Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilianaean]

• ?????? ?? ????? ??? 2024 by Vilianaean
  [Today at 03:05:10 AM]
• ???????? ? ??????? 2024: ... by Victorgra
  [Today at 01:50:06 AM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:50:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:49:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:48:21 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:47:13 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4940
• Latest: DonaldStige

Stats

• Total Posts: 129570
• Total Topics: 7159
• Online Today: 273
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[pbsaurus]

I found this to be a good read.

[12AX7]

 There is indeed a lot of sense in that letter. Which is precisely why it'll be totally ignored.

[Wunderkind]

It was a beautiful letter. Keep in mind I just woke up and my attention span may have phased out somewhere in the middle, but I noticed this little list and I did have some problems with it. Since this is 'serious discussion forum' I decided to be contrary, even though it doesn't really matter that much, because this letter will be shredded and thrown out with all the other nice little letters and won't even earn the writer so much as a spot on the 'watch' list.

National security means:
• Everyone has a home.

Define 'home'.

• Everyone has enough decent food to eat.

Define 'decent'.

Having spent the first part of my life in Third World countries, these two things aren't the same to everyone. And one can't be promised by any government at any point anywhere.
A nice little hut with a fitpit outside and a chicken coop is a home. So is a car. It's just not a house. Which is what I think he was going for.
Also, a nice little fried go'-py (I'm not sure how it's spelled, but that's how you say it and it's crickets) rolled in a some sweet rice and dried seaweed, damn good dinner right there, man.

• Everyone can drink the water without having to buy it in a bottle from Coke or Pepsi.

Ok. That one's valid.

• No one has to worry about getting their hand cut off at work or having their job outsourced overseas.

The first isn't something the government has that much control over. Less stupid, more 'pay attention'.
The second is actually... well... it's really the business's business what they do with the jobs. I don't want my government having that much control over my company.

• Everyone can be who they are without fear of being detained and tortured without trial.
• Everyone can vote without fear, knowing their vote will be counted—accurately.
• Every woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body.

Valid.

• Everyone has enough money for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The whole point of every man having a right to these things is that, they are supposed to be free.

• Everyone, even if they don't have money, has the right to see a doctor if they're sick or hurt. In so many other countries this is a guaranteed human right by law.

Very valid. I have to take better care of my cat than I do myself.

There. I think I've started enough trouble for one morning.

[reimero]

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here...
On paper, the Israel-Palestine solution sounds good.  The problem is that we can't compel Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.  Many Israelis see such a move as the equivalent of treason, so while the US can encourage, mediate and exert diplomatic pressure, we cannot compel.
Second, I think he's oversimplifying the Iran situation a bit.  Iran, like the United States, is a tale of two faces.  The Iranian government/religious leadership (they are one and the same) is playing games of brinksmanship and Islamist grandstanding.  We're not exactly sure how much is show and how much is real, but we do know they hate Israel, and that they're pursuing nuclear weapons (this is BAD!)  The people of Iran are actually not that hostile toward the American people, although they are hostile toward the US government (just as most of them aren't exactly thrilled with their own government.)  It's a delicate balance between containing a legitimate global security threat while trying to enact real, positive change from within.  The one thing I do agree with is that where Iran is concerned, brinksmanship is the wrong way to go.

Torture is never acceptable.  I'm disturbed we're even having this conversation.

I think the section on restoring the rule of law is a little bit overstated, although the points are very valid.  It has to be made clear that any legal action MUST be handled within the context of the Constitution, and that it be very clear that ACTUAL illegalities be prosecuted rather than PERCEIVED illegalities.  For instance, people scream about charging Bush with treason, which is Constitutionally not possible.

The bit about election fraud is grossly overstated, I think.  Yes, there is political gamesmanship going on.  Yes, there are problems with voting machines.  But are elections actually being stolen?  I'm not quite so convinced of that.  The nature of elections, coupled with human nature and the sheer volume of votes being cast means that a 100% accurate tally of every voter's vote and intent is mathematically impossible?  Why?  For a variety of reasons, starting with the simple fact that many voters are idiots.  People are notorious for not reading instructions.  When the voting instructions say "don't make any extra marks or marks that may identify your ballot" and you don't read them and start putting smiley faces next to candidates you like, guess what, your ballot becomes invalidated.  Legally.  Now, I'm no fan of the scantron voting machines.  I think there's a better way.  Those mechanical machines seem to have worked fine for a long time, but I'm no expert.  But railing against "stolen" elections is nothing new.  As long as there has been general suffrage, there has been voter fraud.  And the only reliable way to eliminate election fraud completely is to eliminate elections.  The author of this letter really needs some historical context.

The problem with meaningful campaign finance reform is that it would have to be done in a way that protects free speech.

I'm going to continue with the Supreme Court in my next post, because that's near and dear to me.

[reimero]

The section on restoring balance to the Supreme Court is the one that really gets me.  I mean, Weird Tingly Feeling?  SCOTUS should not be a political organization, and it should not be set up based on some sort of prescribed balance.  Thurgood Marshall was a good figurehead, but as a Supreme Court justice, he was average.  (A world-class litigator, but his jurisprudence on the bench was hardly Earth-shattering beyond the color of his skin.)
William O. Douglas was an interesting character, but also had numerous Weird Tingly Feeling moments.  Yes, he was a champion of civil rights and liberties (yay), but he was also a judicial activist in the extreme.  Some of his decisions were very important, but he had a tendency to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to infer protections that weren't explicitly there.  He had developed a personal libertarian philosophy which he then tried to impose upon the Constitution.  As noble a goal as it may seem, a Supreme Court justice has to tread carefully when it comes to saying what the Constitution protects vs. what it is silent on.  Douglas regularly crossed this line.  Let me put it this way: opponents of abortion decry Roe v. Wade as being too expansive and granting Constitutional protections that aren't there, and hold it up as the antithesis of judicial restraint.  What is noteworthy is that Warren Burger personally disagreed with the decision, but voted in the majority so Douglas couldn't write the opinion, because he feared Douglas would go overboard.  And Burger's opinion was remarkably expansive.  That speaks volumes about Douglas.
John Marshall is a bit of a different beast.  Some of his decisions were harmful to personal liberties and with regard to the relationship between the States and the federal government, but some of his decisions were utterly critical to the functioning of the nation.  I tend to agree with most of what he did (judicial review, supremacy of the Constitution over the States), but I disagree with a number of things (upholding the national bank, failing to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.)

At any rate, the important thing here is not that the Supreme Court be balanced between liberal and conservative.  If I were looking for a Supreme Court justice, I would base my decision on the following factors:

• Does the prospective justice's judicial track record demonstrate adherence to the letter of the Constitution and established case and Constitutional law?  (This one is absolutely and utterly non-negotiable)
• What is the prospective justice's track record with regard to overturned appeals?
• Does the prospective justice have judicial experience with state law, or is the experience exclusively federal?
• Does the ABA regard this prospective justice as "well-qualified"? (From what I've seen, the ABA is very good at keeping politics out of their grading system.)

[reimero]

National security means:

    • Everyone has a home.

No, it doesn't.  It means everyone has the right to try to procure shelter, but it certainly should not be a guaranty of a home for everyone.

    • Everyone has enough decent food to eat.

"Enough" and "decent" are subjective terms.

   

• No one has to worry about getting their hand cut off at work or having their job outsourced overseas.

So you advocate holding guns to CEOs' heads and threatening to kill them if they outsource overseas?  News flash: ain't gonna happen.

 

   • Everyone can be who they are without fear of being detained and tortured without trial.

Habeas corpus, bitches!  It ain't just a good idea... it's the law!

 

  • Everyone can vote without fear, knowing their vote will be counted—accurately.

Unless, of course, you're too stupid to read and follow instructions accurately.

 

   • Everyone has enough money for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No.  Abso-fucking-lutely not.  You do NOT have the right to enough money for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  If you know your Locke and your Hume and your Founding Fathers, you know that "pursuit of happiness" is a euphimism for "property."  The proper statement is this:
"Everyone has the right to earn his or her money, and to do with it as he or she pleases."

 

  • Everyone, even if they don't have money, has the right to see a doctor if they're sick or hurt. In so many other countries this is a guaranteed human right by law.

Interesting factoid: there are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than there are in Canada, which supposedly has such a superior health care system.

[pbsaurus]

Thanks Reimero.  I posted this to stir up some thought.  I found the letter very thought provoking and really appreciate the spirit of it.  I was surprised Jello was so diplomatic--he really has mellowed with age.  I find trouble with much of the socialistic ideals that Jello strongly supports and you hit is spot on with the SCOTUS stuff.

I was however intrigued with Jello bringing up to OIC and their offer to provide the necessary UN troops.  Why can't we broker this deal now?  Kick out the American war profiteers, and replace all of our troops with the OIC troops?  Sounds like a good plan to me.

With the election fraud point, I see the real problem not as a few democrats not getting to vote nor as a few republicans not having their votes counted, but a whole country brainwashed into thinking that there are only two parties and one must vote for either ___ or ___.  The election reform that I'd like to see is elimination of this idea coupled with a rewriting of the laws to replace the missing rungs on the ladder preventing anyone other than a dem or a repub from even getting on the ballot in every state, let alone some media coverage.  I don't have a solution to this problem, unless I'm somehow installed SDFL or something equally improbable.

[reimero]

With the election fraud point, I see the real problem not as a few democrats not getting to vote nor as a few republicans not having their votes counted, but a whole country brainwashed into thinking that there are only two parties and one must vote for either ___ or ___.  The election reform that I'd like to see is elimination of this idea coupled with a rewriting of the laws to replace the missing rungs on the ladder preventing anyone other than a dem or a repub from even getting on the ballot in every state, let alone some media coverage.  I don't have a solution to this problem, unless I'm somehow installed SDFL or something equally improbable.

You just had to bring that up, didn't you?  That's a topic to which I can speak at considerable length.  I wrote a term paper on that topic last spring, a paper I've been encouraged to get published in an academic journal (need to do lots of cleanup on it.)  I'll try to sum up the main issues in bullet point form.
* The nuts and bolts of electoral activity are in the hands of the states, not of the federal government.  This is per the Constitution.
* In the aftermath of the Civil War, there were numerous political parties: Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, etc.  Typically, there would be a controlling party with a plurality, and 2-3 minority parties.  The minority parties would often join forces behind a single candidate to try to oust the majority party.  In the mid 1890s, most states outlawed "fusion balloting", in which a single candidate appears on multiple parties' tickets.  Thus, the 1896 election is considered the birth of the 2-party system, because third parties were forced to merge or die.
* Fast-forward to Minnesota, 1996, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party.  The Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the states had the right to disallow fusion balloting.  More troublesome, Justices Rhenquist, Kennedy and Scalia signed an opinion (authored by Rhenquist) reinforcing the interest of the States in promoting a strong 2-party system (Rhenquist's words).  Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion of the "Constitutional tradition" of the 2-party system (which is utter crap, see above.)  They further justified their stance in the interest of "reducing voter confusion" and raising the point that you have to draw a line somewhere.  This decision expressly permitted States to discriminate against third parties, provided they didn't "infringe on their associational rights."  Rhenquist and Kennedy would reiterate this stance in several similar cases.  I would argue that Rhenquist ultimately strengthened the 2-party system to the point it is at today.
* Fast-forward again, this time to March, 2008, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.  The Supreme Court, in a shocking(!) 7-2 decision authored by Clarence Thomas(!!) determined that a ballot initiative in the state of Washington was not prima facie unconstitutional (that is, it's not overtly unconstitutional).  This ballot initiative essentially transforms the Washington electoral system from a party primary system to a normal election with the top 2 reaching the November ballot, regardless of party affiliation.  (Example: had this been in place for 2008, Obama would have faced off against Clinton rather than McCain in Washington.)  Actually, parties are removed from the process entirely: they can endorse, promote, oppose and advertise, but they can't actually put anyone on the ballot.  In their dissents, Scalia and Kennedy argued that this constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the right of association, but I don't see how the right to associate is the same as the constitutional right to ballot access.

It's hard to tell how this is going to shake out.  Going from 6-3 in Timmons to 7-2 in Washington State Grange is huge.  Thomas voted with the majority in both cases.  Rhenquist and O'Connor are gone, and Roberts and Alito signed Thomas's opinion (albeit cautiously.)  The Constitution makes no mention of parties whatsoever, and makes it clear that the nuts and bolts of the electoral process are a matter for the states, and not the federal government.  Thomas (correctly) states that the Constitution allows states to conduct experiments like this, with appropriate Constitutional oversight.

[Joe Sixpack]

Great post.

[pbsaurus]

Concur.  I'd also like to read your paper.  Oh and subscribe to your newsletter.

[Wunderkind]

... This ballot initiative essentially transforms the Washington electoral system from a party primary system to a normal election with the top 2 reaching the November ballot, regardless of party affiliation.  (Example: had this been in place for 2008, Obama would have faced off against Clinton rather than McCain in Washington.)  Actually, parties are removed from the process entirely: they can endorse, promote, oppose and advertise, but they can't actually put anyone on the ballot.  ...

Keeping in mind that my political knowledge is that of any average layman's, I was under the impression that this was how a democracy was supposed to work. I know it doesn't work that way now, but this is the closest suggestion I've seen so far to actually having the people's opinions counted properly, since most people are concerned about the candidate, not the party.
However, right now, we're not voting for a candidate, we're voting for a party. I have issues with that.

[reimero]

Keeping in mind that my political knowledge is that of any average layman's, I was under the impression that this was how a democracy was supposed to work. I know it doesn't work that way now, but this is the closest suggestion I've seen so far to actually having the people's opinions counted properly, since most people are concerned about the candidate, not the party.
However, right now, we're not voting for a candidate, we're voting for a party. I have issues with that.

Funny, that.

What gets me is that the main argument against the Washington system is that it is said to violate the associational rights of political parties (and associational rights are protected by the First Amendment.)  Here's the rub, though: legal scholars and past Supreme Courts have derived the associational rights of parties, groups and organizations from the associational rights of the members of those parties, groups and organizations.  That is to say, the First Amendment protects the "peaceful assembly" of individuals (among other things), so if the individuals may assemble and associate, it necessarily follows that groups may assemble and associate.
In essence, if you follow Scalia's and Kennedy's logic to its conclusion, the associational rights of groups, organizations and parties overrides the first amendment rights of private individuals, even though it is indisputable that the rights of parties is derived from the rights of individuals.  It's rather perverse.

[Wunderkind]

Funny, that.

What gets me is that the main argument against the Washington system is that it is said to violate the associational rights of political parties (and associational rights are protected by the First Amendment.)  Here's the rub, though: legal scholars and past Supreme Courts have derived the associational rights of parties, groups and organizations from the associational rights of the members of those parties, groups and organizations.  That is to say, the First Amendment protects the "peaceful assembly" of individuals (among other things), so if the individuals may assemble and associate, it necessarily follows that groups may assemble and associate.
In essence, if you follow Scalia's and Kennedy's logic to its conclusion, the associational rights of groups, organizations and parties overrides the first amendment rights of private individuals, even though it is indisputable that the rights of parties is derived from the rights of individuals.  It's rather perverse.

Just to make sure I understand you clearly...

You're saying, they think that the group supporting the individual comes before the individual. Right?
Essentially, the horse was built for the saddle, as opposed to the saddle being built for the horse.