|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 26 2015 04:30 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:53 Mercy13 wrote:On June 26 2015 03:34 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:26 Mercy13 wrote:
Roberts summed it up nicely: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." This doesn't seem to make any sense. The judiciary is not involved in policy. They do not help implement policy, they only make sure that the policy makers act within the rules of the law. Their decisions should be "this acted within the scope of the law" or "it did not". This quotation sounds like "we will enforce the result however it comes about". The Court's job is to decide what the law is. They do this by interpreting the language drafted by the legislature. It's not possible to interpret language without considering its context. In this case, the context was Congress passed a bill with the express purpose of improving the health insurance market. It would be nonsensical for the Court to adopt an interpretation of the ACA which would accomplish the opposite effect. Again, it's not the Court's job to write the law. If the bill has clauses that later turn out to be untenable, then it's up to the bill writers to fix it. What they are LITERALLY doing is saying that the Bill doesn't fall within the law, so they are changing the law. How idiotic is that?! The sad thing is that they are preventing Congress from any possible fix. Remember, this case started because the IRS was writing regulations that went against the statute. This is government by bureaucracy and judicial fiat. This isn't even a case of the SCOTUS overriding Congress- they are doing Congress's job, never mind the hollering that "clearly they must have meant this".
No, it is not LITERALLY re-writing the law.
In fact, it's not even close to re-writing the law.
|
On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote:
2009
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.htmlLOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics?
No, just bringing context to :
On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves.
|
The law had a provision the justices didn't like and now public opinion has turned around on. If states had been pressured to build exchanges, if citizens had demanded it, we wouldn't have this problem. Now the justices rewrote the meaning of a certain state exchange provision, in isolation from other passages referring to the state exchanges, to yield the final result. If it takes rewriting three words by explaining it away in this meandering sea of justifications, there are six justices that will do it.
|
I would like to thank all the conservative posters for donating their tears over the dying throes of the "REPEAL OBAMACARE" fiasco.
It's also nice to know that you are all amateur law professionals who are better than the highest judges in the land based on your one paragraph summaries of a law you haven't read.
|
On June 26 2015 07:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote:
2009
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.htmlLOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics? No, just bringing context to : Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves.
Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
|
On June 26 2015 07:59 Jormundr wrote:I would like to thank all the conservative posters for donating their tears over the dying throes of the "REPEAL OBAMACARE" fiasco. It's also nice to know that you are all amateur law professionals who are better than the highest judges in the land based on your one paragraph summaries of a law you haven't read.
Yes, we should all worship our superior, Ivy League overlords. Ask many liberals about Citizens United or Heller and see if they accept the "Justices know better" argument. It's such a stupid thing to point out.
We are allowed to comment and others are allowed to defend.
|
On June 26 2015 07:46 Danglars wrote:
The law had a provision the justices didn't like and now public opinion has turned around on. If states had been pressured to build exchanges, if citizens had demanded it, we wouldn't have this problem. Now the justices rewrote the meaning of a certain state exchange provision, in isolation from other passages referring to the state exchanges, to yield the final result. If it takes rewriting three words by explaining it away in this meandering sea of justifications, there are six justices that will do it.
They didn't re-write anything.
Just saying it doesn't make it true.
|
On June 26 2015 08:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 07:46 Danglars wrote:
The law had a provision the justices didn't like and now public opinion has turned around on. If states had been pressured to build exchanges, if citizens had demanded it, we wouldn't have this problem. Now the justices rewrote the meaning of a certain state exchange provision, in isolation from other passages referring to the state exchanges, to yield the final result. If it takes rewriting three words by explaining it away in this meandering sea of justifications, there are six justices that will do it. They didn't re-write anything.Just saying it doesn't make it true.
at the same time you claiming the opposite doesn't automatically make it true either
In fact in this case I'd argue that there's not strict "true" definition since you both probably have different ideas of what you mean by whether the re-wrote something.
|
On June 26 2015 08:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 07:59 Jormundr wrote:I would like to thank all the conservative posters for donating their tears over the dying throes of the "REPEAL OBAMACARE" fiasco. It's also nice to know that you are all amateur law professionals who are better than the highest judges in the land based on your one paragraph summaries of a law you haven't read. Yes, we should all worship our superior, Ivy League overlords. Ask many liberals about Citizens United or Heller and see if they accept the "Justices know better" argument. It's such a stupid thing to point out. We are allowed to comment and others are allowed to defend.
I encourage you to. It entertains me (and many others) greatly.
Also CU was 5-4, this was 6-3. Leaves a lot less wiggle room if we're to take the experts seriously.
Also
"Ivy League overlords" while subsequently ridiculing dissent against CU comes off as a tad unaware.
|
On June 26 2015 08:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 08:12 Introvert wrote:On June 26 2015 07:59 Jormundr wrote:I would like to thank all the conservative posters for donating their tears over the dying throes of the "REPEAL OBAMACARE" fiasco. It's also nice to know that you are all amateur law professionals who are better than the highest judges in the land based on your one paragraph summaries of a law you haven't read. Yes, we should all worship our superior, Ivy League overlords. Ask many liberals about Citizens United or Heller and see if they accept the "Justices know better" argument. It's such a stupid thing to point out. We are allowed to comment and others are allowed to defend. I encourage you to. It entertains me (and many others) greatly. Also CU was 5-4, this was 6-3. Leaves a lot less wiggle room if we're to take the experts seriously. Also "Ivy League overlords" while subsequently ridiculing dissent against CU comes off as a tad unaware.
And Dred Scott was 7-2.
Fine, you are free to appeal to their authority and expertise whenever you wish. But "the justices said so, and they are smart" is useless. What a great use of TL posting.
I'm aware, btw, that you are just trolling me, but I thought I'd make the point anyway.
|
|
|
On June 26 2015 08:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 07:36 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote:
2009
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.htmlLOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics? No, just bringing context to : On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves. Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Perhaps, I'm mobile and not very versed in that fallacy. There are two things I think may disqualify that fallacy:
1. "Progressive" jurists and legal scholars continue to cite him favorably while hiding/ignoring the worst opinions;
2. They still use the same basic principles, just have an exception in the algorithm (for lack of a better word) that kicks out eugenics.
|
Is this for real?
You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road.
The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that.
If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into.
But you started by saying
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.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up.
|
On June 26 2015 09:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 08:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 26 2015 07:36 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote:
2009
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.htmlLOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics? No, just bringing context to : On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves. Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Perhaps, I'm mobile and not very versed in that fallacy. There are two things I think may disqualify that fallacy: 1. "Progressive" jurists and legal scholars continue to cite him favorably while hiding/ignoring the worst opinions; 2. They still use the same basic principles, just have an exception in the algorithm (for lack of a better word) that kicks out eugenics.
You clearly have no idea how thinkers like RBG actually apply their reasoning or else you'd never even consider using the word "algorithm." Though your attempt at boiling down a criticism, one that would necessarily be extensive in order to float, into 2 single sentences is a fun practice in polemic sloganeering, so thanks for that. It's almost as funny as Jerubaal's suggestion that RBG is the legal reincarnation of Margaret Sanger. Where's Harry Turtledove, he should be taking notes.
|
California lawmakers Thursday approved one of the toughest mandatory vaccination laws in the nation, legislation that would eliminate the option for parents to keep their children from being vaccinated based on religious or other personal beliefs.
The measure, the most controversial taken up by the Legislature this year, would require all children who enter kindergarten in California to be vaccinated against diseases including measles and whooping cough unless a physician approves an exemption based on medical conditions such as allergies and immune system deficiencies.
“As a mother, I understand the decisions we make about our children’s health care are deeply personal,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), a supporter of the bill. “While I respect the fundamental right to make that decision as a family, we must balance that with the fact that none of us has the right to endanger others.”
The Assembly approved the legislation Thursday morning on a bipartisan vote of 46-31.
Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale) opposed the bill, telling his colleagues before the vote that it violated the rights of parents to decide medical treatment for their children.
"The broadness of this bill likely also dooms it from a constitutional standpoint," Gatto said, accusing the state of "infringing on the rights of certain students to attend school."
Supporters said it was necessary to protect all children.
Source
|
On June 26 2015 09:09 Introvert wrote:Is this for real? You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road. The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that. If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into. But you started by saying Show nested quote +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.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up.
The question was, what about it specifically upsets you and/or other conservatives (whichever you feel comfortable speaking for)?
|
On June 26 2015 09:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 09:03 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 08:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 26 2015 07:36 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote:
2009
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.htmlLOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics? No, just bringing context to : On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves. Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Perhaps, I'm mobile and not very versed in that fallacy. There are two things I think may disqualify that fallacy: 1. "Progressive" jurists and legal scholars continue to cite him favorably while hiding/ignoring the worst opinions; 2. They still use the same basic principles, just have an exception in the algorithm (for lack of a better word) that kicks out eugenics. You clearly have no idea how thinkers like RBG actually apply their reasoning or else you'd never even consider using the word "algorithm." Though your attempt at boiling down a criticism, one that would necessarily be extensive in order to float, into 2 single sentences is a fun practice in polemic sloganeering, so thanks for that. It's almost as funny as Jerubaal's suggestion that RBG is the legal reincarnation of Margaret Sanger. Where's Harry Turtledove, he should be taking notes.
Either you don't know what the word algorithm means, or you think it would be a compliment to her. Neither makes your post a very good defense of RBG.
|
On June 26 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 09:09 Introvert wrote:Is this for real? You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road. The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that. If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into. But you started by saying 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.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up. The question was, what about it specifically upsets you and/or other conservatives (whichever you feel comfortable speaking for)?
I suppose you could say it's purely political (when talking about Super PACs). I don't like that Jeb Bush raises 10's of millions (supposedly) when I don't like his positions. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'd just rather that someone like, say, Walker was raising that instead. Jeb plans to use to it to help squash the not as well funded conservative candidates. But I wouldn't ban all this money raising (though I still prefer he folllows the laws that are in place. This whole "I'm running but not yet" thing is stupid).
As for Hillary, It would be something like the Uranium dealing. If she allowed these sales to go through due to donations to her foundation, she would clearly be in the wrong. That is quite literally "something for something." But that's in the weeds. I haven't followed it closely so I don't want to comment too much.
|
Gov. Chris Christie plans to make his long-awaited announcement that he's running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States next Tuesday at the place where he was president 35 years ago — Livingston High School in northern New Jersey, sources familiar with his plans tell WNYC.
Christie was president of his class in junior high and high school for four years running before graduating in 1980. He played on his championship baseball team and maintains several friendships from his time there. In the decades before he became governor, he was in charge of organizing the class reunions..
Sources familiar with Christie's plans spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to preempt the governor's announcement.
Christie, though, denied Thursday night that he has made up his mind.
"There's been absolutely no final decision made by me," Christie said in his weekly appearance on a New Jersey radio program. "There's lots of people who speculate lots of things, and I can't be held to account for every bit of speculation that's in the press."
Source
|
On June 26 2015 09:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 09:13 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2015 09:03 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 08:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 26 2015 07:36 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:47 Jerubaal wrote:On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:
[
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have. @kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome. Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it. On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote:I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on. Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics. I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals. Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics? No, just bringing context to : On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves. Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Perhaps, I'm mobile and not very versed in that fallacy. There are two things I think may disqualify that fallacy: 1. "Progressive" jurists and legal scholars continue to cite him favorably while hiding/ignoring the worst opinions; 2. They still use the same basic principles, just have an exception in the algorithm (for lack of a better word) that kicks out eugenics. You clearly have no idea how thinkers like RBG actually apply their reasoning or else you'd never even consider using the word "algorithm." Though your attempt at boiling down a criticism, one that would necessarily be extensive in order to float, into 2 single sentences is a fun practice in polemic sloganeering, so thanks for that. It's almost as funny as Jerubaal's suggestion that RBG is the legal reincarnation of Margaret Sanger. Where's Harry Turtledove, he should be taking notes. Either you don't know what the word algorithm means, or you think it would be a compliment to her. Neither makes your post a very good defense of RBG.
You got it, I don't know what the word algorithm means. That was the chink in my armor, and you found it. Shucks.
Anyways, check this out y'all. Fuck it Obama is pretty damn smooth these days. Here's a link to an AP video.
Obama silences heckler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
