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

how do you feel right now? - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2020 - 2:14pm
 
Brazil - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
Quotes: Your Favorite Comedians - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:11pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Sep 22, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
Trump - steeler - Sep 22, 2020 - 11:32am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Sep 22, 2020 - 10:30am
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 10:12am
 
2020 Elections - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:10am
 
Baseball, anyone? - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:08am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - katzendogs - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:40am
 
Race in America - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:16am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 22, 2020 - 7:49am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 22, 2020 - 6:12am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - islander - Sep 22, 2020 - 6:08am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:29pm
 
Things I'd LIKE to find at my house. - Antigone - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Sep 21, 2020 - 2:09pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 21, 2020 - 1:53pm
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - DianaLipka - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Trolls at RP - Steely_D - Sep 20, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Facebook Tips - Ohmsen - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
WikiLeaks - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:12pm
 
American Justice - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 1:08pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:34pm
 
The American Dream - Red_Dragon - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:09pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:56am
 
The Obituary Page - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:35am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:15am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 7:29am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:46am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:14am
 
FLAC Streaming - gsbaronnier - Sep 20, 2020 - 3:24am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:26am
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Favorite Quotes - sirdroseph - Sep 19, 2020 - 9:46am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Canada - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 7:37pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
Fires - haresfur - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 891, 892, 893  Next
Post to this Topic
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Sep 22, 2020 - 11:32am



 R_P wrote:
The sad reality is that US politics are now toxic. There is no room for compromise or co-operation. There are no mistruths that cannot be spoken; no norms or conventions that cannot be broken to achieve partisan political goals.

But there is a high price to pay for such behaviour. According to the pollster Gallup, confidence in the US Congress has declined from 42% in 1973 to just 13% in 2020.

Democracy is in trouble when citizens hold their politicians in such contempt.

 

I think everyone can agree on the forecast set forth in that last line — if little or nothing else.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 22, 2020 - 11:13am

The sad reality is that US politics are now toxic. There is no room for compromise or co-operation. There are no mistruths that cannot be spoken; no norms or conventions that cannot be broken to achieve partisan political goals.

But there is a high price to pay for such behaviour. According to the pollster Gallup, confidence in the US Congress has declined from 42% in 1973 to just 13% in 2020.

Democracy is in trouble when citizens hold their politicians in such contempt.

cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 21, 2020 - 7:31am

The fake news media is at it again. This from those wild-eyed radicals over at Forbes...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

"A republic, if you can keep it." B. Franklin
c.
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2020 - 3:37pm



 Ohmsen wrote:


Ohmsen

Ohmsen Avatar

Location: Valhalla
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2020 - 3:25pm

‘Big, fat shots in the ass’: Trump again suggests Biden is on energizing DRUGS
‘Big, fat shots in the ass’: Trump again suggests Biden is on energizing DRUGS
hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 20, 2020 - 3:15pm

Trump Says Supreme Court Nominee Will Be Woman, Person, Camera, or TV | The New Yorker
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 19, 2020 - 6:25pm


Who can we vote off the island? Hmmm....



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ei...

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...

Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 891, 892, 893  Next