|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44393 Posts
On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court?
Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights.
|
On June 29 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court? Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights.
Only bright side I'm seeing of him going for Wyrick (I don't think he can be stopped so far) is perhaps people reexamine the entire idea of the Supreme Court, it's role, and it's performance thus far.
On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional.
It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell.
EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse.
|
On June 29 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court? Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights.
The venerable Justice Stephen Johnson Field is the only Supreme Court Justice who has had an assassination attempt made against them.
|
On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse.
Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly:
Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead.
Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment.
Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent (Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem.
This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue.
This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court? Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights. Only bright side I'm seeing of him going for Wyrick (I don't think he can be stopped so far) is perhaps people reexamine the entire idea of the Supreme Court, it's role, and it's performance thus far.
Why would people do that? The only thing 'wrong' as far as I can tell, is the 'wrong' people are getting appointed. But really, if the judges were feeling super partisan, they could retire strategically, during a friendly presidency. . .unless they plan to live forever. But turn the tables and I'm sure the other half of the country would be fine with the way the Supreme Court currently works. It's just the 'wrong' side that has the power to the point, that's all.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court? Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights. Only bright side I'm seeing of him going for Wyrick (I don't think he can be stopped so far) is perhaps people reexamine the entire idea of the Supreme Court, it's role, and it's performance thus far.
I don't think so. I know its pessimistic but I just can't envision a time where people are able to think outside of the boxes that we have assigned to the various systems at play in society.
I know you want to demolish the whole thing and start again, but people generally don't, and the worse things get the harder people want to play for their team instead of examining their assumptions.
Look at the vociferous support for Clinton in the last election - who was by all accounts an awful candidate. No-one even questioned the idea that Clinton should be running for president, and they just set aside all of the obvious corruption in their minds and campaigned as hard as they could for what they saw as a lesser evil.
As much as I have come to support you in your quest to have people abolish the outdated and racist institutions in the US, I just don't think its realistic.
|
On June 29 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse. Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly: Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead. Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent ( Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem. This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue. This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present.
A reasoning I could accept though it's post-hoc justification still supports my underlying point.
Which is why I added the part about Japanese internment. Little reported but a part of the immigration ruling was the courts statement "overturning" the courts ruling in Korematsu now suggesting it was unconstitutional (though it technically doesn't serve as an overturning).
Essentially without coming to the Supreme Court the law of the land is that the president can round up citizens based exclusively on their 'race' or some other bullshit feature in the interest of national security.
Once it does get to the court it will be up to them to decide both whether they still think that itself is unconstitutional or if the other aspects considered in whatever law brings it there is 'facially neutral'.
Long story short we're increasingly primed for the supreme court to call concentration camps constitutional and then unconstitutional generations from now.
|
On June 29 2018 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse. Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly: Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead. Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent ( Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem. This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue. This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present. A reasoning I could accept though it's post-hoc justification still supports my underlying point. Which is why I added the part about Japanese internment. Little reported but a part of the immigration ruling was the courts statement "overturning" the courts ruling in Korematsu now suggesting it was unconstitutional (though it technically doesn't serve as an overturning). Essentially without coming to the Supreme Court the law of the land is that the president can round up citizens based exclusively on their 'race' or some other bullshit feature in the interest of national security. Once it does get to the court it will be up to them to decide both whether they still think that itself is unconstitutional or if the other aspects considered in whatever law brings it there is 'facially neutral'. Long story short we're increasingly primed for the supreme court to call concentration camps constitutional and then unconstitutional generations from now.
I find this probably a bit alarmist. I mean, what would be the process that brings that about?
I'm as furious and appalled by the recent immigration bullshit as the rest of you, but it's less a direct intent and more a direct consequence of full criminalisation of illegal immigration (wherein the parents have to be separated from the children because they're entered the criminal justice system). Jumping from that to 'WE ARE NOW GOING TO MURDER THEM ALL' is like jumping from sea trade to space travel.
|
On June 29 2018 19:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse. Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly: Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead. Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent ( Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem. This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue. This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present. A reasoning I could accept though it's post-hoc justification still supports my underlying point. Which is why I added the part about Japanese internment. Little reported but a part of the immigration ruling was the courts statement "overturning" the courts ruling in Korematsu now suggesting it was unconstitutional (though it technically doesn't serve as an overturning). Essentially without coming to the Supreme Court the law of the land is that the president can round up citizens based exclusively on their 'race' or some other bullshit feature in the interest of national security. Once it does get to the court it will be up to them to decide both whether they still think that itself is unconstitutional or if the other aspects considered in whatever law brings it there is 'facially neutral'. Long story short we're increasingly primed for the supreme court to call concentration camps constitutional and then unconstitutional generations from now. I find this probably a bit alarmist. I mean, what would be the process that brings that about? I'm as furious and appalled by the recent immigration bullshit as the rest of you, but it's less a direct intent and more a direct consequence of full criminalisation of illegal immigration (wherein the parents have to be separated from the children because they're entered the criminal justice system). Jumping from that to 'WE ARE NOW GOING TO MURDER THEM ALL' is like jumping from sea trade to space travel.
con·cen·tra·tion camp
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor...
I'm presuming you misunderstood what I meant?
|
On June 29 2018 12:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:On June 29 2018 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2018 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates
"Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action."
—Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/28/major-step-toward-making-democratic-party-more-democratic-dnc-votes-roll-back-power?amp Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back). It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely. But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this. You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality? Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won.
I agree they matter alot (sadly). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the facts on it.
and I wouldn't say it's the entire reason; as there's so many factors involved it's hard to point to one as the entire reason.
unrelatedly: Jock -> I and many others dispute some of your categorizations of Hillary of course. but no great need to get into it (unless you want to) since it's not pertinent to your argument with gh, and when you're arguing with him it makes sense to use his definitions.
|
On June 29 2018 20:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 19:04 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2018 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse. Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly: Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead. Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent ( Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem. This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue. This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present. A reasoning I could accept though it's post-hoc justification still supports my underlying point. Which is why I added the part about Japanese internment. Little reported but a part of the immigration ruling was the courts statement "overturning" the courts ruling in Korematsu now suggesting it was unconstitutional (though it technically doesn't serve as an overturning). Essentially without coming to the Supreme Court the law of the land is that the president can round up citizens based exclusively on their 'race' or some other bullshit feature in the interest of national security. Once it does get to the court it will be up to them to decide both whether they still think that itself is unconstitutional or if the other aspects considered in whatever law brings it there is 'facially neutral'. Long story short we're increasingly primed for the supreme court to call concentration camps constitutional and then unconstitutional generations from now. I find this probably a bit alarmist. I mean, what would be the process that brings that about? I'm as furious and appalled by the recent immigration bullshit as the rest of you, but it's less a direct intent and more a direct consequence of full criminalisation of illegal immigration (wherein the parents have to be separated from the children because they're entered the criminal justice system). Jumping from that to 'WE ARE NOW GOING TO MURDER THEM ALL' is like jumping from sea trade to space travel. Show nested quote +con·cen·tra·tion camp
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor... I'm presuming you misunderstood what I meant?
That would depend on what you meant, wouldn't it?
|
On June 29 2018 21:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 20:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 19:04 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2018 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to? Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself. How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event. But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional. It takes me entirely too long to figure out if you're agreeing with me, making fun of me, or both. I think I'm one of the few people who bothers to figure it out/can tell. EDIT: I feel like people aren't following where this leads in the context of the already multiple citations of Japanese internment and Trump/the people he's bringing into the political discourse. Yeah maybe I could have written it more clearly: Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? Never. We have an amendment to the Constitution itself, instead. Let's consider another great anti-racist issue of constitutionality: How about separate but equal? Was separate but equal constitutional in the wake of the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know that? Didn't the court vote 7 to 1 that segregation was constitutional? Well, we know because of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. There segregation was found to be unconstitutional, and unconstitutional since at least the 14th amendment. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always "will have been" this way after the event. An event like Brown renders something unconstitutional for all past time. An amendment to the Constitution, on the other hand, preserves both practice (Washington and Jefferson the slave owners) and precedent ( Dred Scott), re-ratifying a slave-owning origin built into the very structure of the law. So in what sense can we say slavery was unconstitutional in 1850? No important sense it would seem. This particular struggle is limited by the amendment. It seems hard to imagine an event that would retroactively render slavery unconstitutional given that a court won't decide a moot issue. This, however, says nothing of the struggle now to have the Court (re)consider issues (unions, money as speech, abortion?) and to force them to remake and renew the Constitution in a back-ward looking present. A reasoning I could accept though it's post-hoc justification still supports my underlying point. Which is why I added the part about Japanese internment. Little reported but a part of the immigration ruling was the courts statement "overturning" the courts ruling in Korematsu now suggesting it was unconstitutional (though it technically doesn't serve as an overturning). Essentially without coming to the Supreme Court the law of the land is that the president can round up citizens based exclusively on their 'race' or some other bullshit feature in the interest of national security. Once it does get to the court it will be up to them to decide both whether they still think that itself is unconstitutional or if the other aspects considered in whatever law brings it there is 'facially neutral'. Long story short we're increasingly primed for the supreme court to call concentration camps constitutional and then unconstitutional generations from now. I find this probably a bit alarmist. I mean, what would be the process that brings that about? I'm as furious and appalled by the recent immigration bullshit as the rest of you, but it's less a direct intent and more a direct consequence of full criminalisation of illegal immigration (wherein the parents have to be separated from the children because they're entered the criminal justice system). Jumping from that to 'WE ARE NOW GOING TO MURDER THEM ALL' is like jumping from sea trade to space travel. con·cen·tra·tion camp
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor... I'm presuming you misunderstood what I meant? That would depend on what you meant, wouldn't it? There is a difference between concentration camps and death camps.
GH is talking about the former, you appear to think he was talking about the latter.
|
Having watched through Rosenstein's questioning that happened yesterday, I gotta say I'm impressed with his poise. He made multiple congresspeople look like total fools, particularly Jim Jordan.
|
On June 29 2018 21:32 farvacola wrote:
Having watched through Rosenstein's questioning that happened yesterday, I gotta say I'm impressed with his poise. He made multiple congresspeople look like total fools, particularly Jim Jordan.
I only saw the question about subpoenaing phone calls and... oh boy. You know you done fucked up when the person you're questioning answers your question in a politely dismissive way and the crowd laughs.
|
On June 29 2018 21:32 farvacola wrote:
Having watched through Rosenstein's questioning that happened yesterday, I gotta say I'm impressed with his poise. He made multiple congresspeople look like total fools, particularly Jim Jordan.
I like Wray because he just seemed bemused by the entire thing.
On another note, ICE is so bad that people within ICE are asking for ICE to be abolished:
http://thehill.com/latino/394757-more-than-a-dozen-ice-agents-call-to-abolish-agency
Just think how bad a law enforcement agency has to get for its own agents to say “yeah, the country is better off if we don’t exist.”
|
On June 29 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court? Elections have consequences, if you lose the election the only way to stop the other side loading the court is through the second amendment folks using their constitutional rights.
Let's face it. There is no chance in hell of any "revolution" occurring any time soon. Americans, as a whole, enjoy the best quality of life in the history of history. To claim otherwise is completely naive.
|
Poe's Law is in full effect with that one...
|
On June 29 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 21:32 farvacola wrote:
Having watched through Rosenstein's questioning that happened yesterday, I gotta say I'm impressed with his poise. He made multiple congresspeople look like total fools, particularly Jim Jordan. I like Wray because he just seemed bemused by the entire thing. On another note, ICE is so bad that people within ICE are asking for ICE to be abolished: http://thehill.com/latino/394757-more-than-a-dozen-ice-agents-call-to-abolish-agencyJust think how bad a law enforcement agency has to get for its own agents to say “yeah, the country is better off if we don’t exist.”
More than a dozen.... read the article. It claims 19, you know there are 20,000 ICE employees right? That doesn't give the argument any credibility.
I work in a top corporate in Aus with 2000 employees. I could find you more than 100 people that think the organisation is rubbish. Will it get shut down? No.
|
On June 29 2018 22:10 farvacola wrote:
Poe's Law is in full effect with that one...
"Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views"
Maybe that was the intention. People honestly can't tell reality from their own boxed in views these days. If everything is left open to interpretation, then maybe you can see what people really think!
The ones who can read both arguments and make an objective view can have the fun.
|
if more than a dozen people criticizing an org from within doesn't figure as a basis for credibility, then the opinion of one random dude who claims to work for some Aussie firm has even less. I guess we can't know anything without significant statistics!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
