|
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 11 2018 18:22 Taelshin wrote:Wulfey: I've still yet to see any credible accusations, proof, corroboration or any semblance that this was anything other then a last ditch sickening political hit job. Show me actual evidence, and I'll throw the first stone, but don't pretend like there is anything even reasonably credible out there when you know(at this point) there is not. EDIT: On the same topic but a slightly different way, I was wondering if anyone here lefty or righty has figured out who "leaked" the accusation? . By all accounts ford seem's to have not wanted it, Finstein says she did not, and the Washington Post ( who was contacted anonymously by ford have all said they didn't leak it. I may have missed it . Just something that's kinda sticking in my craw about the whole thing.
So you believe Ford was lying, then?
|
So I am part way through this in-depth article about Facebook and Zuckerberg. The article is not flatter towards Facebook or Zuck, who from all impressions comes off a dangerously naïve. But it also goes into the size of Facebook, which has reached the size of Christianity in numbers, and the people who have left Facebook now shouting from the roof tops how dangerous it and Zuck because they don’t know what they don’t know.
There is also a quote from Zuck that set off every historian nerve in my body. A quote so bad that I felt like I needed to take a nap or drink. Thankfully the author of the piece burns Zuck for his general naïve understanding of Rome and history.
It’s a long read, FYI. And not one that will make you hopeful about the future with Facebook.
Ancient Rome became a lifelong fascination, first because of the language (“It’s very much like coding or math, and so I appreciated that”) and then because of the history. Zuckerberg told me, “You have all these good and bad and complex figures. I think Augustus is one of the most fascinating. Basically, through a really harsh approach, he established two hundred years of world peace.” For non-classics majors: Augustus Caesar, born in 63 B.C., staked his claim to power at the age of eighteen and turned Rome from a republic into an empire by conquering Egypt, northern Spain, and large parts of central Europe. He also eliminated political opponents, banished his daughter for promiscuity, and was suspected of arranging the execution of his grandson.
“What are the trade-offs in that?” Zuckerberg said, growing animated. “On the one hand, world peace is a long-term goal that people talk about today. Two hundred years feels unattainable.” On the other hand, he said, “that didn’t come for free, and he had to do certain things.” In 2012, Zuckerberg and Chan spent their honeymoon in Rome. He later said, “My wife was making fun of me, saying she thought there were three people on the honeymoon: me, her, and Augustus. All the photos were different sculptures of Augustus.” The couple named their second daughter August.
source
|
On October 11 2018 19:18 Plansix wrote:
Testimony under oath is evidence. Always has been. Ford is presumed innocent of being a fraud in the same way Kavanaugh is presumed innocent of being an attempted rapist.
This is correct and any claim that Ford was probably lying is pure political bias. The fact that it came up late does not call Ford's own credibility into question because she made the allegation in July.
|
On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow. Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all. They never had to, they just never held a hearing. Why bother with a smear campaign if you can just ignore the nominee? It’s like your point doesn’t matter because it was never necessary for them to attack Garland. This is switching topics, but if you'd like I can link the article talking about what happens to SCOTUS nominations historically when the presidency and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties in a presidential election year. I've already posted it like 4 times. Here's a hint: they are almost never confirmed.
To be clear the reasoning stated by Republicans in 2016 was not that the president and Senate were controlled by different political parties, it was only that we were in a presidential election year. This revisionism that talks about the parties being different is now being used by Republicans to justify potentially confirming a nominee in 2020 if it were to come up. But doing that would directly contradict the clearly stated reasoning in 2016. Which is fine if you're now saying the party should just use the power that it has, just be honest about the inconsistency.
|
On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions...
Sorry to be responding late,
In an ideal case, which of these would be decided by a court and which of these would be decided by congress/senate?
Healthcare
Immigration
Gay marriage
Abortion
In an ideal case, do you prefer those issues are solved by a court, or solved by elected officials? My main criticism of the court isn't even because of the court. My main criticism is that deference to the supreme court allows for our shitbag senators and congressmen to hide behind court rulings. When our elected officials have less of a voting record, they are less accountable. When everything goes to the supreme court, politicians are less accountable. We aren't allowing our democracy to properly function when we defer to the courts with every single major issue.
Furthermore, the idea of lifelong appointment is inherently flawed as it pertains to law. The idea that it prevents partisanship is shot 6 times in the head by just reviewing the last 10 years. We can find other methods of making the court more neutral. The current system is not good and I would be very surprised if you think the supreme court is functioning in a healthy way.
We aren't stuck with the current system. Nothing about our laws and institutions is defined by god or any other greater than human being. This is an entirely man-made system that is born with all the same flaws as the people who crafted it. It is important to recognize that in every single other situation in life, we can look back at decisions made 80 years ago and think "yeah, but obviously we know a lot more now and would not do that today". The same is also true of American law and institutions. We didn't just magically come up with the most slam dunk system you could ever imagine our first try. Our system is bad and it shouldn't be surprising. It is super old and old ideas are generally improved on over time. It is how every single thing in the world works.
|
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are.
|
On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are.
What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments.
|
As we are finding out through our own historical research, the practices and norms of the Senate are generational and established by elder members keep things moving and some degree of civil. When the elder members of the current Senate don’t like the norms established by previous generation, we get what is happening now. As Introvert and I sort of hashed out, it is a betrayal of trust more than political wrong doing. The rules were based on good faith from the leaders of both parties, and now senators and the public are grappling with the reality that the “rules” do not have immediate consequences for breaking them.
|
On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments.
By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out.
On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain.
|
On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments.
Judges should be free from the political process in every way. Politicians should not be able to remove them without overwhelming effort. The problems created by lifetime appointments are nothing compared to the travesty of justice caused by Judges having to carry favor in whatever the current political climate is.
Everyone looks to ways to change the White House or Supreme Court without addressing the problem that plagues this country, Congress sucks and does nothing but rubber stamp a budget. It is a chamber of whiners, do nothings and stuffed shirts that are there to make quotes on camera, not work on fixing the problems of the country. We have feckless cowards like Rand Paul, who made a name for himself claiming to be against the abuse of federal power, but who can’t muster a single quote about ICE just rounding up people at night without due process.
And these clowns demonize anyone who gets shit done. I’m not a fan of Pelosi for a lot of reasons, but her time as Speaker of the House was one of the most productive times in the last couple decades. She was more efficient at getting bills to the floor than any speaker since the 1990s and since.
Forget changing the courts, elect better people.
|
On October 12 2018 00:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments. By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out. On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain.
I would argue that framing the issue as having only 1 potential solution is distracting from the fact that many problems, this one included, can be solved in a wide range of ways. We aren't mice in a maze trying to find the piece of cheese. This is a problem with thousands of variables and considerations. What I am saying is that one of the many potential paths to correcting the issues with the supreme court involves dismantling lifelong appointments and, in a general sense, having the supreme court make many less decisions than it currently does. I am also saying that the benefits created by lifelong appointments could likely be had in other scenarios without lifelong appointments.
In my eyes, fear of retaliation can be fixed by giving these positions a fixed length. Let's say a supreme court justice serves a 10 year term, but can still be impeached just as is currently true. What issue would be created by that?
|
On October 12 2018 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:37 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments. By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out. On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain. I would argue that framing the issue as having only 1 potential solution is distracting from the fact that many problems, this one included, can be solved in a wide range of ways. We aren't mice in a maze trying to find the piece of cheese. This is a problem with thousands of variables and considerations. What I am saying is that one of the many potential paths to correcting the issues with the supreme court involves dismantling lifelong appointments and, in a general sense, having the supreme court make many less decisions than it currently does. I am also saying that the benefits created by lifelong appointments could likely be had in other scenarios without lifelong appointments. In my eyes, fear of retaliation can be fixed by giving these positions a fixed length. Let's say a supreme court justice serves a 10 year term, but can still be impeached just as is currently true. What issue would be created by that?
How would you set that? Every justice every 10 years? spread it out so its one retires a year? You would have a court that would swing super hard if a dem got to replace every rep judge because of timing or vice versa
|
On October 12 2018 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:37 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments. By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out. On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain. I would argue that framing the issue as having only 1 potential solution is distracting from the fact that many problems, this one included, can be solved in a wide range of ways. We aren't mice in a maze trying to find the piece of cheese. This is a problem with thousands of variables and considerations. What I am saying is that one of the many potential paths to correcting the issues with the supreme court involves dismantling lifelong appointments and, in a general sense, having the supreme court make many less decisions than it currently does. I am also saying that the benefits created by lifelong appointments could likely be had in other scenarios without lifelong appointments. In my eyes, fear of retaliation can be fixed by giving these positions a fixed length. Let's say a supreme court justice serves a 10 year term, but can still be impeached just as is currently true. What issue would be created by that? They need a job and businesses will sell them advisory positions in exchange for votes.
Same way that happens with politicians now.
The root problem to it all, from the power of the SC and Executive, the inactivity of Congress and the failing of rules is the same. The increasing tribalism and political divide between left and right. Compromise is impossible and the country no longer matters so long as your side 'wins'.
You can try to fight the symptoms but it will just express itself in whatever way it can.
A lasting solution has to get both sides back to the table, talking to each other and working together towards a better America. Even if their views don't line up.
But good luck getting that to happen without a a catalyst disaster big enough to make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
|
On October 12 2018 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:37 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments. By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out. On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain. I would argue that framing the issue as having only 1 potential solution is distracting from the fact that many problems, this one included, can be solved in a wide range of ways. We aren't mice in a maze trying to find the piece of cheese. This is a problem with thousands of variables and considerations. What I am saying is that one of the many potential paths to correcting the issues with the supreme court involves dismantling lifelong appointments and, in a general sense, having the supreme court make many less decisions than it currently does. I am also saying that the benefits created by lifelong appointments could likely be had in other scenarios without lifelong appointments. In my eyes, fear of retaliation can be fixed by giving these positions a fixed length. Let's say a supreme court justice serves a 10 year term, but can still be impeached just as is currently true. What issue would be created by that?
The same issue seen throughout the US when state judges get aged out; they leave the bench and get showered with gifts/jobs by those who have benefitted from their rulings. Impact litigators also either rush to the courthouse or wait until a judge leaves depending on the circumstances. The expectation that a sitting judge will eventually leave and pursue other work once done being a judge creates a huge number of troubling incentives, from case filing timing to ping pong overruling of precedent.
|
On October 12 2018 00:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:37 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2018 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2018 00:17 farvacola wrote:
Nah, lifelong appointments are not the problem, the loaded appointment process and the fundamentally flawed nature of the Senate are. What value/benefit is exclusively created by lifelong appointments? My point is that it is very likely we could refine our current system to achieve the intended benefits of lifelong appointments without needing lifelong appointments. By framing the issue that way, you're distracting from the real problems inherent to the process. Again, the terrible appointment process and the increasingly undemocratic Senate figure far more prominently in this debate than lifetime appointments, particularly with oldies like RBG holding the line while we sort this shit out. On the ground floor in district courts, lifetime appointments with impeachment the only job threat allow judges to push and pull on troubling precedent without fear of any kind of meaningful retaliation. The same dynamic can be seen all the way up the chain. I would argue that framing the issue as having only 1 potential solution is distracting from the fact that many problems, this one included, can be solved in a wide range of ways. We aren't mice in a maze trying to find the piece of cheese. This is a problem with thousands of variables and considerations. What I am saying is that one of the many potential paths to correcting the issues with the supreme court involves dismantling lifelong appointments and, in a general sense, having the supreme court make many less decisions than it currently does. I am also saying that the benefits created by lifelong appointments could likely be had in other scenarios without lifelong appointments. In my eyes, fear of retaliation can be fixed by giving these positions a fixed length. Let's say a supreme court justice serves a 10 year term, but can still be impeached just as is currently true. What issue would be created by that? The same issue seen throughout the US when state judges get aged out; they leave the bench and get showered with gifts/jobs by those who have benefitted from their rulings. Impact litigators also either rush to the courthouse or wait until a judge leaves depending on the circumstances. The expectation that a sitting judge will eventually leave and pursue other work once done being a judge creates a huge number of troubling incentives, from case filing timing to ping pong overruling of precedent.
So in my eyes, the issues you are bringing up could be solved through regulation/law/rules/whatever. I am not going to pretend I am qualified to define a new supreme court system. It is many levels beyond my law expertise. What I *am* saying is that I can clearly see some big issues with the supreme court and I think on a fundamental level, lifelong power has inherent flaws.
Rather than suggest my own system, I will say that if you were to gather ~10 legal scholars or whatever, gave them a year or so to design an entirely new system of how the supreme court operates, they could come up with something significantly better than we currently have, with limited appointments, while also solving every single issue you described. Whether they are given a lifelong salary yet barred from any other position even vaguely related to their previous work or whatever, there is a way.
|
Yeah that's all fine and dandy but you have yet to tie your criticism of the court system to your target of lifetime appointments. You're also focusing on the supremes at the expense of the lower courts that actually do practically all of the heavy lifting. Reforming the system is definitely needed, but this focus on lifetime appointments figures as a red herring in much the same way that an overt focus on term limits does with regards to the legislature.
|
It is very hard to limit civil servant’s actions once they leave office through regulation. Especially if the job they will be getting is outside government sphere. We have the current problem with elected officials and lobbying. That sort of hand waving solution of "regulation or whatever" shows you might not be familiar with the problems created by electing/appointing judges for specific terms and why lifetime appoints has been seen a the solution to those problems.
|
While I'm not saying we should get rid of it, the benefits of judicial lifetime appointments are severely mitigated by the fact that you need to basically be a political operative just to get nominated nowadays (this applies to both sides). The corruption comes before the nomination, thus making the goal of keeping judges free of influence once on the bench largely futile.
At the very least, though, it avoids a Jeff Flake situation where they are worried about their next job and thus will say whatever they need to get paid.
|
On October 12 2018 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Yeah that's all fine and dandy but you have yet to tie your criticism of the court system to your target of lifetime appointments. You're also focusing on the supremes at the expense of the lower courts that actually do practically all of the heavy lifting. Reforming the system is definitely needed, but this focus on lifetime appointments figures as a red herring in much the same way that an overt focus on term limits does with regards to the legislature.
I think that lifelong appointments mean:
1. Stagnant/decreased philosophical mobility which directly inhibits philosophical development
2. Increased contribution of an individual over time, which I think is inherently bad
2a. If we assume a basic level of philosophical/cognitive strength, a greater number of minds contributing to philosophical betterment will, in general, yield the greatest result
In my eyes, those two problems can never be fixed without eliminating lifelong appointments. I think that the disadvantages of those things necessitate placing boundaries around appointment length. If we are to optimize this system/institution, it makes sense to build it around first eliminating those disadvantages by eliminating lifelong appointments.
|
On October 12 2018 01:25 On_Slaught wrote:
While I'm not saying we should get rid of it, the benefits of judicial lifetime appointments are severely mitigated by the fact that you need to basically be a political operative just to get nominated nowadays (this applies to both sides). The corruption comes before the nomination, thus making the goal of keeping judges free of influence once on the bench largely futile.
At the very least, though, it avoids a Jeff Flake situation where they are worried about their next job and thus will say whatever they need to get paid.
No Judge before Kav was a political operative before becoming a judge. Many of them worked at the Justice Department or were a state AG, but that does not fit the definition of a political operative. That is just working in the justice system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
