|
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 |
On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid.
Why do you think they are stupid? All I heard from the last round of responses was that "My buddy got into the real world and learned that things are complicated. Also, libertarians are heartless!"
I did not find that to be a thorough or compelling argument. Can you do any better than that?
|
On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid.
Libertarianism just advocates for anarchy without the violent overthrow of the government. It is a political view that says no problem is the government’s problem. It overvalues individual decision making as personal responsibility and disregards the idea people can be manipulated.
But most importantly, when someone comes to the government and asks for help, the libertarian response is “I’m not sure it’s the government’s place to help you.” And when that is the answer to every single problem facing citizens, no one is ever going to vote for your party or political belief. It is the absence decision making in politics, simply believing that everything is the responsibility of the individual.
On October 05 2018 02:14 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid. Why do you think they are stupid? All I heard from the last round of responses was that "My buddy got into the real world and learned that things are complicated. Also, libertarians are heartless!" I did not find that to be a thorough or compelling argument. Can you do any better than that?
I did not say that. I said that for him to express his political views he would have to say things that would be perceived as heartless and uncaring. And that he did not entirely disagree with that characterization.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 02:14 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid. Why do you think they are stupid? All I heard from the last round of responses was that "My buddy got into the real world and learned that things are complicated. Also, libertarians are heartless!" I did not find that to be a thorough or compelling argument. Can you do any better than that?
Libertarianism seeks to reduce a great number of complexities into easily understood axioms. The idea that all problems can be understood with a few core yes/no answers reduces the resolution with which we can address problems. When we ignore details and nuance, we lose information. If we lose information, our decisions are worse. If our decisions are informed by less information, our solutions will likely not have many fine details. The world is a deeply imperfect, specific, nuanced place. That means that when we try to see the world as black and white, we improperly respond to gray areas. Most of the problems in the world are gray. That means libertarianism, on average, does not properly address the extreme level of nuance found in most world problems.
|
If you really want perspectives on libertarianism, I do not believe society should be engineered such that the children of rich people live longer than the children of poor people regardless of their accomplishments and choices. Nor should people face disadvantage for health and physical disadvantages that are completely outside their own control (e.g. genetic diseases). This is an inevitable consequence of a market healthcare system and total inheritance discretion, what I see as two key tenets of libertarian ideology. Optimal production of life-years is not the ultimate good.
From that alone, I find myself at odds with libertarianism in such a way that I am skeptical it could ever be an acceptable and coherent philosophy to me.
|
On October 05 2018 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:14 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid. Why do you think they are stupid? All I heard from the last round of responses was that "My buddy got into the real world and learned that things are complicated. Also, libertarians are heartless!" I did not find that to be a thorough or compelling argument. Can you do any better than that? Libertarianism seeks to reduce a great number of complexities into easily understood axioms. The idea that all problems can be understood with a few core yes/no answers reduces the resolution with which we can address problems. When we ignore details and nuance, we lose information. If we lose information, our decisions are worse. If our decisions are informed by less information, our solutions will likely not have many fine details. The world is a deeply imperfect, specific, nuanced place. That means that when we try to see the world as black and white, we improperly respond to gray areas. Most of the problems in the world are gray. That means libertarianism, on average, does not properly address the extreme level of nuance found in most world problems.
Any examples of what you're saying? Libertarianism or classical liberalism has many different schools of thought ranging from Randian objectivism to the centrism of a paper like the Economist. I don't see how you can apply the same critique to all of it.
|
The utopian society at the end of libertarianism, with as little power to the government as possible and an otherwise capitalist and nationalist system, is horrifying.
|
On October 05 2018 02:36 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 02:14 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:11 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation. Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer. People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid. Why do you think they are stupid? All I heard from the last round of responses was that "My buddy got into the real world and learned that things are complicated. Also, libertarians are heartless!" I did not find that to be a thorough or compelling argument. Can you do any better than that? Libertarianism seeks to reduce a great number of complexities into easily understood axioms. The idea that all problems can be understood with a few core yes/no answers reduces the resolution with which we can address problems. When we ignore details and nuance, we lose information. If we lose information, our decisions are worse. If our decisions are informed by less information, our solutions will likely not have many fine details. The world is a deeply imperfect, specific, nuanced place. That means that when we try to see the world as black and white, we improperly respond to gray areas. Most of the problems in the world are gray. That means libertarianism, on average, does not properly address the extreme level of nuance found in most world problems. Any examples of what you're saying? Libertarianism or classical liberalism has many different schools of thought ranging from Randian objectivism to the centrism of a paper like the Economist. I don't see how you can apply the same critique to all of it.
Medicine being appropriated by capability to purchase medicine. An extreme number of externalities are created by allowing poor to become more and more sick.
In such a case, we end up in situations analogous to someone not being able to afford an oil change. Spend $50 on an oil change, keep your engine. Don't change your oil and you lose the whole car, which costs more than $50. Money is saved by changing oil. This case and many others are not properly addressed by libertarianism.
|
Relatedly, Classical liberalism and libertarianism are also only coherent when one assumes a minimum level of rationality in the context of consumption/purchasing choices and as we see with regards to many of the "important" choices, be they medical, educational, or shelter-wise, the circumstances are so opaque and bereft of basic information that individuals have no choice but to make definitively non-rational choices (much like Mohdoo's oil/medical analogy lays out above).
|
On October 05 2018 02:51 farvacola wrote:
Relatedly, Classical liberalism and libertarianism are also only coherent when one assumes a minimum level of rationality in the context of consumption/purchasing choices and as we see with regards to many of the "important" choices, be they medical, educational, or shelter-wise, the circumstances are so opaque and bereft of basic information that individuals have no choice but to make definitively non-rational choices (much like Mohdoo's oil/medical analogy lays out above).
I don't think his point is 'people make bad choices for preventable things' and more ' people dont have the ability at lower levels to make preventable changes and libertarians dont address that issue '
|
Well that's the rub: in the eyes of a cash strapped individual who does not want to confront their health problems, the choice to avoid seeking medical care "seems" like a good one to make given the data available to the decision maker. Those kinds of purchase choice discrepancies are where liberalism falls apart.
|
On October 05 2018 02:57 farvacola wrote:
Well that's the rub: in the eyes of a cash strapped individual who does not want to confront their health problems, the choice to avoid seeking medical care "seems" like a good one to make given the data available to the decision maker. Those kinds of purchase choice discrepancies are where liberalism falls apart.
How is that where liberalism falls apart? Liberalism addresses those issues. Especially in healthcare related issues
|
What do you mean? Are you talking liberalism as in leftist policies or classical liberalism a la free markets of the kind championed by RvB?
|
On October 05 2018 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that. Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh. There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh.
I read somewhere that Kennedy himself only got out with the promise that Kav would be the nominee. Don't remember on which website the article was, since I'm reading from a dozen.
|
On October 05 2018 03:57 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that. Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh. There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh. I read somewhere that Kennedy himself only got out with the promise that Kav would be the nominee. Don't remember on which website the article was, since I'm reading from a dozen.
It is one of the many mysteries of this nomination process. Like why would they pick a Federal Judge that was never a trial judge, worked with Ken Star and the Bush White House? Of all the judges, why pick the one that is as close to a partisan operative as anyone could find?
|
Following this saga from far away this ending of not hearing anything about the contents of the statements given to the FBI is a bit underwhelming. Maybe it's enough for the vote to go through, but if I were a citizen it wouldn't exactly strike a lot of confidence in me. I wouldn't exactly trust the interpretations of the senators at this point
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 04:16 plasmidghost wrote:
Has Flake released any statement on the investigation report yet? I know he can't go into detail on it, but I was curious is he said he was going to vote yes or no
Flake and Collins have said the investigation was thorough and enough for them. They have the votes.
|
On October 05 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 03:57 Nouar wrote:On October 05 2018 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that. Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh. There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh. I read somewhere that Kennedy himself only got out with the promise that Kav would be the nominee. Don't remember on which website the article was, since I'm reading from a dozen. It is one of the many mysteries of this nomination process. Like why would they pick a Federal Judge that was never a trial judge, worked with Ken Star and the Bush White House? Of all the judges, why pick the one that is as close to a partisan operative as anyone could find?
Are they worried about appointing someone that may become more moderate or someone who may become more of an originalist? Like once you're in the SCOTUS you're pretty free to ditch any sense of owing party that put you there, so maybe a lapdog like Kav seems good because of that?
Or maybe it has to do with law clerks? My understanding is the SCOTUS law clerks of today are often Justices (or at least important judges) of tomorrow or at least have some low level influence on what things the court takes on. So one less notable difference between potential justices might be who they would hire as clerks.
|
On October 05 2018 04:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 03:57 Nouar wrote:On October 05 2018 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that. Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh. There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh. I read somewhere that Kennedy himself only got out with the promise that Kav would be the nominee. Don't remember on which website the article was, since I'm reading from a dozen. It is one of the many mysteries of this nomination process. Like why would they pick a Federal Judge that was never a trial judge, worked with Ken Star and the Bush White House? Of all the judges, why pick the one that is as close to a partisan operative as anyone could find? Are they worried about appointing someone that may become more moderate or someone who may become more of an originalist? Like once you're in the SCOTUS you're pretty free to ditch any sense of owing party that put you there, so maybe a lapdog like Kav seems good because of that? Or maybe it has to do with law clerks? My understanding is the SCOTUS law clerks of today are often Justices (or at least important judges) of tomorrow or at least have some low level influence on what things the court takes on. So one less notable difference between potential justices might be who they would hire as clerks.
BK might be farther right leaning that Thomas when it comes to political opinions, especially on regulation. If you are one of the billionaires dumping money into this nomination, you are going to be thrilled that the federal government’s ability to regulate your companies is going to be undercut. State governments too. And the ACA, which a lot of people making money off of healthcare hate, will be under threat with this conservative court. This is going to be the most anti-labor, pro-business court we have seen since the 1920-1930s. He is the golden boy for the 1% that only fear the power of the federal goverment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
