Opt-out
16hr ago
It’s game theory. I prefer both sides follow the letter of the law. Once one side has defected the optimal strategy is also to defect.
Sub-optimal outcome but I do not believe the left has acted in good faith.
No. I want conservatives to be the same as liberals. They turn the SC into a fantasy world or a Senate when they want to. I want the same benefits that liberals have. When they want gay marriage they make up law. When they want Roe they make up law.
Nothing you say is going to convince me that they’re not all liberal hacks with no respect for the law. I don’t care if they’re 160 IQ and write eloquent opinions or 85 IQ and just say they did something because they wanted to. To quote The Office, “It’s the same Picture”. A prostitute is still a prostitute whether she’s giving $10 hand jobs or getting $500k a night. A partisan hack is well Ruth Ginsburg because she wrote law which is NOT her job.
And Yes making up law when you control the SC is beneficial to your side. I’m down with that since we own the court now.
Opt-out
21hr ago
It’s only zero-sum because everything else is gerrymandered now. Which ya gerrymandering probably is bad. You can’t be carving out black districts in Southern states from a fairness perspective if you’re not also forcing California to carve out districts for their farming communities (or basically anyone inland).
I guess it’s fine if Blacks never fully assimilate and the probably aren’t capable of it, but future immigration we really do not want more groups that can’t just blend in. City-rural differences are just going to happen.
Opt-out
1d ago
Can you extrapolate on why the EC wasn’t designed specifically for our current political climate?
This seems like a novel opinion and I doubt many people have any idea why you are referencing.
Historically that is the way the world works. Spain spent centuries on the reconquista. Norman’s with the Irish. Jews with reclaiming Israel.
People hold very long term memories on their homeland.
I don’t make the rules. It’s just history. Israel was dumb to not kill them all early.
To clarify. By members of the conflict.
I’m Irish. We spent 800 years killing Englishmen. Instead of being Roman slaves and whores we committed suicide. So I know a thing or too about being stubborn. But we still have a homeland.
Sometimes agreeing with red judges on small issues or non-partisan issues does not mean they are unbiased. You don’t need to make up the law in every case to be a partisan hack. This is akin to saying El Chapo is a good guy because he’s a good father.
If you’re going to accuse me of being biased then atleast show me a case where a conservative judge ruled in a conservative way contra the law? Hopefully they do that partially in the birthright case but I have my doubts.
I am not going to justify lying. No it is not better when judges lie to the public. If the are acting as Senators I would rather they just say I have power and I’m fucking you than claim some moral high ground that they wrote a 100 page essay to say their not fucking me.
I respect the judge who said the first amendment doesn’t apply in her courtroom. Pure I have power. I get to choose the rules. I don’t give a shit about the constitution and you’re going to jail. It’s honest. No 100 page opinion why she’s doing good work. Just pure it’s the state of NY and I win and you lose here.
Opt-out
1d ago
It’s an active war. The Normans first invaded Ireland in 1169. A final peace didn’t occur until 1998. So I guess these things can go on for a very long time.
If you want to conquer land….probably better to just do genocide so the natives don’t fight you for centuries.
Mecca is a religious site
Israel is a colonial state - I like Israel but it is fundamentally a colonial state founded by Europeans replacing the local population
Don’t get me wrong Israel does have religious significance, but a modern Jew is like 50% Italian.
Opt-out
1d ago
Just shooting for tribe affiliation would be wrong. This was with regards to Israel. So what I was proposing at what point does a Synagogue have actual ties to Israel and it’s not just affiliation?
It’s a good bet that a lot of the young adults visit Israel and probably did birth right tours. Highly likely many have dual citizenship. A reasonable bet their is backing of AIPAC which has been Israel’s hammer to keep significant military aid flowing to Israel.
I think we could agree for a Muslim who had relatives killed by IDF that Sheldon Adelson would be an appropriate revenge target. The US obvious does drone strikes on people who raised funding and organization capital for terrorists.
Opt-out
1d ago
Potentially I believe I was referring to is it a Mosque that passes around a hat funding X,Y,Z I’m a terrorist cell. So then yes. Same as if someone who lost a person to an IRA bomb shooting up an Irish pub in Boston that took donations. So yes there would need to be an added connection in these cases.
Opt-out
1d ago
This seems like a deeper explanation of what I said works for me. Logically the two groups are different. Natives and blacks aren’t here by choice so finding a way to get them to have special representation that they couldn’t earn on their own makes some sense.
The reason you left out is the ratio we would have today with more groups claiming they need special accommodations. You can have functional institutions when 15% of the people have special status but the other 85% are assimilated whites who would still have comfortable governing majorities. It would be like 60-40 today. You lose the comfortable majority to govern today. The less the ratio is “meritocratic” and the more it is “special privilege” the worse the system becomes.
Opt-out
1d ago
First. Your side doesn’t even pretend they are NOT legislating from the bench. It’s why they use terms like “Living Constitution” or nominate a wise Latina. They aren’t even pretending that they are not legislating from the bench. Whether the right has legislated from the bench I can only think of times when the legislated in the lefts direction like Sandra OCconnor supporting affirmative action as a temporary measure for 20 years despite being unconstitutional.
If the law is unbiased which is the mythology on the law then there shouldn’t even be Republican or Democrat judges. They are just applying the law as written. The only reason for the GOP to show restraint is so the average man still believes that myth, but textualism ties their hands when the other side applies theories that give them far more latitude to create policy how they want.
I don’t believe in lying. It’s a cancer. Exception being for politeness telling your aunt she looks good.
The difference between my preferred originalism and your consistent with their theory is your judicial theory does not constrain you and you can just make up law. That’s what living constitutionalism accomplished. If I play the game by those rules. You win. We will not be playing the game by those rules anymore.
I will no longer play the game those rules. Common Good Judicial Theory is a real consistent theory. It too lets me justify any reading into the law.
If neither side is constrained by text then we have created a Senate and not a Supreme Court.
Opt-out
1d ago
I guess it’s a bad example for you to use. It’s an example of 2+2=4. It wasn’t complicated.
And it only uses 3 words and everyone basically agrees what the rule means.
And if you remember my original posts I specifically said laws can have footnotes. If 3 rules gets you 93% agreement. Maybe 15 words gets 99% agreement. Like this example seems to show you can just write things down on paper and people understand it.
Opt-out
1d ago
That just a who’s watching the watchers game. A fight to gain political power within the selection committee.
But a bigger issue and a huge Chesterton Fence is it would be an attack on State’s Rights and their internal politics. I know the left generally hates States Rights because it limits their power more but we do have regional economies. You can only have a few SuperStar high margin based economies. Most do not work in those fields. Most people build a widget for $4 and sell it for $5. A lot of people have seen a huge QOL improvement being able to move out of California. Somewhat housing related but the tax regime Apple or Jane St can bear is not the same tax regime a small moat manufacturer can bear.
Perhaps you could just pass an Amendment limiting it to congressional districts but it would be a slippery slope.
Federal Election gerrymandering is bad but if everyone does it then it’s overall effect on federal politics is smaller.
Opt-out
1d ago
Politically I am fine with disparate impact when the country was 85/15 white/black. But it doesn’t work at all after the migration of last 40 years.
That being said VRA has always been unconstitutional allow with all racial discrimination.
Opt-out
1d ago
I am very clearly if a country Democratically enacts slavery judges 100% have to enforce it. That’s how a constitutional republic works. You seem to disagree with this. This is why I no longer give a shit about legal opinions. You vote for judges that do what you want them to do and I want judges appointed that do what I want them to do. Judges are not the State. They don’t get to make law. They need to uphold the law as written.
My point here though when the top law schools have 10 different legal theories the system basically became figure out the result you want and then pick the theory that says your allowed to do that.
I assume you’re a Dem because West Wing is coded Dem. In the old days the Dems did what I am describing. Figure out what you want like a right to abortion or gay marriage and then pick the theory to use. Now they had smart people who wrote well but it was really bullshit. Now we’ve downgraded to not even pretending anymore. Just put the wise Latina on the court who doesn’t need to follow the law because she’s like wise or empathetic or something. Just give me based judges when the GOP appoints someone now that will do what we want.
The system is the same. Law is just politics and has been least since FDR. The general public doesn’t read the arguments anyway. If I want to bang birthright citizenship it doesn’t matter to me if we have some smart guy who digs up transcripts from the 1860’s to justify the position or some 90 IQ 25 year old whose opinion is nothing more than I don’t like Mexicans.
Opt-out
1d ago
Trump of course is narcissistic and an egomaniac and has used government to enrich himself but I still believe he desires to work for me and wants to leave a legacy of America as a better place. So yes I believe more than 1% of politicians have good intentions.
Opt-out
2d ago
I don’t get why LBJ would say that but I am not a politician. Do you want power or do you want to improve America? Pulling in 85% of the black vote helps the Democrats. But you would still need to view your policies as good on their own or modestly bad but their votes will give you power to do other things you think are good.
And sure I probably answered my own question. He either likes being politically powerful or thought it was a good trade off.
HBD can completely explain this. If you have lower ability than your community then you will vote for more redistribution. The prior system could be 100% fair in a meritocratic way, but because you have less human capital you would prefer more free stuff from the government even if it means more taxes (which you largely don’t pay).
It’s mostly just because they are poor and compete poorly in a free market/meritocratic environment. You don’t need racism to explain this result.
First, I specifically said I do not want Judges to be a perfect system. I specifically cited slavery which is not perfect for a judge to declare someone a slave. It is their role in our society.
You shouldn’t cite “no vehicles in a park” because multiple people have responded that it was EASY to understand the rule. Vehicles has a specific meaning in the vernacular. We understand what it means. (As an aside in Constitutional Law one issue is the vernacular changes on 200 year old laws).
On the point of slaves being ruled slaves I am specifically saying Judges often do NOT follow the law. You seem fine with this. I am not. This is why you like the debate societies of Westwing where the person who says the most interesting argument gets to ignore the law and just do what the want to do.
“In this whole conversation, I've come to realize that you have many things you consider in very black and white processes. Law has to be black and white. Democracy is allowed to be not black and white, Law is not allowed. Do you realize that in your thinking?”
I 100% realize that is what I am thinking. It’s black and white. People who are elected get to have biases in decision making. People working as judges do not. This is called rule of law. It’s the same as the difference between an engineer that designs trains and one who operates trains. Designers get to have biases on what they want. Conductors operate the train that was designed.
And since well the people in The West Wing did not do Rule of Law I no longer see why I should play their game anymore as a Republican. Just give me 6 SC Justices with 80 IQ who vote the way I want them to vote.
Opt-out
2d ago
I am not asking for a perfect system. The Law though is different. It’s suppose to be blind, fair, and unbiased. That’s the mythology of the law. So the idea that 10 or more viewpoints at UC exists means there is a lot of bias in the law.
We have people who are allowed to have bias in our system. Elected officials. They can of course be tyrannical. I can and other citizens can have opinions on them and their actions. They can do bad things like legalize slavery. It’s not the job of a judge to have an opinion on slavery. If the law written by elected officials says that you are a slave then a judge is required to rule you are a slave if you challenge it in court. That is black and white. The Law of the Land. We have a system for people to have bias and it’s called Democracy.
Opt-out
2d ago
I don’t believe it is clear at all that the courts have the ability to make law on ambiguous texts. In fact courts have recognized this as vague laws are generally not considered constitutional such as the Logan Act.
Historically they have thrown out convictions based on vague laws. In the case of a vague amendment it would seem the power to me would go to the most Democratic branch of government for clarification which would be congress followed by the Executive if Congress does nothing. But yes in this case it would seem to be a sort of constitutional crisis on who has the power.
In the case of the 14th I think they need to punt the case and make it an executive decision otherwise they are overstepping their authority. If the administration violates something that is clear then the SC can claim authority.
Opt-out
2d ago
I think it was somewhat popular atleast pre-mass migration to give blacks an edge in academia and the work place, but broke down when blacks were no longer the only minority. A lot of polling depends on how you word a question. Directly saying you want to discriminate by race in the job market would be unpopular but saying African Americans should be “helped” may have been popular.
Regardless for my point I don’t think it matters if race based discrimination was popular only with the elites or the larger public. Civil Rights directly banned race based discrimination in a lot of places and it was also the law of the land in the court system.
Girls are suppose to be empathatic in their role so become a liberal and having suicidal empathy fits with ideal female personality traits. I don’t think many men would not date a girl because she’s a liberal. Though they may question whether people with those traits should get to vote.
More options
Context Copy link