Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:33am PT
|
I just spent a week in Canuckistan with the rels, who are Northern Baptists
of the nth degree. That said, they would appear to be quite at odds with
most American liberals' likely preconception of them and probably would not
be in lockstep with the 'Christian Right' down here. To wit, they support
the national health system, while decrying its inefficiencies and failings,
they prefer a very small Canadian military, and they are very accommodating
of other peoples' religious beliefs, or lack thereof. However, they are
adamantly opposed to the ever-expanding dole and the nanny state.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:39am PT
|
Actually I think the GOP has gotten themselves into deep trouble by pandering to the Christian right. In so doing they drive away the vital undecided voters and smother anything resembling an actual agenda. If they had never gone down this road - taking on the "third rail" on so many losing social issues - They would still get most of the Christian vote, by principles not pandering. Sad really.
Barry Goldwater hit the nail on the head:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the
Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:41am PT
|
Agree, Kris.
John
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:46am PT
|
Actually I think the GOP has gotten themselves into deep trouble by pandering to the Christian right
That explains the outcome of the last mid-term.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:52am PT
|
Goldwater's view was incredibly prescient. If a conservative candidate came forward without the agenda of the RR, it would likely drag a huge voter group away from both the Dems & any other typical GOP candidate of today.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:54am PT
|
Reps did well in the last mid-term because of buyers remorse on the Dem side. If the Dems can find a candidate to motivate those voters the tide will change. If the reps can actually nominate a rational candidate they could do well too. It's quite possible that Rubio could be a formidable opponent, but it's too early to say.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:11pm PT
|
Reps did well in the last mid-term because of buyers remorse on the Dem side. If the Dems can find a candidate to motivate those voters the tide will change. If the reps can actually nominate a rational candidate they could do well too. It's quite possible that Rubio could be a formidable opponent, but it's too early to say.
Nice post.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
|
Madbolter wrote:
The fact that you cannot distinguish between what I criticize and what I advocate, going so far as to call European health care "almost exactly what I advocate," clearly shows that you had no intention of reading me with comprehension and charity.
But regarding the four points you wrote, I cited examples of where that has already successfully been implemented. I never wrote that any system is perfect - there are however several systems the perform much (as in light years) better than the system in the US and cost half as much.
Anyway, my mistake I thought you were actually interested in a civil discussion, but instead it's clear that you're interested in insult and being a f*#king dick. Ironic isn't it given that you didn't actually take the time or make the effort to read my post. No worries, it's the Internet, and given your post history I should have known better than to actually engage you.
Cheers.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:22pm PT
|
May 12, 2015 - 08:21am PT
"Originalism" is a load of crap. It's like "states rights": it's a self serving principle that has some grounding but it is often invoked when Feds use their legitimate powers to call out states on their sh#t.
Well crap or not, the original horse bolted from the original barn way back in the day and all the President's horses and all the President's men can't put the original horse back in the original barn again.
So its all rather... academic, innit?
DMT
No, it isn't academic. Not to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and occasionally Roberts and Kennedy.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:22pm PT
|
Gary wrote:
Degaine, "Facts are stupid things."
What are you talking about? Where have I ignored the facts of which you write?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:30pm PT
|
Degaine, Gary is almost certainly on your side, and made his remark sarcastically, I would guess.
What happened to the Hilarity thread?
It is behaving Hilariously, by diverting attention away from the difficulties present in her candidacy.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:32pm PT
|
So, we have this document, the constitution. It's THE "law of the land" and is supposed to trump all others. But we don't get to appeal back to the people that actually debated the principles and wrote the thing.
By your lights, then:
1) It appears that the constitution really is NOT the law of the land. It can be "interpreted" ANY way the SCOTUS states, and I mean ANY way, no matter HOW whacko. So, it seems that the SCOTUS is really the supreme law of the land rather than the constitution.
2) The whole notion of "good behavior" goes out the window. As above, there is NO decision a justice can issue that can be in principle "off the rails." WHATEVER the SCOTUS says is good, all good. Thus, there is no accountability in principle for the SCOTUS.
3) The very reason the SCOTUS was put into place is undone. The primary reason for the SCOTUS was to rise above finger-to-the-wind politically-motivated interpretations of the constitution. But with no grounding in "originalism," the SCOTUS necessarily MUST (and demonstrably does) adopt the same finger-to-the-wind, unprincipled "interpretation" of the constitution that it was supposed to rise above.
In case I have not made it clear, I am not talking about particular decisions I "don't like". I am talking about decisions that necessarily fly in the face of ANY consistent interpretation of the constitution. The Roberts question, asked and answered, was THE SCOTUS decision of our lifetimes, as it threw under the bus ANY last vestige of hope that the SCOTUS could continue to act as a legitimate check-and-balance on the other two branches.
You get all that and more when you utterly abandon "originalism".
Don't be silly. Any government action needs to have a solid basis in the Constituion. But to pretend that the precise intent of the founders can be understood, and then applied consistently and logically 230 years later, amounts to legal make believe. Worse, actually, is that this doctrine amounts to a worldview of limited government in search of a consistent legal foundation.
Let's put it another way: I'll take originalism more seriously when its proponents, who tend to be against things like abortion rights and obamacare, because they weren't contemplated 200 years ago, acknowledge that that same argument could be made against the second amendments "right" to possess modern firearms.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:33pm PT
|
"Reps did well in the last mid-term because of buyers remorse on the Dem side."
That's true, in the same way Dems did well in GWB's second term/mid-term election cycle. The Party in power flounders, and their disenchanted supporters just stay home on voting day.
Important to note, however, is that such 'victories' are far from the 'mandate' that is loudly proclaimed.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:35pm PT
|
What happened to the Hilarity thread?
Hillary: not the most Hilarious candidate, but not the least, either. Certainly, she's funnier than Rick Santorum.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:38pm PT
|
What happened to the Hilarity thread?
It is behaving Hilariously, by diverting attention away from the difficulties present in her candidacy.
John
yes indeed, Hillary has lots of difficulties being elected President
most importantly she cannot get the Democrats to vote for her
also, the voting demographics in the four year general elections highly favor Republicans
JohnE is correct as usual in his unbiased analysis
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
|
Actually Santorum is really funny. I LMAO at him every time I see him.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:45pm PT
|
My first class in Constitutional Law was almost 40 years ago, but certain things haven't changed enough to make my memory obsolete. The Constitution means what the courts say it means. As just one example, "Congress shall make no law . . ." does not mean that if Congress makes a forbidden law, it will not be enforced. I find it particularly frightening that four justices of the SCOTUS interpret those words to mean "Congress shall make no law . . . unless I support what Congress wants to do."
I find it equally frightening that the Presidential oath apparently includes a promise to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States "if I feel like it."
The rule of law depends on the willing restraint of those in power. If one looks around the world, he or she will see all sorts of despots ruling countries that have - on paper - bills of rights as strongly worded as ours,, but ignored and unenforced. In my experience, too many legislatures, executives and courts - with both "right" and "left" orientation, view the law so malleably as to make it a dead letter.
To get back on track (and to mollify Dave Kos), I find Hillary more likely to follow the restraint of the law than the current administration, and some Republicans I can think of as well.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:53pm PT
|
Which evils are you referring to, Cosmic?
Hillary vs. Obama?
Or Hillary vs. any GOP candidate?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 12:55pm PT
|
DMT, the vote-buying mechanisms consist of governmental favors, in the form of tax breaks, spending of tax dollars and selective enforcement or exemptions from legal requirements. Election spending merely floods the media with misinformation.
John
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
And is supporting a PAC now so she can get of them when she takes office? Oh the Hilarity if you believe that!!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!