In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 22 2015 05:23 farvacola wrote: Nothing, people just like to point to an imaginary Radical Left that is as armed to the teeth and ready for a fight as the Reactionary Right in an attempt at stem the bleeding reputation of conservatism in this country.
Fairly standard conservative tactic to accuse the left of the exact thing they are guilty of. Creates a "he said she said" narrative which, if you don't pay attention, makes the issue more opaque.
On that note I'm a bit curious what in conservatives minds is different about the potential influence of unlimited campaign donations and the potential influence of donations to the Clinton foundation or their speaking fees?
Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
You'd have to get more specific. Influence is far different than a direct quid pro quo. You'd have to point out the specifics of what the Clinton foundation criticism is and how that directly overlaps with conservative positions of campaign donations. Using the umbrella of 'money in politics' doesn't really tell you if there is hypocrisy or not.
When you get down to it, any politician complaining about campaign donations or lobbying or any of that is a hypocrite, bar none.
If the best argument is "I'm toeing the arbitrary line and you're not, so I've been less bribed than you", then all you're crowing about is that you got away with your own political bullshit.
I think that is part of why campaign finance is the dumb place to look. Banning companies that receive government contracts from lobbying/donating, increasing cooling off period for interns/pols, and governing family members thereof are the best ways to limit corruption.
With finance you really need to figure out a principled distinction between Berkshire-Hathaway and the New York Times.
On June 22 2015 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote: When you get down to it, any politician complaining about campaign donations or lobbying or any of that is a hypocrite, bar none.
If the best argument is "I'm toeing the arbitrary line and you're not, so I've been less bribed than you", then all you're crowing about is that you got away with your own political bullshit.
Yeah I don't think one can honestly say that's something you can apply to Bernie.
I think parsing the difference between the 'influence' and 'quid pro quo' is something that mostly only appeals to lawyers and crooks. Particularly when one can't come up with a practical difference in the outcomes.
On June 22 2015 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote: When you get down to it, any politician complaining about campaign donations or lobbying or any of that is a hypocrite, bar none.
If the best argument is "I'm toeing the arbitrary line and you're not, so I've been less bribed than you", then all you're crowing about is that you got away with your own political bullshit.
There are still degrees of hypocrite. For example, if Jeb Bush mutters a word about campaign finance reform he will probably be a bigger hypocrite than anyone given his "unofficial" campaign.
Barack Obama’s administration on Monday took a step toward supporting research into the medical properties of marijuana, lifting bureaucratic requirements that long stifled scientific research.
By eliminating the Public Health Service review requirement, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has made researching the drug easier.
“Eliminating the Public Health Service review should help facilitate additional research to advance our understanding of both the adverse effects and potential therapeutic uses for marijuana or its components,” said Mario Moreno Zepeda, a spokesman for the office.
Today’s marijuana politics have long since outgrown the requirement, according to drug reform experts. Supporters and opponents of legalization alike have called for the ban into research to be lifted.
“This announcement shows that the White House is ready to move away from the war on medical marijuana and enable the performance of legitimate and necessary research,” Bill Piper, the director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of national affairs, said in a press release.
The Public Health Service review was introduced by Bill Clinton’s administration, which mandated individual reviews of all applications for marijuana research through the Department of Health and Human Services.
That bureaucratic hurdle meant that marijuana became more difficult to study than cocaine or heroin.
Jeb Bush leads the crowded field of Republican presidential contenders in New Hampshire, according to a Suffolk University poll released Tuesday. Donald Trump is in second.
Among likely Republican primary voters, former Florida Gov. Bush picked up 14 percent, while the billionaire real-estate mogul Trump grabbed 11 percent. Most respondents—29 percent—are undecided.
No other candidates are in double digits, with 8 percent for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, 7 percent for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 6 percent for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 5 percent for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and 4 percent each for businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
“Jeb Bush continues to lead, but Donald Trump has emerged as an anti-Jeb Bush alternative in New Hampshire,” said David Paleologos, the director of the Suffolk University poll. “Many of those who like Trump are voting for him, and although many more dislike him, the unfavorables are split up among many other candidates. It’s the politics of plurality.”
The Supreme Court Just Admitted It’s Going to Rule in Favor of Marriage Equality
Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court refused to stay a federal judge’s order invalidating Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage. In doing so, the justices immediately set up a constitutional crisis between the state’s lawless chief justice and the federal judiciary. They also effectively admitted what court-watchers have suspected for months: The court is preparing to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality at the end of this term.
Here’s how Monday’s decision reveals the justices’ intention to strike down gay marriage bans across the country. Typically, the justices will stay any federal court ruling whose merits are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Under normal circumstances, that is precisely what the court would have done here: The justices will rule on the constitutionality of state-level marriage bans this summer, so they might as well put any federal court rulings on hold until they’ve had a chance to say the last word. After all, if the court ultimately ruled against marriage equality, the Alabama district court’s order would be effectively reversed, and those gay couples who wed in the coming months would find their unions trapped in legal limbo.
But that is not what the court did here. Instead, seven justices agreed, without comment, that the district court’s ruling could go into effect, allowing thousands of gay couples in Alabama to wed. That is not what a court that planned to rule against marriage equality would do. By permitting these marriages to occur, the justices have effectively tipped their hand, revealing that any lower court’s pro-gay ruling will soon be affirmed by the high court itself.
Don’t believe me? Then ask Justice Clarence Thomas, who, along with Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from Monday’s denial of a stay. (Oddly—and perhaps tellingly—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two other foes of marriage equality, didn’t bother to join Thomas’ dissent.) The court’s “acquiescence” to gay marriage in Alabama, Thomas wrote, “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Thomas and Scalia meant this to be a grave warning. The rest of us, however, should take it as a white flag—and a cause for celebration.
Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.
Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.
(from the linked dissent of denial of the stay)
Thomas is true to form in the dissent. I recommend a full reading; it's just three pages.
Yeah, he uses outdated words like indecorous and utilizes similarly aged reasoning. Ain't that a squeeze :D It's almost as though the court alters its behavior in relation to the topic being decided. Whodathunkit?
The Supreme Court Just Admitted It’s Going to Rule in Favor of Marriage Equality
Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court refused to stay a federal judge’s order invalidating Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage. In doing so, the justices immediately set up a constitutional crisis between the state’s lawless chief justice and the federal judiciary. They also effectively admitted what court-watchers have suspected for months: The court is preparing to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality at the end of this term.
Here’s how Monday’s decision reveals the justices’ intention to strike down gay marriage bans across the country. Typically, the justices will stay any federal court ruling whose merits are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Under normal circumstances, that is precisely what the court would have done here: The justices will rule on the constitutionality of state-level marriage bans this summer, so they might as well put any federal court rulings on hold until they’ve had a chance to say the last word. After all, if the court ultimately ruled against marriage equality, the Alabama district court’s order would be effectively reversed, and those gay couples who wed in the coming months would find their unions trapped in legal limbo.
But that is not what the court did here. Instead, seven justices agreed, without comment, that the district court’s ruling could go into effect, allowing thousands of gay couples in Alabama to wed. That is not what a court that planned to rule against marriage equality would do. By permitting these marriages to occur, the justices have effectively tipped their hand, revealing that any lower court’s pro-gay ruling will soon be affirmed by the high court itself.
Don’t believe me? Then ask Justice Clarence Thomas, who, along with Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from Monday’s denial of a stay. (Oddly—and perhaps tellingly—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two other foes of marriage equality, didn’t bother to join Thomas’ dissent.) The court’s “acquiescence” to gay marriage in Alabama, Thomas wrote, “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Thomas and Scalia meant this to be a grave warning. The rest of us, however, should take it as a white flag—and a cause for celebration.
Are the justices ever really swayed while hearing the case? Seems to me they have their minds made up before they take the case, and if anyone changes their minds, it's because of another justice not the testimony.
There is no testimony heard at the supreme court, only arguments by the lawyers. Mostly the purpose of the oral arguments is to give the justices a chance to seek clarification from the lawyers on points that are in their written briefs. It's the arguments in the written briefs that mostly matter, the oral arguments is just a tiny part of the overall process. As to opinions being swayed, it varies by the issue and the justice. There's definitely some ability for people to change their mind; especially since sometimes they're deciding on some highly technical point of law. They're definitely more likely to change their mind based on their discussions with the other justices, which iirc constitute a much larger part of the overall process.
By the time something reaches the Court; it's usually been argued quite thoroughly by society and at the appellate level; so there's often not much of a new argument to be made. So it's not surprising it seems like they've already made up their mind because they probably know the issues fairly well already.
I have a feeling that Hilary Clinton will be the next US president in 2016.
Donald Trump may have a lot of media influence, however I don't think most people take him seriously. However a lot of alternative media are siding with him:
On June 24 2015 11:04 farvacola wrote: Yeah, he uses outdated words like indecorous and utilizes similarly aged reasoning. Ain't that a squeeze :D It's almost as though the court alters its behavior in relation to the topic being decided. Whodathunkit?
On June 24 2015 11:05 IgnE wrote: The "States" shan't be treated cavalierly!
Everybody at their core knows what's in bad taste, even if indecorous wouldn't be their first choice for description.
I think the natural retreat of today's leftward bent is, "Who cares about the states, anyways?"
You kind of write like a poor man's Clarence Thomas, Danglars. It's not really a retreat so much as a quotidian practicality. Why bother with the stay? In bad taste not to give the bigots their temporary reprieve?
Have you listened to Obama on Marc Maron's podcast? When you listen to something like that do you hear a reasonable person?
EPT
