softlynow

I voted for Biden because I like trains. Whenever there’s a pro-train candidate, they’re gonna hard for me not to support. The GOP is also a collection of racist, feckless, anti-intellectual, craven, misogynistic, closeted self-hating, nasty, grifting, cumstains and that might’ve been a factor as well.

Y’all should let him post into the void on this one. You know his game. Don’t play it.

Of course it's not disqualifying. The constitution only lists “good Behavior” as a limitation. Everything else is up to the particular asshat doing he nominating and the douche canoes voting to confirm. If you or I had a paddle this shit would matter.

My take is that her support for that dissent is: 1. a player playing the game; above all she wants power/career advancement and by writing that article, she set herself up nicely; 2. more of the same when it comes to the arguments conservative jurists use; when the political end requires it, the opposite reasoning is just as useful. King v. Burwell is clearly a case about a typographical or drafting error. The idea that a law about expanding health insurance coverage that would allow its opponents an easy way to prevent that expansion, and in a way anticipated in the very text of the law itself, is absurd, and the dissenters know that.* It's also obviously a case about one of the biggest hot-buttons of the era. What side you're on matters most. That Scalia, Thomas and Alito would take the tack they did when the opposite argument has been in their repertoire before is unsurprising. I agree with wildcat's assessment in that neutral, thinking people, should see through both Scalia's dissent and Barrett's support of it. They should see someone for whom the reasoning is just a means to an end. But membership in the 9 (for now) isn't about being a fair-minded jurist. It's about power and priority. I don't think less of Ms. Barrett because of her support of King v. Burwell. I don't even think less of the state of conservative legal intellectual thought because of that case and its use in subsequent jurisprudential discussion. My regard for the latter went to zero long ago. That Barrett feels she has to play that game to achieve her life goals is all I need know about her. But, of course, my opinion of her doesn't matter; she will be confirmed, and another Alito will occupy the Court for 40+ years. Shit happens, Texas hires coaching frauds and conservatives acquire power however they feel best. So she's to be the Ted Cruz of the Supremes? C'est la vie. That case does confirm to me that Roberts will likely be, in the main, a fair-minded justice. He's made some rulings I dislike. However, it appears he at least has some intellectual integrity. .* Scalia has written eloquently and on the limits of textualism, pointing out that when an absurd result is reached, that should not be the interpretation.

You do realize I was paying you a compliment, right? As to that question, I only state such opinions verbally, when there's no record being made.

The other day I was thinking we’ll miss not having Escriva/Laphoaig/LonghornLaw for this thread. But Anastasis has filled the role nicely.

“Legislating from the bench,” “activist judges,” “originality,” “textualism,” “strict constructionism” and so on are simply rhetorical cover for the tradcons and allies of capital in siding with their favored interests. It’s totally unsurprising that conservative justices will opine from the living constitution perspective when it suits them.

let me guess the same dudes that for decades showed late well after the anthem, and bailed for the tailgate or Schultzes during route 44 etc are now all U must StaNd for whols GamE to earn your SpoT guys? right? If only it was 44. I stayed for all 66 miserable points that day. I guess I’ve never been much for entitlement. I knew I needed to suffer as others had to be a real fan. Fuck all the those who bail early come late and whinge about “all lives.”

We must cultivate our garden.

Hell, the terrorists won. We no longer resemble the country we were 20 years ago.

Fuck no. The end of the Western Empire contributed to the onset of the Dark Ages. The end of the American empire would likely lead to one variation of the post-apocalyptic hellscapes we used to pack into theaters to see. Or worse, ou could cease to suck. As bad as we think it is, it could always be worse. You pointed out that folks are asking conservatism means anymore, well it should at the very least opposition to the "burn it all down" people. If conservatism no longer stands, at the very least, for preservation of the union, then we truly are lost.

Have we checked in on this guy?

This is a good lie. By claiming the severity is in the middle of the scale, we're all left guessing if it's actually mild or severe. Well done.

Who? What specific solutions are ProgCons pushing? What's the ProgCon health care plan, plan to secure our elections, stance on and solutions to slow climate change, immigration solutions . . . ? And we're ultimately talking about another possible strain of Team Red, right? So, we're really talking about voting for the pols who get donations from, and are answerable most readily to, the same interests as the current Team Red, but maybe with some Never Trumpers back in the fold, right?

How do we exercise our option to take the ProgCon approach as opposed to voting team Red or team Blue? Are you ignoring that some are claiming that Trumpism IS the approach you're advocating?

Another reason ideological discussions are limited in their usefulness is they ignore the necessity of coalitions to attain power. Until the Traditionalist Conservative marriage to the flavor-of-the-month limited government bait-and-switch scheme ends, your wish will never come true. Waste, like the deficit, is only an issue for the party out of power. It's also inherent with large organizations. Oversight should be honest, diligent and vigorous. That would require, however, that CONGRESS be honest, diligent, and vigorous. Sure.

I didn't say anything about it being new, and I'm not lumping anyone together. I'm talking about the usefulness of ideology to people with outsized levels of greediness operating in the political sphere. Now that libertarianism is less useful, conservative think tanks will look for other ways to convince the have-nots to vote against their economic interests. I was aware of this philosophy, having read a bit about the Disraeli ministries after hearing Theresa May call herself a progressive conservative a few years ago. I also stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-not-progressive-conservatism/. There's much to take issue with in there, but this: tells me that Progressive Conservatism is just another vaguely stated, enticing-sounding ideal that any moderately-talented, morally-unmoored hack can hail as their guiding principle as they carve out a career accomplishing nothing for the general welfare. To me, ideology is useful in an educational setting, in teaching people how to think. Beyond that, it's mostly useful to sell books and candidacies. I don't care what any particular ideology says about an issue, I care about the effects of the policy choices to be made. Now, as a persuasive tool in a debate or sales pitch, ideology is immensely useful in shifting the opinions of people who haven't investigated a subject or given a subject much thought. But it is appeal to the listener's ideology that's important, not my own. I don't need to debate ideology to understand issues and how I feel about them, not there's anything wrong with those who do.

Sounds like a good line for the kleptocrats to turn to now that "libertarianism" has been exposed as mere justification for their fleecing of the middle class.

Plenty of norms are falling by the wayside. A Court with Roberts as the swing vote wouldn’t be that worrisome. A Court where Roberts is a dirty liberal is something any centrist or liberal should always worry will take up for their team. The justification doesn’t matter when even Thomas is a dispensable vote. Now might they choose to assert their independence from the political sphere and follow reason and precedent? Sure. Is that a good bet for Dems? Of course not.

You need to pack the court to ensure you can expand the union. The court as currently comprised may well invalidate anything that swings the balance of power towards the Dems.

I was against it before. But it’s been long enough now that a tearful apologetic comeback would work.

Who saw the GRHorn Anastasis whataboutism tag team coming? Oh, right, everyone.

Dems should look at it a different way. The constitution no longer functions correctly in a number of areas. It's framework needs updating because of the advent of a number of things, not the least of which is the need for a gigantic executive which the founders had zero suspicion would arise. The electoral college is on its way to losing its legitimacy, the two-party system encourages black and white thinking in a grey-shaded world and every Congressperson represents far too many people. It's time for a refresh. Of course, that's why Dems will simply fight fire with kindling. Their personal wealth would likely take a hit in any effective plan to force actual change.