[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump Lies - Red_Dragon - Sep 19, 2020 - 5:03pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Trump - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:20pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - steeler - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:53pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:25pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:26am
 
The Obituary Page - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:17am
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - sirdroseph - Sep 19, 2020 - 10:06am
 
Favorite Quotes - sirdroseph - Sep 19, 2020 - 9:46am
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Sep 19, 2020 - 9:35am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Sep 19, 2020 - 8:16am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - helenofjoy - Sep 19, 2020 - 7:24am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:59am
 
Canada - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 7:37pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
COVID-19 - kcar - Sep 18, 2020 - 4:18pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 2:05pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Climate Change - kcar - Sep 18, 2020 - 3:40am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Soliciting ideas to bring about a more humane world - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:57am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:43am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:39am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:02am
 
More Stuff Schlabby Doesn't Do - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:57am
 
Nina Simone... - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Brass Against? - jamesat43 - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:13am
 
Helpful emergency signs - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 7:38am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:39am
 
Breaking Bad - sirdroseph - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:55am
 
Economix - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 11:56pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:22pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:33pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:29pm
 
Fires - haresfur - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
Facebook Tips - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:32am
 
Silence? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:28am
 
Regarding cats - sirdroseph - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - kcar - Sep 16, 2020 - 4:24am
 
Trade War - R_P - Sep 15, 2020 - 8:13pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Ohmsen - Sep 15, 2020 - 2:20pm
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - Antigone - Sep 15, 2020 - 11:46am
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Sep 15, 2020 - 5:47am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - haresfur - Sep 14, 2020 - 6:51pm
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - rhahl - Sep 14, 2020 - 2:02pm
 
Geeky Jokes - Proclivities - Sep 14, 2020 - 1:11pm
 
Guns - R_P - Sep 14, 2020 - 12:44pm
 
Help Wanted! - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 14, 2020 - 9:57am
 
hurricane relief - miamizsun - Sep 14, 2020 - 9:31am
 
You really put butter on the hot dog? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 14, 2020 - 8:56am
 
Bear! - Ohmsen - Sep 14, 2020 - 7:37am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - R_P - Sep 13, 2020 - 9:53pm
 
Calling DIY'ers... in re: electrical wiring... - kcar - Sep 13, 2020 - 5:49pm
 
Commercializing Facebook - Ohmsen - Sep 13, 2020 - 11:14am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - Coaxial - Sep 13, 2020 - 10:29am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 891, 892, 893  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 3:20pm

 steeler wrote:
 R_P wrote:
 steeler wrote:
(...)

RIP Justice Ginsburg. Respect.

Nice, but could've been moved here. And case in point. Aside from "I think it's dumb and disrespectful."
 
Sorry about that.
 
No need for that.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 2:53pm



 R_P wrote:
 steeler wrote:
(...)

RIP Justice Ginsburg. Respect.

Nice, but could've been moved here. And case in point. Aside from "I think it's dumb and disrespectful."
 
Sorry about that.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 12:44pm

 steeler wrote:
(...)

RIP Justice Ginsburg. Respect.

Nice, but could've been moved here. And case in point. Aside from "I think it's dumb and disrespectful."
RedTopFireBelow

RedTopFireBelow Avatar

Location: Scotland, UK (formally a Jersey Girl)


Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 12:36pm

Lots of deep discussions about the Supreme Court.  I'm not a scholar, I haven't read any dissertations or even rulings, but I know what I expect in a Supreme Court Justice.   I don't care which party they belong to, I only care that their personal opinions take a back seat to the rule of law.  To what is just and what is unjust.   I don't want a lying drunkard like Kavanaugh, not over something he did in college, but because of his disgraceful lies under oath.   I don't want Justice Thomas advising that fucking sicko Trump on how to change libel laws so that black-hearted bastard can sue The New York Times for telling the truth.   JUSTICE is what I expect.  For ALL the people, ALL the time.  JUSTICE.

Rest in peace, Ruth.   You did good.  

 
hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 12:05pm

Ruth Bader Ginsburg American Hero!!! 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 11:56am



 steeler wrote — my response, below, moved to Supreme Court: Who’s Next?


 Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
It is relevant from my viewpoint. The politicization of Supreme Court nominations has hit its zenith, to the detriment of all. Ordinary citizens, with little or no knowledge of jurisprudence, claim to know what makes a good judge or justice. Have they read opinions of those judges or otherwise researched them? Almost always, the answer is no. Yet they are thoroughly convinced they do know. How absurd is that?  It has become so surreal that Trump supporters and Trump himself tout his judicial appointments as among his most significant accomplishments. And Trump releases a list from which he says he will select a Supreme Court nominee because he believes it to be an election issue â€” which, unfortunately  and as you have acknowledged, it has become. If a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts, a President is empowered and charged with filling it. Just filling a vacancy is not an accomplishment in and of itself.  Evaluating whether a judicial appointment turns out to be a great one, an average one, or a subpar one, plays out over years. That Trump nominated a judge or justice and the Federalist Society approved of him or her does not make it a great appointment anymore than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama nominated a judge or justice and he or she was rated highly qualified by the American Bar Association.

This has become an obsession among conservatives and Republicans. Mitch McConnell has made judicial appointments his highest priority. They want “conservative” judges and justices. And what makes a judge or justice “conservative?” Almost always, the response I get is one who “follows the  Constitution.” Ok, then, thanks for clearing that up. And this is putting aside the obvious: someone who sees himself or herself as a conservative wants a so-called conservative Judge or justice, and someone who sees himself as liberal wants a so-called liberal judge or justice. See how this smacks of seeking to politicize the branch of government that the Framers attempted to insulate from politics? Of course you do.

Suffice it to say that giants of the Supreme Court would have a hard time getting on the Supreme Court today.

On a lesser note, I believe history will view Bader Ginsburg as a significant Justice. I would venture to say that she and Breyer will stack up just fine when compared to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (of course, it is way too early to evaluate the 2 Trump appointees). If Bill Clinton did not make appointments via a corrupt process, that would seem to be relevant to your assumption — I assume you do agree it is an assumption — that Hillary Clinton would have done so. 

But, as you should be able to see, I am much more concerned with the exponentially larger issue — the increasing politicization of our federal judiciary — than I am on responding to speculation whether Hillary Clinton would have “sold” a seat on the Supreme Court, and got a suspect and subpar candidate through Senate confirmation.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation where I'm expected to defend points I never made. As I did point out, Bill Clinton's appointments to the Supreme Court aren't at issue here; he wasn't running for president against Donald Trump. His wife was. I doubt she had much to do with his appointments, and if I had more time I'd be happy to debate their merits but they have nothing—nada, zip, zero—to do with who she would have appointed.

Even Ordinary citizens can read. We can read decisions, dissents, and we can read the rhetoric of political campaigns. In this matter both Republicans and Democrats (at least those I pay attention to) agree—the single longest-lasting legacy of an administration is the judges it appoints. Because of that it makes perfect sense to focus on that issue.

In the world I wish we lived in—one where judges decide cases based on the law and constitution as written—the politics of a  judge wouldn't matter a lick. The criteria I use to assess a judge is how willing s/he is to ignore those politics and stick to the law. That is not a fashionable view in either the left or right corners of our politics; John Roberts (for instance) is derided among conservatives as disloyal for things like his opinion on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in Obamacare. But his loyalty shouldn't be to those who appointed him, it should be to the oath he took to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. Not the one his political faction wishes we had, but the one we actually have.

Judges like Roberts and Gorsuch—judges willing to bite the hand that appointed them—are the kind the Federalist Society favors, and the kind Trump promised to appoint in 2016. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not that kind of judge. The American Bar Association has its own criteria for evaluating judges, and it makes sense to listen to them. They don't get a veto, they are just a party with a vested interest in the outcome.  But here I am arguing about the merits of Bill Clinton's appointments to the court, which I don't have time to do, and which (again) isn't the point I'm trying to make.

My comment on Hillary Clinton selling seats on the court was half flippant; she would probably only use donations to her foundation as a tie-breaker among candidates loyal to her political tribe. She absolutely would not appoint anyone who would challenge her agenda. Donald Trump promised to do that, and carried thru on it. Yes, I am actually giving Donald Trump credit for something, something rather important. And in contrast to Hillary Clinton it was the deciding factor in the votes of quite a few people who find Donal Trump the man utterly abhorrent. As I pointed out a few posts back the list Trump released a few days ago undercut that advantage.

I share at least the text of your concern about the politicization of the court, but I suspect we differ substantially on what that means. To me it means I would rather have judges frustrate my political agenda if it preserves the rule of law. What does it mean to you?
 
 

**I had started writing this response yesterday, before I heard the news that Justice Ginsburg had died. That stopped me from completing it. Trying again now, but . . .**

Actually, you did make Bill Clinton’s Supreme Court nominations relevant. My initial inquiry was regarding your basis for saying Hillary Clinton would have “sold” seats on the Supreme Court — I.e., made suspect nominations. Your reply was that it was logical to infer it from a pattern of prior corrupt acts by her. One of those to which you linked was Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich. Even if Hillary were behind that, Bill obviously had to be on board. So it also would be a corrupt act of his (and I am sure you or others could point to other corrupt acts by Bill) from which you could similarly infer that Bill would be prone to make suspect Supreme Court nominations. I pointed out that his nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer, in my view, were not suspect. Clearly relevant.

On the larger point I made, you based your previous praise of Trump’s nominations on those nominations having come from a list provided by the Federalist Society, which apparently you somehow view as meaning they were made on the merits of those nominees as jurists and devoid of politics. The Federalist Society does have an agenda — the appointment of conservative judges. You seem to believe that makes them solid choices who will rule on the basis of law, not politics. Presumably then, you view those not favored by the Federalist Society as suspect (I.e, liberal) judges. I do not see members of the Federalist Society as apolitical actors. You evidently do, seeing them not only as apolitical but apparently as the self-appointed guardians of the rule of law. Hence, the relevance of my previous post in response to your argument.

You also assert that a Justice/judge who decides a case with a result that is not the result sought or presumably favored by the President (or the political party of that President) who appointed him or her proves that the Justice/judge is rendering his or her decisions based on the merits, not politics. You say Gorsuch and Roberts proved that by going against the hand that feeds them — Trump For Gorsuch, Bush for Roberts. You say Ginsburg has not done that. She has. See, e.g., Mont v. United States, a 2019 Supreme Court decision in which Ginsburg joined a Clarence Thomas opinion along with Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. That said, it is a rather curious litmus test you have proffered. Frankly, it makes no sense to me. It seemingly is based on the premise that all of the Justices are presumed to be politically biased in favor of the political party of the President who appointed that Justice until proven otherwise. And the way it can be proved otherwise is for the Justice to vote against the positions of that President/political party in a high-profile case. For starters, I do not have such a categorically dim view of the Justices — that they, as a group, are prone to decide cases in a partisan manner rather than based on the merits. John Paul Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford and was considered in his early years to be a conservative. He later was considered to be one of the Court’s more liberal Justices. Do you consider him to be a good, impartialJustice because he bit the hand that fed him? I suspect not.

That anyone can read a judicial decision does not mean that most people do so. They don’t. I am dumbfounded that you might be suggesting otherwise. Yet many are convinced that they know good judges from bad ones based only — as I have posited — on whether those judges are seen as conservative or liberal and whether a result in a particular case aligns with their preferred outcome. The vast majority have little or no idea who is sitting on the federal circuit courts and have even less idea who is sitting on the federal district courts. More are aware of the nine Justices, but relatively few, I would contend, can make cogent arguments as to why one believes, say, Justice Thomas to be a good Justice and Justice Sotomayor to be a bad one, or vice versa. Rather, they take their cues from the party of the President who appointed them: Republicans appoint conservatives, Democrats appoint liberals. Enough said, no further thought required. The general population looks at a few high-profile cases for which they judge the decision based on a preferred result as opposed to the analysis employed to reach that result. In other words, in most instances, they bring their inherent bias to the case and make no attempt to ground their preferred outcome in the facts of the case or the law.

That does not mean there are not differences in judicial philosophies, legitimate ones. There are those who believe in interpreting the Constitution based on the original intent of the framers and those who believe the Constitution was meant to be a living and breathing document. Scalia is a proponent of the former; Ginsburg the latter. That does not mean, though, that the former group adheres to the Constitution and the latter group does not. Nor does it mean the former group believes in the rule of law and the latter group does not. This is a complicated topic that I will cut short here, acknowledging that I have oversimplified it. Suffice it to say that the Constitution is not that express on very many things and it does not lend itself easily to black-and-white interpretations. Brilliant legal minds can differ and have differed. These differences do not render the decisions of one judge, or set of judges, as contrary to the Constitution or the rule of law. Adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law is not the province of “conservative” judges approved by the Federalist Society. Yes, I believe in the rule of law and I want judges who adhere to the Constitution. I do not believe that only “conservative”judges will make it so.


RIP Justice Ginsburg. Respect.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 2:16pm

Very fine people...
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 1:34pm

If your small business died, blame President Donald Trump
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 12:15pm

Hedges: Why the Feds Fear Thinkers Like Howard Zinn (2010)
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 10:25am

black321 wrote:
OK, how about...JK

The underlying problem  - politicization of judges/judiciary system -  is something we may not be able to escape, but perhaps can minimize.
We all expect people to play by the rules of the law, written and the spirit, but we know human nature can take people off course,
just as it is with free markets
But tThe problem of a "lottery system" for judge nominations seems one we could deal with better than we currently do

The problem is in the legislative branch.  Everybody wants a shortcut to implementing their agendas, and getting the court to rule that forcing people to do X or forbidding them to do Y is square with constitutional rules that limit their power to do so means that when the shoe is on the other foot forbidding X and forcing Y is cool too. Short-sightedness.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 9:24am



 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
OK, hows about keeping life terms, but alternating which party nominates a candidate...assuming either party is either president or controls a certain % of congress?

We have a mechanism for that called "elections".

Political parties should have no constitutional role in government. They are private clubs, and granting them any powers over anyone else disenfranchises anyone who isn't in those clubs.
 
OK, how about...JK

The underlying problem  - politicization of judges/judiciary system -  is something we may not be able to escape, but perhaps can minimize.
We all expect people to play by the rules of the law, written and the spirit, but we know human nature can take people off course,
just as it is with free markets
But tThe problem of a "lottery system" for judge nominations seems one we could deal with better than we currently do

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 9:19am



 miamizsun wrote:
too much to embed the entire tweet right now

well nobody saw this coming...

 


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 9:09am

too much to embed the entire tweet right now

well nobody saw this coming...

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 9:05am

 black321 wrote:
OK, hows about keeping life terms, but alternating which party nominates a candidate...assuming either party is either president or controls a certain % of congress?

We have a mechanism for that called "elections".

Political parties should have no constitutional role in government. They are private clubs, and granting them any powers over anyone else disenfranchises anyone who isn't in those clubs.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 7:07am

Something or other related to scoundrels:
'national commission to promote patriotic education'
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 18, 2020 - 5:53am



 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
?
i was referring to changing the current nomination system for supreme court, appeals court, and district judges.

"term limits for judges, and a schedule that allows each president to nominate a judge or two"—yeah, not exactly like a typical political appointee, more like a federal commission, like the FCC. Not seeing what term limits accomplish, other than churning the membership. The original intent was to isolate the court from the political winds, and this lets them blow thru the court regularly.

It's not the worst idea I've heard for reforming the court (adding justices to pack the court is) but I'm not seeing it as much of an improvement.
 

OK, hows about keeping life terms, but alternating which party nominates a candidate...assuming either party is either president or controls a certain % of congress?
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 6:30pm

Prosecutors file additional charges against Rudy Giuliani associates
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 4:47pm

Socialism!
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 4:46pm

Trump downplays legacy of slavery in appeal to white voters
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 2:19pm

black321 wrote:
?
i was referring to changing the current nomination system for supreme court, appeals court, and district judges.

"term limits for judges, and a schedule that allows each president to nominate a judge or two"—yeah, not exactly like a typical political appointee, more like a federal commission, like the FCC. Not seeing what term limits accomplish, other than churning the membership. The original intent was to isolate the court from the political winds, and this lets them blow thru the court regularly.

It's not the worst idea I've heard for reforming the court (adding justices to pack the court is) but I'm not seeing it as much of an improvement.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 891, 892, 893  Next