if there was a quid pro quo. We should not fully trust the testimony of either party, as they have reason to lie about it. And they have already shown that they are willing to lie about the reason for the meeting - when it was made public, Trump Jr was not immediately forthcoming about the reason for the meeting and tried to hide what was discussed.
Today 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 189
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #4167
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 12:54 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote: On Monday, after Mr. Trump had seemingly sided with the denial of Vladimir Putin at a joint news conference in Finland, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, quickly issued a statement reiterating that the U.S. firmly believes Russia meddled in the 2016 election, noting “their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.”

Mr. Trump then clarified his comments on Tuesday, in a statement read to reporters – but Wednesday’s remarks seemed to take him back to square one – where the President argues that the Russians are not coming after the U.S.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/07/...on-russia/

Quote:But White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she spoke with Trump who said he was "saying 'no' to answering questions" and not to the reporter's question itself.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...rgeting-us

Seems like a "very stable genius" wouldn't need to have his minions constantly explaining what he *actually* meant. Or at least could come up with better lies.
Today 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,571
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 463
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4168
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Today 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think Lad does not understand the meaning of "collusion"

So here it is:

col·lu·sion
[k uh- loo-zh uhn]

NOUN
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Now somebody explain to me how the TT meeting in any way matches any part of the definition.

It could easily fit the definition if there was a quid pro quo. We should not fully trust the testimony of either party, as they have reason to lie about it. And they have already shown that they are willing to lie about the reason for the meeting - when it was made public, Trump Jr was not immediately forthcoming about the reason for the meeting and tried to hide what was discussed.

Over a year ago, and many times since, I have asked collusion conspiracy theorists what the quid pro quo was. Who offered what in return for what?

It seems that many of them think Trump asked Putin to steal (they were already stolen) the emails and publish them without change or editing. Why he would ask that is beyond me. How are emails about nothing going to change the election? Nobody alleges that the emails changed any votes, and certainly not any electoral votes, so why would Trump want that?

As for what was offered for this mess of magic beans, I have heard withdrawal of sanctions more often than anything else. When did that happen?

We appear to be missing both a quid and a quo. so where is the collusion? It takes two or more working toward a common goal to make collusion. If the common goal was to give Democrats a chance to look silly, I guess I colluded too.

Nobody doubts that Russians did what they could to "meddle". The collusion theory is what is under attack.

And along the lines of meddling, what current meddling would give the Russians the most disarray and gridlock in american politics, which is what they want? Why meddling on behalf of the Democrats, of course. More Democrats, more chaos. Look for the meddling to reverse polarity this year.
Today 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,594
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4169
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 03:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(Today 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(Today 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think Lad does not understand the meaning of "collusion"

So here it is:

col·lu·sion
[k uh- loo-zh uhn]

NOUN
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Now somebody explain to me how the TT meeting in any way matches any part of the definition.

It could easily fit the definition if there was a quid pro quo. We should not fully trust the testimony of either party, as they have reason to lie about it. And they have already shown that they are willing to lie about the reason for the meeting - when it was made public, Trump Jr was not immediately forthcoming about the reason for the meeting and tried to hide what was discussed.

Over a year ago, and many times since, I have asked collusion conspiracy theorists what the quid pro quo was. Who offered what in return for what?

It seems that many of them think Trump asked Putin to steal (they were already stolen) the emails and publish them without change or editing. Why he would ask that is beyond me. How are emails about nothing going to change the election? Nobody alleges that the emails changed any votes, and certainly not any electoral votes, so why would Trump want that?

As for what was offered for this mess of magic beans, I have heard withdrawal of sanctions more often than anything else. When did that happen?

We appear to be missing both a quid and a quo. so where is the collusion? It takes two or more working toward a common goal to make collusion. If the common goal was to give Democrats a chance to look silly, I guess I colluded too.

Nobody doubts that Russians did what they could to "meddle". The collusion theory is what is under attack.

And along the lines of meddling, what current meddling would give the Russians the most disarray and gridlock in american politics, which is what they want? Why meddling on behalf of the Democrats, of course. More Democrats, more chaos. Look for the meddling to reverse polarity this year.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see Russia try and gain influence over liberal orgs as they did with the NRA. Hopefully we can be more proactive, and less reactive should that be the case. I don’t really think they’ll switch, as Dems are proving to be rather hawkish against Russia, and if it comes out that Russia is helping the dems, it could be a galvanizing action that gets the Reps back to be Mitt Romney-raquel about the threat Russia poses.

And for the millionth time - remember, the investigation is into the Trump campaign. People like Manafort had plenty to gain privately, for pushing a narrative and trying to influence policy. Remember, the RNC changed their stance on Ukraine at the convention because of the Trump campaign.
Today 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,830
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 58
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #4170
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... Dems are proving to be rather hawkish against Russia,

For most of the past century, an essential Democratic litmus test has been not merely a certain dovishness toward Russia, but a commitment to condemning even mild hawkishness as a form of paranoid psychosis.

But I suppose the recent shift that makes sense, considering how much more evil Russia is now than it was under Stalin et al.
Today 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,571
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 463
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4171
RE: Trump Administration
(Today 03:42 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(Today 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... Dems are proving to be rather hawkish against Russia,

For most of the past century, an essential Democratic litmus test has been not merely a certain dovishness toward Russia, but a commitment to condemning even mild hawkishness as a form of paranoid psychosis.

But I suppose the recent shift that makes sense, considering how much more evil Russia is now than it was under Stalin et al.

04-clap2
Today 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.