Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 9210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #140 on: June 29, 2018, 03:02:48 PM »
I'm not sure how we get to a 6-3 court anyway since, even if Trump were to appoint and get an unabashed right-wing shill on the court, that still leaves the court will 4 (mostly) unabashed left-wing shills.  I think we might just be looking at a mostly 4-4 court, with Roberts being the "moderate" swing voter.  That might tilt the court slightly more right, but I'm not sure it will be drastic.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #141 on: June 29, 2018, 03:06:14 PM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.
I'm guessing you define judicial activism in a "liberal only" sort of way, and I don't really feel like going their right now. As for Roe, it's a question of whether or not they get the right case. If some loon in Kansas can create the perfect test case it's toast. Stare decisis is meaningless to the court, and they'll have no problem jenga-ing an argument to drop the axe on it. Personally, when it comes to setting fire to landmark cases I'm betting Mapp is the first to go. That'll bug me. Burning Row just makes us look like the sharians many on the right want us to become, but Mapp really matters.

You and I have discussed in the past whether or not something is legal if the only laws preventing it aren't enforceable. This is something that has come up a lot with the right bloc. They will essentially say "yeah, the law will very likely cause terrible things to happen, but that's not our problem." I think it is. Especially when they think that the check to those problems will come from the people who want the terrible things in the first place. This will be the decision on political gerrymandering, by the way. "The people who gerrymander their states have to answer to the voters." Insofar as Mapp goes, similar reasoning will do it in. "Mapp is unnecessary because the police are already prohibited from violating search and seizure rules, and the citizens already have a recourse should it occur." Irrelevant, and only true at the philosophical level. Besides which, pretty much the entire concept of procedural due process seems antithetical to many of those guys.

I respect your comment, but I didn't intentionally mean it to be in a "liberal sort of way", though those are often the best examples.   I'm not thrilled with Rowe after the "abortion is a fundamental right".  The rest of that - the trimesters, and what not - should have been handled legislatively, which (rightfully, in my view) led to "Planned Parenthood v Casey".
And when Kansas enacts a law that says you can't have an abortion more than 3 days after conception, which justices do you think will actually care that it is a fundamental right?

Well, maybe for different reasons, but I'd have a problem with that.   I know this is what you mean when you ask "is it illegal..." but ultimately it will flush itself out.   We've had shills before as justices, we've had ideological saints before...  I'm not saying your analysis is wrong (it's not, for the most part, especially Thomas) or that your fears are unfounded.    A 6-3 court that is nothing but ideologues would be potentially problematic, but I don't see radical overhaul by the Courts.  Roberts bent over backward to make sure that the Court didn't become the ump that threw the game when it came to the ACA, and I think that trend with largely continue.  You might see some trends, like the reliance on free speech as a weapon to make statements, but I don't think it will echo, and I don't think it will be lasting.
You completely ducked the question.

I don't really disagree with you, but as I pointed out a couple of days ago, Roberts has already lost that battle, honestly. I think he really wanted to maintain a sense of the court being free from politics, but I don't think it qualifies anymore.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #142 on: June 29, 2018, 03:09:22 PM »
I'm not sure how we get to a 6-3 court anyway since, even if Trump were to appoint and get an unabashed right-wing shill on the court, that still leaves the court will 4 (mostly) unabashed left-wing shills.  I think we might just be looking at a mostly 4-4 court, with Roberts being the "moderate" swing voter.  That might tilt the court slightly more right, but I'm not sure it will be drastic.
Your assessment is correct, but I don't think of Roberts as being particularly moderate. He'll be the swing vote on a handful of big cases, but we're going to see a lot more "party line" decisions than we have with Kennedy.

I will say that it's not inconceivable that Roberts slides a bit to the left. I do think he's cognizant of the role of the court, and also the appearance of the court. He won't become another Souter, but he might gravitate more towards Kennedy.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #143 on: June 29, 2018, 03:17:37 PM »
I'm not sure how we get to a 6-3 court anyway since, even if Trump were to appoint and get an unabashed right-wing shill on the court, that still leaves the court will 4 (mostly) unabashed left-wing shills.  I think we might just be looking at a mostly 4-4 court, with Roberts being the "moderate" swing voter.  That might tilt the court slightly more right, but I'm not sure it will be drastic.
Your assessment is correct, but I don't think of Roberts as being particularly moderate. He'll be the swing vote on a handful of big cases, but we're going to see a lot more "party line" decisions than we have with Kennedy.

I will say that it's not inconceivable that Roberts slides a bit to the left. I do think he's cognizant of the role of the court, and also the appearance of the court. He won't become another Souter, but he might gravitate more towards Kennedy.

"Party line" is an interesting discussion to have.  I think your basic point is correct.  But I think motivations matter in terms of, as you put it, the role and appearance of the court.  On the left, I think you have three that vote party line regardless of whether they believe it is legally justified or correct, and simply because it is the party line.  I think you have one that largely votes that way because he actually DOES believe it is legally justified or correct.  On the right, absent Kennedy, I think you have Thomas that votes party line just because, and you have Alito and Roberts that happen to vote party line because it is more often legally justified or correct.  Not sure about Gorsuch yet, so no comment on him.  I guess what I am trying to say is that we have one blind ideologue on the right and three on the left.  Having that many on the court is a bad thing, no matter which way they happen to lean.  Anyhow, not sure what conclusion I am trying to draw from that, but just making the observation.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #144 on: June 29, 2018, 03:56:32 PM »
I'm not sure how we get to a 6-3 court anyway since, even if Trump were to appoint and get an unabashed right-wing shill on the court, that still leaves the court will 4 (mostly) unabashed left-wing shills.  I think we might just be looking at a mostly 4-4 court, with Roberts being the "moderate" swing voter.  That might tilt the court slightly more right, but I'm not sure it will be drastic.
Your assessment is correct, but I don't think of Roberts as being particularly moderate. He'll be the swing vote on a handful of big cases, but we're going to see a lot more "party line" decisions than we have with Kennedy.

I will say that it's not inconceivable that Roberts slides a bit to the left. I do think he's cognizant of the role of the court, and also the appearance of the court. He won't become another Souter, but he might gravitate more towards Kennedy.

"Party line" is an interesting discussion to have.  I think your basic point is correct.  But I think motivations matter in terms of, as you put it, the role and appearance of the court.  On the left, I think you have three that vote party line regardless of whether they believe it is legally justified or correct, and simply because it is the party line.  I think you have one that largely votes that way because he actually DOES believe it is legally justified or correct.  On the right, absent Kennedy, I think you have Thomas that votes party line just because, and you have Alito and Roberts that happen to vote party line because it is more often legally justified or correct.  Not sure about Gorsuch yet, so no comment on him.  I guess what I am trying to say is that we have one blind ideologue on the right and three on the left.  Having that many on the court is a bad thing, no matter which way they happen to lean.  Anyhow, not sure what conclusion I am trying to draw from that, but just making the observation.
Using your criteria I'd score it a bit differently, though that's not going to shock anybody. I'd put Breyer and RBG both into the "we think it's correct" camp. I also draw no distinction between Thomas and Alito. Alito is just better at not being obvious. They both fit into the shill category. My hunch is that Gorsuch will become the third, but it is still early in his career.

I notice that you use "because he actually DOES believe it is legally justified or correct" for one side and "because it is more often legally justified or correct" for the other.  :lol

I disagree with the criteria, though. I think they all think their decision are legally justified/correct, and they're all right. At the level they're playing at Alito could craft an opinion that gives eggplants the right to vote. Ginsberg could easily find a way that the Constitution justifies arresting people for looking "a little off." Scalia was a master at this. Riddle me this: If you look at every single decision that Scalia made, do you think he could have come up with an equally valid opinion to the contrary? Does one of them have to be wrong, or is one of them just better?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #145 on: June 29, 2018, 04:14:55 PM »
Using your criteria I'd score it a bit differently, though that's not going to shock anybody.
Fair enough.  I can't argue that either of us is more right than the other.  I just call it as I see it based on what I have read from them, and I recognize you are doing the same and coming to a bit of a different conclusion.  As you said, not shocking.

I notice that you use "because he actually DOES believe it is legally justified or correct" for one side and "because it is more often legally justified or correct" for the other.  :lol
No distinction was intended.  It was just worded differently because (1) it was lazy writing on my part, and (2) it was the best my befuddled brain could come up with to try to say the same thing with a singular pronoun on one side and a plural pronoun on the other.  But I meant the same thing, which is, regardless of whether we're talking about the left or right, the distinction between "I'm going to vote first and foremost based on my ideology, whether or not this is legally sound" [RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor, Thomas] vs. "I'm going to vote based on my ideology because I believe this to be legally sound."  [Breyer, Alito, Roberts]

Riddle me this: If you look at every single decision that Scalia made, do you think he could have come up with an equally valid opinion to the contrary? Does one of them have to be wrong, or is one of them just better?

I honestly have no clue.  That calls for a level of speculation and/or augury that I don't feel qualified at.  And if that gets me slapped with an accusation of dodging the question, I'm perfectly okay with that.  :lol
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 04:20:03 PM by bosk1 »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #146 on: June 29, 2018, 11:17:29 PM »
I should be dodging the question, but I won't, though I'm not sure what I'm walking into.

Scalia most assuredly could have written an opinion that reached the opposite conclusion. That's not a bad thing, nor a thing to be ridiculed or mocked.  It's his job.  He's supposed to understand what the two sides are arguing and why they are - nominally - right.  That's why he's a Supreme Court justice and the noob on twitter blathering about "fucking neo-Nazi Trump-fellating judges" isn't.   Given that, though, in my opinion, the best judge is the one that can most succinctly combine his/her ideology with the body of law already accumulated, and deliver an opinion that provides a workable pathway forward for the next people to encounter the facts of the case. 

Under normal circumstances, reversing a decision is not "party line flip-flopping" or simply a recast of a vote with a different lineup.  I'd like to think that there is either a new insight, a new fact pattern, or a new rationalization of the underlying law.    It's why Roe is so frequently discussed as a possible tipping point, because it is a deeply flawed decision to start with (thus Planned Parenthood v. Casey).   But the underlying point - the determination of abortion as a fundamental right - is a HUGE hurdle to climb over.  I'd like to think that even the hard core conservatives would have pause at such a momentous step.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6739
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #147 on: July 09, 2018, 09:45:28 PM »
"My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law," Kavanaugh said.

And the far left meltdown begins!

it's been too quiet here... figured the pot needed a little stirring...
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #148 on: July 09, 2018, 10:33:23 PM »
"My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law," Kavanaugh said.

And the far left meltdown begins!

it's been too quiet here... figured the pot needed a little stirring...

It's starting; my ridiculous Senators both made statements, one an out-and-out falsehood (and in direct contradiction of his colleague Chuck Schumer) and one - predictably -making it all about HIS pet project, annihilating the Second Amendment.   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20400
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #149 on: July 10, 2018, 05:43:41 AM »
The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 06:59:43 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #150 on: July 10, 2018, 06:40:17 AM »
Okay, maybe, who knows.  That was written in 2009, well before any of this nonsense was at hand, before Trump was even on the radar, and while Obama was President.   One of the tenets of judicial evaluation is to NOT assume a holding when the facts are different.  Schumer called for this in his stump speech in the Senate yesterday, begging Trump not to ask potential nominees how they would rule (which he, allegedly, did not). 

But I do know that my negligent and deficient Senator, Dick Blumenthal, went on the local news channel (ironically "Fox News" affiliate) and said, verbatim, that this judge was an "extreme conservative" who was "hand-picked by an extremist right-wing group" whose "sole goal was the repeal of Roe v. Wade".   

Let's ignore the facts for more partisan rhetoric and grandstanding.

On the DC Circuit Court, Kavanaugh was the 5th most conservative justice... out of 11.   That's like saying "Marcus Cannon is the 5th best player on the New England Patriots starting offense".   Okay... let's just ignore Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman, and Chris Hogan. 


He feeds a significant number of clerks to the Supreme Court.   This is important because it "speaks to the regard with which the justices hold his pedagogy on the bench and trust his judgments.  Beyond merely feeding clerks to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s prior clerks have worked for a smattering of justices across the ideological spectrum."  Further, "Justices Roberts and Kennedy are the two justices that have taken the most Kavanaugh clerks. Both sit towards the ideological center of the Court.  Multiple Kavanaugh clerks have also gone on to clerk for Justices Scalia, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor.  Here we see that justices on both ends of the political spectrum respect Kavanaugh’s choice of clerks and the tutelage that he presumably provides as a mentor."

He has repeatedly said that Roe is the law of the land and he would uphold it.  The sort of "example" case that many liberals are using as "proof" of his "agenda" is far from a "pure" abortion case (he opted to deny the right of an undocumented minor in government custody to seek an abortion without restriction and on immediate demand).   There were at least three other major components to that decision, which ultimately didn't DENY the right to the child, but rather delayed it until the UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT MINOR (two of the components right there) was in the custody of her sponsor. 

He is a textualist, but not a devout one.  He is an originalist, but not a devout one.

Assuming that a Republican President is going to nominate a conservative leaning judge - which shouldn't be a surprise, and any liberal that doesn't think a Democrat President would do the same thing in the opposite direction is kidding themselves - this isn't the most extreme pick  possible, and Blumenthal needs to tone down his divisive, antagonistic, obstructionist rhetoric.    Oh, and to Schumer's point about asking nominees "how they would rule", Blumenthal SPECIFICALLY said he was going to ask Kavanaugh hard questions about his stances, and "demand direct answers", in direct contravention of his leadership. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20400
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #151 on: July 10, 2018, 07:09:04 AM »
Blumenthal is a turd. He pretty much embodies everything I complain about on the left.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #152 on: July 10, 2018, 08:10:42 AM »
The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

Okay, maybe, who knows.  That was written in 2009, well before any of this nonsense was at hand, before Trump was even on the radar, and while Obama was President.
And well after he worked tirelessly to bring an indictment against Bill Clinton as aide to Ken Starr. But I'm sure there's some peculiar distinction that a handful of people are able to conceptualize that prevents him from being a hypocrite, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19424
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #153 on: July 10, 2018, 08:54:16 AM »
I know nothing of this guy.  Some googling this morning and while he is conservative, some things I read don't paint him to be soo far right that he would sway the courts overwhelmingly.  I just read this https://www.yahoo.com/news/look-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaughs-notable-opinions-010847885.html

The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

This quote is concerning though.  It does give the appearance of "oh this is why Trump is choosing him" and how can you not feel that way?  Anyone want to point out some of his other rulings that were troublesome or give reason to worry?  Garza vs. Hargan seems like such a specific abortion case that I am not sure if I can make the leap from his decision there that he will want to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2018, 10:08:11 AM »
The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

Okay, maybe, who knows.  That was written in 2009, well before any of this nonsense was at hand, before Trump was even on the radar, and while Obama was President.
And well after he worked tirelessly to bring an indictment against Bill Clinton as aide to Ken Starr. But I'm sure there's some peculiar distinction that a handful of people are able to conceptualize that prevents him from being a hypocrite, though.

It is widely considered by most objective observers as his mea culpa.   A sort of counter-weight to what he later considered to be an over-zealous approach to potential Presidential wrong-doing.   

Rather than call him a "hypocrite", I think that is hard evidence of exactly what Chuck Schumer claimed to call for, and that is, a case-by-case re-evaluation and reassessment of each issue as it arises.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2018, 10:12:18 AM »
I know nothing of this guy.  Some googling this morning and while he is conservative, some things I read don't paint him to be soo far right that he would sway the courts overwhelmingly.  I just read this https://www.yahoo.com/news/look-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaughs-notable-opinions-010847885.html

The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

This quote is concerning though.  It does give the appearance of "oh this is why Trump is choosing him" and how can you not feel that way?  Anyone want to point out some of his other rulings that were troublesome or give reason to worry?  Garza vs. Hargan seems like such a specific abortion case that I am not sure if I can make the leap from his decision there that he will want to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

You've answered your own question.  The article was a specific response to a specific circumstance.   He has said - too many times to count - that he considers Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land and to be extended deference accordingly.    Not to say that the SPECIFIC facts of any case might not lead him to a different conclusion, but so SHOULD be said of ALL the justices.   

That statement was an ARTICLE, not a decision.  It was not a response to the specific application of our law to a specific fact pattern.   It carries little weight from the perspective of juris prudence.   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #156 on: July 11, 2018, 01:40:30 PM »
Found this article relating to Kavanaugh, and the byline ("Playing Up Brett Kavanaugh As A Good Dad To Girls Is Shameless") was too enticing not to read:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/playing-brett-kavanaugh-good-dad-153431826.html

I have to say, I don't get it.  I mean, I intellectually understand what the author is saying.  But I don't understand her point of view.  In the grand scheme of things, I think the worst you could say about Kavanaugh being played up as a good dad is irrelevant.  And she does say that.  But that isn't her main point.  Her main point isn't that it is irrelevant--her point is that there is somehow something wrong with it.  I not only disagree with that, but even disagree with the general notion that it is irrelevant.  Unfortunately, for better or for worse, modern politics in this country has devolved into simply competing at character assassination.  Perhaps even moreso when it comes to court nominations.  In light of that, evidence of good character, which is basically what this is, is unfortunately very relevant and helpful.  It also seems relevant and calculated to deal indirectly with the false narrative that, if we are to believe the left, Roe v. Wade will be overturned within a week of this guy being appointed.  Am I missing some reason that this article isn't one of the dumbest things to be written concerning Kavanaugh?  (that was basically just a rhetorical question, but I thought we might have some legitimate discussion related to this)
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19424
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #157 on: July 11, 2018, 01:55:08 PM »
Even though you linked to yahoo, it's a huffpost article which I feel like this type of article is right up their ally.  I did notice this quote

Quote
And in this role, he will likely be very not nice to women.

Indeed, he is likely to gut reproductive rights for women.

I'm still trying to understand this.  Do we really think women are going to lose rights?

I know nothing of this guy.  Some googling this morning and while he is conservative, some things I read don't paint him to be soo far right that he would sway the courts overwhelmingly.  I just read this https://www.yahoo.com/news/look-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaughs-notable-opinions-010847885.html

The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

This quote is concerning though.  It does give the appearance of "oh this is why Trump is choosing him" and how can you not feel that way?  Anyone want to point out some of his other rulings that were troublesome or give reason to worry?  Garza vs. Hargan seems like such a specific abortion case that I am not sure if I can make the leap from his decision there that he will want to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

You've answered your own question.  The article was a specific response to a specific circumstance.   He has said - too many times to count - that he considers Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land and to be extended deference accordingly.    Not to say that the SPECIFIC facts of any case might not lead him to a different conclusion, but so SHOULD be said of ALL the justices.   

That statement was an ARTICLE, not a decision.  It was not a response to the specific application of our law to a specific fact pattern.   It carries little weight from the perspective of juris prudence.   

Well, I don't think I really answered my own question because I admittingly know little about the guy.  When it became clear Trump was going to get another nominee in the SC, it seemed like the world was going to end for some.  I want to hear from the opposition if this is still the case and why?  That article Bosk linked didn't really give me any reasons why although it stated it would happen.  Because from the article:

Quote
The conservative darling wants us to know he’s just a nice guy who is nice to girls. He interacts with women, therefore he is a friend to women. It’s an argument with fragile logic. Imagine extending it to other fathers. Like Trump, who is known to favor his daughter Ivanka Trump but has a terrible track record of supporting women and women’s rights. George W. Bush is the father of two girls. No one would call him a feminist. Many horrendously sexist men are good fathers to daughters.

I find this to be a very poor reason to think he will be bad.  You can't judge someone based on others although I will agree that just because he is nice to women doesn't mean he couldn't be an asshole either.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6739
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #158 on: July 11, 2018, 01:56:35 PM »
Why do people from both sides of the aisle make Roe v. Wade to be the single linchpin to the future of this country? Is this the critical issue that is going to eventually result in our downfall? How many seconds after Kennedy's retirement announcement did it take for the narrative to become "Will new SCOTUS member overturn Roe v Wade?"

I get it is an issue people are passionate about, and it has ramification beyond the topic of abortion. But damn if I am not tired about hearing how this one case is only thing that matters to people and how they view the court and its members.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #159 on: July 11, 2018, 02:09:29 PM »
Well, even if it could be considered the "most important" issue to the country, it is a complete non-issue with regard to court appointments.  Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned, no matter how many conservative justices we have on the court.  It's a non-issue, and it is disingenuous to portray it as an issue.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #160 on: July 11, 2018, 02:24:50 PM »
Somewhat short for time I'm going to have to reduce this to a few observations related to the posts about the article.

Character should be irreverent, but in the modern America it is very much not. Personally, I think Mike Pence is so fundamentally creepy he has no business representing people outside of some bizarre sect, but I recognize that if he's capable of doing his job despite his strangeness then he should be allowed to. He just bears more scrutiny. This applies even more-so to judges. Again, in the modern America, where judges run for elections as republicans or democrats, this is what's expected, and the republicans are simply playing their card in the game at hand by promoting his good father rep.

I think the girl's point in the article is that he doth protest too much. He pushes like the guy who wants people to know what his IQ is. To that end she's not wrong. Moreover, it seems to be the right that if it's his team that pushing the matter that makes it fair game for the opposition, I would think.

He doesn't represent the immediate overturning of Roe. The right case would have to come along and that would take some doing. His M.O. is that he's staunchly pro business. If somebody put together the perfect case that cast abortion as an infringement on the free speech of Aetna then I can safely say that it's toast. Finding that case would be tricky, though.

Abortion is obviously something that gets people riled up. Both sides. In this case the republicans have been pushing for RvW's overturning for ages, and the boy king actually made it something of a campaign promise. The opposition therefore gets equally riled up. As Bosk pointed out there won't be any direct reversal of Roe. I only know of one justice that would go that route. What there will be are increased obstacles, quite possibly up to the point that it might as well be reversed. I asked the other day and I'll ask again, if Kansas wants to outlaw abortion after the first day of pregnancy which justices would oppose that? My hunch is that 5 of them would find a way for such a law to pass strict scrutiny, assuming they even bothered to apply that standard.

In response to something Bosk said, Roe shouldn't be an issue. It's decided and that should be the end of it. It sure as hell is, though, and it's the right that keeps making it one. It's not the liberals who are out pushing for everybody to have more abortions. What we're seeing is an increase in seriously questionable laws intended to limit abortions, despite their current standing as a fundamental right. Those do need to be challenged. Personally, I'd be thrilled if it were no longer an issue.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6739
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2018, 02:25:58 PM »
That's not the point. [Responding to Bosk] It is an issue because people are making in an issue. 4 out of every 5 stories I've read about Kennedy's potential replacement somehow tied in the possible ramification for Roe v Wade, real or imagined.

I get it's the one topic everyone seems to have a strong opinion on. It is easier to understand and feel passionate about that, say, tariffs, which the average person couldn't adequately explain. Is abortion this big of a topic anywhere else in the world? I know a story in Ireland made a blip on the headlines recently. But is it one of those things where people in other countries look at us and say "Is that the biggest thing you all are fighting each other about?"
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19424
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #162 on: July 11, 2018, 02:31:48 PM »
I really wish the right would let this rest too.  You are right (EB) that as much as the left brings it up as a threat, it's because the right makes it clear they want it reversed.  I wish the right would accept what has been done and move on.  I feel like this is a real problem with me and the GOP, they live in the past. 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #163 on: July 11, 2018, 02:46:08 PM »
think the girl's point in the article is that he doth protest too much.

Okay, but if the current state of modern U.S. politics is the character assassination game, isn't that a relevant and logical counter to both the narrative that Trump is a misogynist and the narrative that anyone he appoints must hate women and be bent on taking away their rights?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #164 on: July 11, 2018, 03:26:05 PM »
That's not the point. [Responding to Bosk] It is an issue because people are making in an issue. 4 out of every 5 stories I've read about Kennedy's potential replacement somehow tied in the possible ramification for Roe v Wade, real or imagined.

I get it's the one topic everyone seems to have a strong opinion on. It is easier to understand and feel passionate about that, say, tariffs, which the average person couldn't adequately explain. Is abortion this big of a topic anywhere else in the world? I know a story in Ireland made a blip on the headlines recently. But is it one of those things where people in other countries look at us and say "Is that the biggest thing you all are fighting each other about?"
Like you said, it's something that everybody has an opinion on, and at a certain level everybody can understand. (The reality is that when/if Roe gets undone, directly or indirectly, only the lawyers here will actually understand the rationale, and even then only if they take the time to read a 100 page decision.) It's also not as big a deal as people make it out to be. It really only comes up when people are appointed to the court, or when there's another silly law being crafted. We're discussing it now because of Kavenaugh, and once he's rubber-stamped we'll stop talking about it for a while.

And I think this is something the rest of the world dealt with already. In most countries it's legal and accepted. In a few it's illegal because Allah and Jesus command it. Yaweh seems to take it on a case by case basis. We're and odd duck because of our peculiar nature as a semi-secular nation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #165 on: July 11, 2018, 03:35:36 PM »
think the girl's point in the article is that he doth protest too much.

Okay, but if the current state of modern U.S. politics is the character assassination game, isn't that a relevant and logical counter to both the narrative that Trump is a misogynist and the narrative that anyone he appoints must hate women and be bent on taking away their rights?
It's interesting how we so often interpret things from the opposite point of view. I would have said that the current state of modern U.S. politics is the character embellishment game. From that standpoint character assassination would be the logical counter. Stumping. Kissing babies. Posing for photo-ops with assault rifles. Bragging about the number of executions you've carried out. All are attempts to be relatable. Running ads that claim your opponent isn't from the same town, used too much tongue, doesn't now how to shoot accurately, and once pardoned a murderer, are reactions.

In any case, I have no idea if one perspective is any better than the other. They both suck, but that's the reality of living in a tabloid culture, just like Dave's Mencken sig suggests.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14449
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2018, 09:47:40 AM »
Why do people from both sides of the aisle make Roe v. Wade to be the single linchpin to the future of this country? Is this the critical issue that is going to eventually result in our downfall? How many seconds after Kennedy's retirement announcement did it take for the narrative to become "Will new SCOTUS member overturn Roe v Wade?"

I get it is an issue people are passionate about, and it has ramification beyond the topic of abortion. But damn if I am not tired about hearing how this one case is only thing that matters to people and how they view the court and its members.

http://www.newsweek.com/americans-views-abortion-rights-are-getting-more-polarized-new-study-shows-889144

It's an issue because it galvanizes.  It OUTRAGES, and "outrage" gets people to the polls.   Much of the left's fear mongering isn't true, but that doesn't really matter in 2018 (and hasn't for years now) so we get what we get.

Over 40% of Republicans do NOT want Roe v. Wade overturned.  Not a ringing endorsement or a majority, but couple that with over 80% of Dems and 70% of Independents that don't want it overturned, and you have a vast majority of Americans (something like 65% or more).  (For these numbers, I used Gallup, FYI). 

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3395
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2018, 10:17:29 AM »
Why do people from both sides of the aisle make Roe v. Wade to be the single linchpin to the future of this country? Is this the critical issue that is going to eventually result in our downfall? How many seconds after Kennedy's retirement announcement did it take for the narrative to become "Will new SCOTUS member overturn Roe v Wade?"

I get it is an issue people are passionate about, and it has ramification beyond the topic of abortion. But damn if I am not tired about hearing how this one case is only thing that matters to people and how they view the court and its members.

http://www.newsweek.com/americans-views-abortion-rights-are-getting-more-polarized-new-study-shows-889144

It's an issue because it galvanizes.  It OUTRAGES, and "outrage" gets people to the polls.   Much of the left's fear mongering isn't true, but that doesn't really matter in 2018 (and hasn't for years now) so we get what we get.

Over 40% of Republicans do NOT want Roe v. Wade overturned.  Not a ringing endorsement or a majority, but couple that with over 80% of Dems and 70% of Independents that don't want it overturned, and you have a vast majority of Americans (something like 65% or more).  (For these numbers, I used Gallup, FYI).

Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

If we used a popular national vote to determine the legality of abortion, I do not think there would be as much concern. 

Also, the use of terms like "fear mongering" is hyperbole that doesn't further discussion much.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #168 on: July 12, 2018, 10:31:16 AM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.

If we used a popular national vote to determine the legality of abortion, I do not think there would be as much concern.

If that were really the sentiment, then the level of concern would be misplaced.  A right is far more secure when guaranteed by the Constitution rather than the whim of voters.  Even if there is a clear majority one day, that isn't to say there won't be some other day.

Also, the use of terms like "fear mongering" is hyperbole that doesn't further discussion much.

I generally agree.  But given that it is a non-issue that is being completely trumped-up to garner political support, I can't really object to use of the term in this context either.  It is an accurate description.  And, sadly, it is a tactic I have seen employed by both sides in politics.  It is also a tactic I have seen employed in the legal world as well.  If you can conjure up a bogeyman that is almost universally agreed to be heinous and intolerable, and sell your audience on the fact that your given scenario is in actually the embodiment of that bogeyman, the audience will often suspend reason and do everything in their power to fight it, whether it is real or not.


"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21111
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #169 on: July 12, 2018, 10:57:31 AM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

For the record, Kavenaugh doesn't strike me as that sort. Still, there is a legitimate reason for concern.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3395
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #170 on: July 12, 2018, 10:59:04 AM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.

If we used a popular national vote to determine the legality of abortion, I do not think there would be as much concern.

If that were really the sentiment, then the level of concern would be misplaced.  A right is far more secure when guaranteed by the Constitution rather than the whim of voters.  Even if there is a clear majority one day, that isn't to say there won't be some other day.

Also, the use of terms like "fear mongering" is hyperbole that doesn't further discussion much.

I generally agree.  But given that it is a non-issue that is being completely trumped-up to garner political support, I can't really object to use of the term in this context either.  It is an accurate description.  And, sadly, it is a tactic I have seen employed by both sides in politics.  It is also a tactic I have seen employed in the legal world as well.  If you can conjure up a bogeyman that is almost universally agreed to be heinous and intolerable, and sell your audience on the fact that your given scenario is in actually the embodiment of that bogeyman, the audience will often suspend reason and do everything in their power to fight it, whether it is real or not.

Well I am no lawyer, but I was under the impression that RvsW is not set in stone, never to be altered.  I was under impression that no law or right is forever, but that they must stand up to review and changing times.  Is it likely to be overturned?  Maybe not, but that is different than "That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't. "
Also, there is cause for concern when protections for the right are chipped away by the states.  Will the restrictions become an effective ban for many at some point?  I think there is cause for concern.

Which brings up "fear mongering".  That is hyperbole on a large group of people (the "LEFT") and it serves no purpose here.  Of course some are going overboard (on both sides), but the VAST majority are not.  They simply aren't and you and Stadler know it.  It simply isn't true and is intellectually dishonest to generalize the "Left" that way.  We hear all the time on this site, by posters in this very thread, about casting unfair characterizations on groups of people to get a reaction.  This is no different.

And my point on a popular vote was in counter point to Stadler using the % of the population to prove a point on RvsW.  He gave percentages of the population in favor of RvsW to show why they shouldnt be worried about it.....you and I are actually making the same point against his.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 11:12:40 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #171 on: July 12, 2018, 11:38:44 AM »
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

Regarding the bolded part, I'm certain that *I* would love for some to take the opportunity to try.  But that said, even if you are correct that some would "love the opportunity," none will take it.  They can't.  Where the "practical" and the "fundamental" intersect here is that there is no practical way for what you hypothesize to actually occur. 

Which brings up "fear mongering".  That is hyperbole on a large group of people (the "LEFT") and it serves no purpose here.  Of course some are going overboard (on both sides), but the VAST majority are not.  They simply aren't and you and Stadler know it.  It simply isn't true and is intellectually dishonest to generalize the "Left" that way.  We hear all the time on this site, by posters in this very thread, about casting unfair characterizations on groups of people to get a reaction.  This is no different.

Whether is it simply hyperbole or is an accurate description of what is occurring depends.  As I've said, in this case, I think it is accurate.  There is no good argument being made for why this is a valid concern.  The argument is largely being made simply because it riles up the vast majority of constituents who do not understand (or, as the case may be, do not care) that it is not a concern.  If you have to fabricate a threat to galvanize support for your position, that is the essence of "fear mongering."  As you rightly point out, that term in and of itself is unfairly emotionally charged.  But, again, where it fits, it fits.  You and I will just have to disagree on that.  But where we probably do largely agree is that it is NOT a problem unique to the left.  If my post somehow implied that, that was only a product of it being discussed in connection with this issue.  It is a problem on both sides of the aisle.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3395
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #172 on: July 12, 2018, 11:43:53 AM »
No Bosk, the "Left" is not "Fear Mongering".  A very small minority of vocal and visible people on both sides are.
Fact: All people that identify with the "Left" set of political beliefs are not "Fear Mongering"
Unlike your desire to say it "depends", it clearly does not.  It IS hyperbole, and NOT an accurate description.
I would expect you as the moderator to recognize the difference.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5406
  • Kabbalah
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #173 on: July 12, 2018, 11:48:20 AM »
I do recognize that.  I don't think I said otherwise.  Context should indicate that I am not saying "the entire Left" is doing anything.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3395
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #174 on: July 12, 2018, 11:59:13 AM »
I do recognize that.  I don't think I said otherwise.  Context should indicate that I am not saying "the entire Left" is doing anything.

you say that now....I didnt see that expressed previously.

You reply to Stadler's assessment "Much of the left's fear mongering isn't true", with "I can't really object to use of the term in this context either.  It is an accurate description.".

I must have missed the where you differentiated a very small vocal and visible majority of the left, from "The Left".  I merely pointed out that negative generalization.  Is there fear-mongering?  Of course, and I didnt disagree with that. 

My very clear point was the generalization of it being "The Left".  Stadler rails against negative generalizations all the time.  My point was to point that out, and that alone.  To then argue that there are some indeed fear-mongering, is a red-herring.   

EDIT:
It would be like someone saying that "Christians" are "Pushy" with their beliefs.  Then someone saying "I can't really object to use of the term in this context either.  It is an accurate description.".  The issue is not with some on the left fear mongering, or some Christians being pushy.  It is with using the generalization of the Left and Christians.  I hope that helps with my point.  Perhaps I was not explaining myself very well.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 12:14:55 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29