2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

Whole flood of women coming out accusing fox news head Roger ailes of sexual harassment

 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/six-more-w...harassment.html

[brett05]

The court has been majority conservative for at least a couple of decades now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02...in-decades.html

No conservatives would agree with that. YOu look at all the liberal positions that have happened from the SC over the years and it's liberal.

 

Abortion

Government Marriage

Healthcare

to name just three.

[StrangeSox]

No conservatives would agree with that. YOu look at all the liberal positions that have happened from the SC over the years and it's liberal.

 

Abortion

Government Marriage

Healthcare

to name just three.

 

I don't care if they'd agree with it or not--they're factually wrong. The flip side to that would be:

 

Abortion (everything up to the decision last week was a weakening of abortion rights, and if Texas's law wasn't struck down, then Roe would essentially be meaningless)

I'm assuming you mean gay marriage? Yeah, the tides have shifted there.

Healthcare--Roberts was able to gut the Medicaid expansion, but otherwise a pretty procedural ruling.

 

On the flip side, you've got:

Shelby County, probably the worst decision I've seen

Bush v Gore, a close runner-up

The above mentioned gutting of the Medicaid expansion for pretty odd reasons

Citizens United

Heller and Miller

Hobby Lobby

A series of rulings including AT&T vs Concepcion gutting class action lawsuits and strengthening mandatory arbitration clauses

Several Bush-era PATRIOT Act or similar domestic spying programs

 

A court with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and libertarian-conservative Kennedy is a court with a pretty decent conservative lean. Going back further, the court really only gets more conservative until you hit the early 70's. The only way this period could be defined as a liberal court would be to define a conservative court as one that issued rulings favorable to movement conservatives 100% of the time and anything else as liberal.

Edited July 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Ron Fournier probably just sobbed himself to puking over Evan Bayh running for Senate. Though he is probably really confused why he has a label again

[bmags]

Also posting this so that Greg can respond with "That's not a very good article, the author wasn't objective how come nobody is covering what a b**** she is?"

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-inter...dership-quality

[pettie4sox]

No conservatives would agree with that. YOu look at all the liberal positions that have happened from the SC over the years and it's liberal.

 

Abortion

Government Marriage

Healthcare

to name just three.

 

I might give you the healthcare shindig but marriage and abortion do not effect your life one way or the other.

[StrangeSox]

I might give you the healthcare shindig but marriage and abortion do not effect your life one way or the other.

 

Listen, the SC ruled in ways that don't explicitly favor movement conservatives three times recently in the past 45 years. This proves that it's been a liberal court this whole time.

 

Speaking of gay marriage, the GOP platform committee is meeting today, and so far they're going all-in on anti-SSM, bathroom BS, and anti-gay adoption.

 

eta: also part of the official GOP platform now: Internet porn is a public health crisis

 

eta2: oh and a proposal to specifically recognize LGBT people as targeted by ISIS failed. A "conversion therapy" amendment, on the other hand, passed. Way to quintuple down on the LGBT hate, GOP!

Edited July 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Ron Fournier probably just sobbed himself to puking over Evan Bayh running for Senate. Though he is probably really confused why he has a label again

Evan Bayh did as much to block his own party from doing certain things as anyone who wasn't a Republican, or Joe Lieberman.

 

I remember when he retired, it was some sanctimonious bulls*** about how the "environment had deteriorated" or something, and he was otherwise pretending like he had nothing to do with that.

[StrangeSox]

Evan Bayh did as much to block his own party from doing certain things as anyone who wasn't a Republican, or Joe Lieberman.

 

I remember when he retired, it was some sanctimonious bulls*** about how the "environment had deteriorated" or something, and he was otherwise pretending like he had nothing to do with that.

 

NO LABELS! (but lots of lobbyist cash please!)

[bmags]

Evan Bayh did as much to block his own party from doing certain things as anyone who wasn't a Republican, or Joe Lieberman.

 

I remember when he retired, it was some sanctimonious bulls*** about how the "environment had deteriorated" or something, and he was otherwise pretending like he had nothing to do with that.

 

He made a bunch of money doing that though and received fawning profiles.

 

He's still better than nothing. I hated landreiu/nelson, but when they left you weren't getting a moderate republican you were getting a crazy tea partier.

[lostfan]

He made a bunch of money doing that though and received fawning profiles.

 

He's still better than nothing. I hated landreiu/nelson, but when they left you weren't getting a moderate republican you were getting a crazy tea partier.

Bayh is like what everyone thinks Clinton (who has a solidly liberal domestic voting record maybe even to the left of Obama) is.

[southsider2k5]

Evan Bayh did as much to block his own party from doing certain things as anyone who wasn't a Republican, or Joe Lieberman.

 

I remember when he retired, it was some sanctimonious bulls*** about how the "environment had deteriorated" or something, and he was otherwise pretending like he had nothing to do with that.

 

There was also a quiet thing about if he was actually still a resident Indiana that was going on when he decided not to run again. Never did here where that went after it came out and he quit.

[brett05]

I don't care if they'd agree with it or not--they're factually wrong. The flip side to that would be:

 

Abortion (everything up to the decision last week was a weakening of abortion rights, and if Texas's law wasn't struck down, then Roe would essentially be meaningless)

I'm assuming you mean gay marriage? Yeah, the tides have shifted there.

Healthcare--Roberts was able to gut the Medicaid expansion, but otherwise a pretty procedural ruling.

 

On the flip side, you've got:

Shelby County, probably the worst decision I've seen

Bush v Gore, a close runner-up

The above mentioned gutting of the Medicaid expansion for pretty odd reasons

Citizens United

Heller and Miller

Hobby Lobby

A series of rulings including AT&T vs Concepcion gutting class action lawsuits and strengthening mandatory arbitration clauses

Several Bush-era PATRIOT Act or similar domestic spying programs

 

A court with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and libertarian-conservative Kennedy is a court with a pretty decent conservative lean. Going back further, the court really only gets more conservative until you hit the early 70's. The only way this period could be defined as a liberal court would be to define a conservative court as one that issued rulings favorable to movement conservatives 100% of the time and anything else as liberal.

 

 

I appreciate you including some cases. It got me learning about a few things.

 

Rights to protect the unborn child would be central ground. To date we don't have that.

Marriage at all in government hands is wrong - straight, gay, whatever

Yes healthcare as a right is a liberal movement, not a conservative one.

 

So I started to read on yours. Shelby case. If this is your most egregious decision toward conservatism, then yes, the SC is liberal.

Bush v Gore was a legal matter. Even with the vote of 7-2 kinda shows the impartiality of the decision

The ACLU, about as liberal as it gets, even agreed with the Citizens United case. It seems like the Court corrected things for the First Amendment.

Heller and Miller - if you are defining that the right to arms is a conservative lean, than guilty as charged. That said, almost every rule is being done to restrict that. Ironically some of the worst armed crime is those areas with the most restrictiveness (Chicago and New York)

Hobby Lobby - yes it was a conservative ruling allowing close held corporations the same rights as non-for profits.

 

So if you want to do a breakdown of cases which most of the surveys do, yes, the court is seen as more conservative. However, on importance like the situations I brought forth, no, the weight of the court has been liberal. A balanced court addresses fairness. This election should speak clearly what the American people want. Won't mean it is right, but it would be democratic.

[greg775]

Also posting this so that Greg can respond with "That's not a very good article, the author wasn't objective how come nobody is covering what a b**** she is?"

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-inter...dership-quality

 

The problem with this article is again, it comes from a Chris Matthews type, that is, a Hillary worshiper..

 

This paragraph made me stop reading: "Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win — there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt."

 

Yes, we know, Hillary is so special, blah blah. She's a compulsive liar, power hungry, elitist and the FBI doesn't care.

[bmags]

Glad I filled that quota.

[Quin]

The problem with this article is again, it comes from a Chris Matthews type, that is, a Hillary worshiper..

 

This paragraph made me stop reading: "Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win — there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt."

 

Yes, we know, Hillary is so special, blah blah. She's a compulsive liar, power hungry, elitist and the FBI doesn't care.

 

...you are incredibly tone deaf when it comes to Hillary.

[LittleHurt05]

The problem with this article is again, it comes from a Chris Matthews type, that is, a Hillary worshiper..

 

This paragraph made me stop reading: "Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win — there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt."

 

Yes, we know, Hillary is so special, blah blah. She's a compulsive liar, power hungry, elitist and the FBI doesn't care.

 

How is that any different than most other top politicians?

[StrangeSox]

GOP platform also includes a plank to turn over all federal lands (so national parks, national forests, national monuments, BLM lands etc.) to state governments, where they'd definitely then be opened up to development and sold off to private industry. Oh and a plank to remove species like the grey wolf from the endangered species list. Coal is also now a "clean source of energy"

 

I swear, the motivating factor behind modern conservatism seems to be "this'll piss of those libtards!" and little else

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[greg775]

This is a great column. The FBI director outlined a great case in making Hillary stand trial, then inexplicably said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.

Turns out his reasoning was quite simple. ...

 

Comey simply didn't want to go down in history as the man who changed the 2016 election. Like the author states, what if a trial were held and Hillary was INNOCENT and Comey had caused her to lose the Presidency. He'd forever be remembered as the guy who prevented Hillary from being the first female U.S. President.

By recommending no charges, Comey is right where he wants to be: Forgotten and a non factor in the election. Excellent column. This was a no brainer for Comey, who didn't have the guts to do the right thing lest she be declared innocent at a trial and he be blamed for costing the Democrats the election. Please READ IT.

 

http://www.abqjournal.com/805161/fbi-chief...ke-history.html

Edited July 12, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

This is a great column. The FBI director outlined a great case in making Hillary stand trial, then inexplicably said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.

Turns out his reasoning was quite simple. ...

 

Comey simply didn't want to go down in history as the man who changed the 2016 election. Like the author states, what if a trial were held and Hillary was INNOCENT and Comey had caused her to lose the Presidency. He'd forever be remembered as the guy who prevented Hillary from being the first female U.S. President.

By recommending no charges, Comey is right where he wants to be: Forgotten and a non factor in the election. Excellent column. This was a no brainer for Comey, who didn't have the guts to do the right thing lest she be declared innocent at a trial and he be blamed for costing the Democrats the election. Please READ IT.

 

http://www.abqjournal.com/805161/fbi-chief...ke-history.html

 

The problem with this article is again, it comes from a Rush Limbaugh type, that is, a Hillary hater..

 

This paragraph made me stop reading: "When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous – and the implications for the country too large – to hinge on a decision of the court."

 

Yes, we know, liberals are bad, blah blah. She's a qualified candidate, has a good track record in power, works her ass off and Greg doesn't care.

[StrangeSox]

First he co-opted Charles Limbaugh's fascistic "America First" slogan, now he's going after Wallace's slogan.

 

[bmags]

Just feel the need to say that I think RBG was out of bounds making comments on the election. Scalia started it, she is adding on to it. I hope it stops.

[StrangeSox]

I think the comments are especially weird given how she's strongly rejected any suggestion that she should retire when she can guarantee that a Democratic president can replace her with a like-minded individual to ensure her judicial legacy.

[shysocks]

From a WaPo editorial:

 

As I noted earlier this year, trust in the Supreme Court was bound to take a hit after the death of Scalia and the partisan deadlock over filling his seat. But if eroding trust was a slow-burning political fire, Ginsburg just poured gasoline on it. There are certain privileges that one sacrifices to be a sitting member of the federal judiciary and making explicitly partisan comments about presidential elections is one of those privileges.

 

I cannot see any possible defense of what Ginsburg did, given that she violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Supreme Court Justices are not strictly bound by that code, but they nonetheless act as exemplars for the rest of the judiciary, and this canon seems pretty important. She should repair the damage and apologize for her remarks as soon as possible. Otherwise, she bears almost as much responsibility as Trump for the slow-motion crisis in American democracy.

 

So what I gather is that nothing she said is explicitly punishable (can you even punish a SCJ?), but it was still real dumb.

[Quin]

Bernie suspended his campaign.

 

Democrats finally uniting.