Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I will have to disagree. He wrote opinions that I'm sure we can agree with. Furthermore he did join the "liberal side" of the court in certain cases, whether or not we agree with each individual case. Saying that everything he says is wrong is ad hominem.
The concept that the constitution should be interpreted the same way forever and ever is exactly as sane as treating the bible the same way.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."Kostya, I already told you why that's incorrect. You can believe living constitution is a flimsy thing and because of that, changes to the constitutional meaning must be done with explicit amendments.
"You want Obamacare? That's not in our constitution. You want it to be legal? Write it in!"
edited 10th Dec '12 6:44:22 PM by Trivialis
The constitution is a set of laws. The way we determine the suitability of laws is by testing them until they break. At least, that is how I have always understood the American Court system to work.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."Moving on...
McCain seeks seat on Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Lindsey Graham to Obama: How about ‘manning up’ on debt?
Obama Blasts Right-to-Work Bills in Detroit
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii hospitalized: 'For the most part, I'm OK'
Kennedy’s legislative record in 1961–63 was the best of any President since Roosevelt’s first term.
The Kennedy administration was far more successful than most people give it credit for.
You'd get populist policies from him as president, but not necessarily good ones.
Sure, Johnson was ruthless and immoral (its the reason he was so successful) but besides his Civil Rights work, there wasn't much populist about him. Johnson pushed his own agenda (The Great Society), and wasn't afraid to crush those in his way.
In many ways Johnson was a more liberal and less paranoid Nixon.
edited 10th Dec '12 7:21:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016It's not that hard to be less paranoid than Nixon was. I think LBJ was a better man than most give him credit for, though.
Wow, Graham sounds an awful lot like he's whining there. He even points out that Obama won, and somehow expects him to do something "bipartisan" when it's already been proven that doesn't work very well with this Congress.
edited 10th Dec '12 7:21:31 PM by AceofSpades
Obama won by a clear majority and the Democrats made major gains in the House and even picked up a few Senate seats. I think it's clear the public in general is more on their side and the GOP needs to bend. There's also the fact that if gerrymandering wasn't being done they probably would have retaken the house.
edited 10th Dec '12 7:23:41 PM by Kostya
I say the GOP would still control the House (if only by a slight margin). The Republicans have 34 more seats than the Dems in the 113th United States Congress. Plus quite a few Dem victories are due to Gerrymandering.
edited 10th Dec '12 7:32:01 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016What has to be the matter with you to think torture is constitutional but universal healthcare/whatever is going too far?
While I agree with you on torture and healthcare, one criticism living constitution gets is its attempt to find the perfect meaning. Like trying to weave things here and there to reach the desired outcomes. But our constitution may not be perfect; sometimes judges make the uncomfortable decision where they follow the law, but in doing so pick the less sympathetic option.
http://prospect.org/article/not-wisconsin-its-worse
A piece about what it means if they manage to pass right to work in Michigan. It's incredibly ominous.
edited 10th Dec '12 11:52:45 PM by AceofSpades
Not to my knowledge, but I do know that they're getting closer to a deal, unfortunately
.
Obama doesn't need to compromise to get what he wants. Therefore he will compromise.
x whatever: I'm pretty sure there are no negotiations between the Supreme Court and anyone. The Supreme Court has no right or power to alter the laws of a state except as they conflict with the Constitution of the United States, anyway. Your philosophy teacher may have been thinking of a particular state law which is being challenged in the court system; I don't know if there is even such a law, though.

Now see, this is an example of someone twisting Scalia's words and intent.
Senate moves to block Pentagon plans to increase number of spies overseas
edited 10th Dec '12 6:39:45 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016