I tried to fit this into another recent political thread, but - Surprise! - there haven't been too many started since Obama took office. Wonder why...
Is anyone else as amused by the Arlen Specter defection as I am? Here's a quote from conservative commentator / rare-right-wing-voice-of-reason David Frum:
"The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a "wake-up call." His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren't real Republicans -- that they don't belong in the party. Now he's gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
I mean, wow.
curtkram
Jul 25, 16 1:41 pm
so curt you've never disagreed with a supreme court ruling?
I have never claimed that i'm the person who decides the constitutionality of an issue. i don't claim that the constitution says whatever i want it to say reflecting whatever mood of crazy lunatic i happen to be in at that moment. i disagree with the court's ruling on citizen's united. however, i recognize that due to the judgment of the supreme court, there is no case to be made that the law as written was unconstitutional. i recognize that congress needs to either write a better law, or change the constitution.
by saying you oppose the method of establishing constitutionality outlined in the constitution, you're opposing the constitution.
drums please, Fab?
Jul 25, 16 9:17 pm
hey curt since you're such a staunch constitutionalist I'm sure you are familiar with the 1st amendment. even crazy lunatics like you can criticize any branch of the government for what it does, including the supreme court.
and agreeing with four of the nine justices is hardly radical or an example of opposing the constitution. actually, your call to silence dissent is about the most un-constitutional thing written in this entire thread.
BAZINGA!
curtkram
Jul 25, 16 10:38 pm
your opposition to the constitution is opposition to the constitution. if you hope and pretend america will fail because sometimes you don't get your way, that's your choice, but that sure as hell isn't patriotism, it isn't supportive of the nation, and it isn't supportive of the constitution.
the constitution outlines the structure of our government. the fact that you disagree with the ruling of the supreme court does not make a law unconstitutional. the ruling of the supreme court does, in fact, make a law constitutional or unconstitutional. the constitution is the document that gives them, and not you, that authority.
perhaps you fantasize about being the person who gets to choose the constitutionality of a law. but your not. i suppose the fact that congress cannot pass a law that abridges your right to free speech is as good of a justification as any for your inability to tell the difference between real life and your fantasies.
x-jla
Jul 25, 16 11:04 pm
Curt, that's not completely true. laws that are deemed constitutional can be overturned. Its happened many times. Their rulings are not written in stone ex: Dredd Scott.
Go here and read it. Note the explanatory comment is an interpretation but the text itself is clearly presented word for word.
curtkram
Jul 25, 16 11:32 pm
Dred scott was overturned when congress changed the constitution with the 14th amendment. Congress can still add an amendment to the constitution to effectively repeal the aca or citizens united if they can get the support. Until that happens, the court's ruling stands and frac's does not.
x-jla
Jul 26, 16 10:50 am
Congress can amend the constitution and The supreme court can overrule a past ruling with a new one.
curtkram
Jul 26, 16 11:06 am
great. i am now going to consider the affordable care act overruled by the act of frac declaring it unconstitutional.
Wilma Buttfit
Jul 26, 16 11:07 am
Let's allow kids 12 and over to vote this election, wouldn't that be great?!?!
x-jla
Jul 26, 16 11:59 am
Lol tint. They are probably better equipped to vote than most adults being that their minds haven't been brainwashed by the news media.
Wilma Buttfit
Jul 26, 16 12:05 pm
Yup.
drums please, Fab?
Jul 26, 16 2:46 pm
curt let me clarify this since your lunatic mind seems to be incapable of even moderate abstract thought.
IMHFO (in my humble FUCKING opinion) the so-called 'affordable' care act is unconstitutional. i agree with the 4 (edit: 3!) supremes whose dissenting opinion found obamacare unconstitutional. it's an opinion, asshole.
Non Sequitur
Jul 26, 16 2:57 pm
Is obamacare not the thing that allows lower-income folks the ability not to sell their kidney to pay for (in part only since I assume the kidney removal is not free... damn circular circles.) their regular hospital bills?
Jul 26, 16 8:08 pm
FRaC,
How in your humble opinion is it unconstitutional?
Read the Constitution.
Cite how the the affordable health care act is unconstitutional? If you can't cite exactly what it violates then how is it necessarily unconstitutional?
curtkram
Jul 26, 16 11:27 pm
frac doesn't understand the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion.' john oliver tried to explain it to us here: you can start at about 3:30
Thank You for that link. John Oliver is right on point. Start at about 8:58 seconds or just watch everything from 3:30 to the end but Mr. Oliver is absolutely on mark. If we elect Trump, by this time next year, we could be having a new national anthem.
awaiting_deletion
Jul 27, 16 6:50 am
would it be constitutional to have a 4-year pass on the Executive branch? if everyone decides the options suck can we just say "hey, we could not fill the spot appropriately, so we are going on a 4 year hiatus."
curtkram
Jul 27, 16 7:03 am
4 more years. Is there really anyone left who doesn't want to see the Obamas stick around?
awaiting_deletion
Jul 27, 16 7:13 am
i think Obama is over it, I can't blame him. Maybe Michelle can step in while Obama gains a few years of his life back. Google Obama before and after Presidency - i know it was 8 years, but it looks like 20........i really think a reset button has to be hit on the executive branch. I get it, its your national spokes person, a face for the coutnry, a good media talking point, yeah sure he has some power (limited) but I am fairly certain at this point the Presedient is essentially the US Governments Press Secretary and in that regards Donald Trump is the most qualified - he has been playing the media like a piano the whole time. Yes, media has power, but its not real power, its gloss.....After we elect a woman president the next will be part of the LGBQT, the a Muslim, we will give all the minorities an opportunity - why - because it clearly doesnt matter, and has not for years, even before I was born.
awaiting_deletion
Jul 27, 16 7:31 am
btw if you want to know where the power is just follow the occupations and groups of predominately rich white boys. this is a fairly straightforward social theory - the wealthy and priviliged elite have no problem conceding positions of dwindling power, they move on or invent new groups of powers that serve their inherited power. as the ruling class, they do not need to be vocal or even let you know they exist, they already have everything they want and have the means to get what they want.
x-jla
Jul 27, 16 10:57 am
Curt, Supreme Court justices deliver their "opinions" . That's what it's called.
I'd like to see Obama stay a few more years. He's much better than the other 2 alternatives.
Everyday Intern
Jul 27, 16 2:14 pm
Re: SCOTUS and their opinions ...
Please don't try and equate the legally-binding, judicial opinion of the court (the majority opinion), or the dissenting opinion (of any number of judges less than half of the total of the court), with the opinion of any person that hasn't been appointed to be a Supreme Court justice.
It makes no difference if you, or I, or the rest of the world agree with the dissenting opinion of the court ... it still isn't the majority opinion (aka, the court's ruling) and it isn't case law establishing legal precedent like the majority opinion does. At best, the dissenting opinion is used persuasively to limit the reach of the majority opinion in similar cases (not the original because that has been decided, and you can't appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court), or to change a law through congressional action.
Also, for some educational listening I'd encourage anyone interested to look up WNYC's Radiolab spinoff podcast series, More Perfect, on the Supreme Court. Especially relevant to the discussion is their recent episode, "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer," that discusses how the Supreme Court got its start and got so powerful. One could argue that 36 minutes of your time could not be better spent before the upcoming election this fall.
I tried to fit this into another recent political thread, but - Surprise! - there haven't been too many started since Obama took office. Wonder why...
Is anyone else as amused by the Arlen Specter defection as I am? Here's a quote from conservative commentator / rare-right-wing-voice-of-reason David Frum:
"The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a "wake-up call." His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren't real Republicans -- that they don't belong in the party. Now he's gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
I mean, wow.
so curt you've never disagreed with a supreme court ruling?
I have never claimed that i'm the person who decides the constitutionality of an issue. i don't claim that the constitution says whatever i want it to say reflecting whatever mood of crazy lunatic i happen to be in at that moment. i disagree with the court's ruling on citizen's united. however, i recognize that due to the judgment of the supreme court, there is no case to be made that the law as written was unconstitutional. i recognize that congress needs to either write a better law, or change the constitution.
by saying you oppose the method of establishing constitutionality outlined in the constitution, you're opposing the constitution.
hey curt since you're such a staunch constitutionalist I'm sure you are familiar with the 1st amendment. even crazy lunatics like you can criticize any branch of the government for what it does, including the supreme court.
and agreeing with four of the nine justices is hardly radical or an example of opposing the constitution. actually, your call to silence dissent is about the most un-constitutional thing written in this entire thread.
BAZINGA!
your opposition to the constitution is opposition to the constitution. if you hope and pretend america will fail because sometimes you don't get your way, that's your choice, but that sure as hell isn't patriotism, it isn't supportive of the nation, and it isn't supportive of the constitution.
the constitution outlines the structure of our government. the fact that you disagree with the ruling of the supreme court does not make a law unconstitutional. the ruling of the supreme court does, in fact, make a law constitutional or unconstitutional. the constitution is the document that gives them, and not you, that authority.
perhaps you fantasize about being the person who gets to choose the constitutionality of a law. but your not. i suppose the fact that congress cannot pass a law that abridges your right to free speech is as good of a justification as any for your inability to tell the difference between real life and your fantasies.
Curt, that's not completely true. laws that are deemed constitutional can be overturned. Its happened many times. Their rulings are not written in stone ex: Dredd Scott.
The dems and repubs are the same thing...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
Go here and read it. Note the explanatory comment is an interpretation but the text itself is clearly presented word for word.
Dred scott was overturned when congress changed the constitution with the 14th amendment. Congress can still add an amendment to the constitution to effectively repeal the aca or citizens united if they can get the support. Until that happens, the court's ruling stands and frac's does not.
Congress can amend the constitution and The supreme court can overrule a past ruling with a new one.
great. i am now going to consider the affordable care act overruled by the act of frac declaring it unconstitutional.
Let's allow kids 12 and over to vote this election, wouldn't that be great?!?!
Lol tint. They are probably better equipped to vote than most adults being that their minds haven't been brainwashed by the news media.
Yup.
curt let me clarify this since your lunatic mind seems to be incapable of even moderate abstract thought.
IMHFO (in my humble FUCKING opinion) the so-called 'affordable' care act is unconstitutional. i agree with the 4 (edit: 3!) supremes whose dissenting opinion found obamacare unconstitutional. it's an opinion, asshole.
Is obamacare not the thing that allows lower-income folks the ability not to sell their kidney to pay for (in part only since I assume the kidney removal is not free... damn circular circles.) their regular hospital bills?
FRaC,
How in your humble opinion is it unconstitutional?
Read the Constitution.
Cite how the the affordable health care act is unconstitutional? If you can't cite exactly what it violates then how is it necessarily unconstitutional?
frac doesn't understand the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion.' john oliver tried to explain it to us here: you can start at about 3:30
https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/videos/943202405808769/
curtkram,
Thank You for that link. John Oliver is right on point. Start at about 8:58 seconds or just watch everything from 3:30 to the end but Mr. Oliver is absolutely on mark. If we elect Trump, by this time next year, we could be having a new national anthem.
would it be constitutional to have a 4-year pass on the Executive branch? if everyone decides the options suck can we just say "hey, we could not fill the spot appropriately, so we are going on a 4 year hiatus."
4 more years. Is there really anyone left who doesn't want to see the Obamas stick around?
i think Obama is over it, I can't blame him. Maybe Michelle can step in while Obama gains a few years of his life back. Google Obama before and after Presidency - i know it was 8 years, but it looks like 20........i really think a reset button has to be hit on the executive branch. I get it, its your national spokes person, a face for the coutnry, a good media talking point, yeah sure he has some power (limited) but I am fairly certain at this point the Presedient is essentially the US Governments Press Secretary and in that regards Donald Trump is the most qualified - he has been playing the media like a piano the whole time. Yes, media has power, but its not real power, its gloss.....After we elect a woman president the next will be part of the LGBQT, the a Muslim, we will give all the minorities an opportunity - why - because it clearly doesnt matter, and has not for years, even before I was born.
btw if you want to know where the power is just follow the occupations and groups of predominately rich white boys. this is a fairly straightforward social theory - the wealthy and priviliged elite have no problem conceding positions of dwindling power, they move on or invent new groups of powers that serve their inherited power. as the ruling class, they do not need to be vocal or even let you know they exist, they already have everything they want and have the means to get what they want.
Curt, Supreme Court justices deliver their "opinions" . That's what it's called.
I'd like to see Obama stay a few more years. He's much better than the other 2 alternatives.
Re: SCOTUS and their opinions ...
Please don't try and equate the legally-binding, judicial opinion of the court (the majority opinion), or the dissenting opinion (of any number of judges less than half of the total of the court), with the opinion of any person that hasn't been appointed to be a Supreme Court justice.
It makes no difference if you, or I, or the rest of the world agree with the dissenting opinion of the court ... it still isn't the majority opinion (aka, the court's ruling) and it isn't case law establishing legal precedent like the majority opinion does. At best, the dissenting opinion is used persuasively to limit the reach of the majority opinion in similar cases (not the original because that has been decided, and you can't appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court), or to change a law through congressional action.
Also, for some educational listening I'd encourage anyone interested to look up WNYC's Radiolab spinoff podcast series, More Perfect, on the Supreme Court. Especially relevant to the discussion is their recent episode, "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer," that discusses how the Supreme Court got its start and got so powerful. One could argue that 36 minutes of your time could not be better spent before the upcoming election this fall.
^ maybe goddam
USA USA USA