tempus est umbra in mente
Making a statement that they will not overturn one protection is not the same thing as passing pro-cause legislation, and it doesn't mean that they don't have something in the works. If anything, it sounds like a smokescreen. It might not be worthwhile to speculate on the rumors regarding orders on LGBT adoption rights, but the First Amendment Defense Act is almost certainly incoming.Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
Bite me
Wow, I'm surprised by that, too. Yeah, I think you are correct about the critiques against them (manner / type).
Add Violins
I'm very curious to know more about FDR's use of EOs. He went hog wild on that shit. Granted, he got four terms, but still.
There seem to be these generational shifts in usage, which I'm assuming can be attributed to evolving ideas about how EOs should be used. There's a pretty sharp drop off with Eisenhower, and even more with JFK. From JFK until today, it seems like everyone is staying pretty consistently within that 200-300+ range, with the exception of one-termers like Ford and Bush Sr.
To be honest, there is part of me that is a bit skeptical about whether the popular narrative around Obama's EOs is entirely accurate. I mean, Obama TAUGHT constitutional law and he seems pretty conscientious about systemic issues in politics. Not saying that I've made up my mind, but I'd like to read more about this, particularly from someone who actually knows their shit and not some fuckface on a cable news program.
Active Member
Anyone being on ETS or browsing certain sub-forums is self-explanatory imo, by here I meant this thread. You are right though, maybe no one came here to make an echo-chamber, it's just what it became in the end. I guess it's the nature of things?
Also, it'd be highly unfair of me to wash everyone's concerns about Trump with Jintai's maniac way of thinking. But you see, while I go completely unfazed by many things, the things that piss me off reach deep into me. I am not a calm person to begin with, so pretty much after the first few events where this guy showed he wakes up with a military knife within his teeth in his nuclear bomber, I had to chip in. This is what enhanced my view on your group of people who happens to be agreeing on basically everything, because by not regulating your own, I blamed you too in the back of my head. He is pretty much the embodiment of why you lost the election: extreme negativity, extreme arrogance, extreme conspiracy theories, zero self-awareness.
Then again, I'm not pretending that I had much belief in consolidating him, as I was growing up with someone like him. This is pretty much why I limit my political interactions to a very few times with certain friends. I lack the mental fortitude to accept or ignore the extremist people of any political side. Woe is me, right?!
Wtf, google translate is actually useful?
[insert field here] experts is among the bottom of the pit for me in politics. As I said, many of our experts reached the conclusion that our then prime minister was autistic based on the way he spoke, held his hands and such. Who cares? He was a good politician (it says nothing about his tenure as our PM), the only person whom our current PM (who is also a good politician, even if I don't sympathize with him) acknowledged as possibly the only force to be reckon with way back in the day. So, I could hardly care less for experts (wanna bet whose side these "neutral" experts were? wanna bet whose side on your "neutral experts" are?) saying that he is this or that. I either like what he is doing as PM or I don't, I couldn't care less about his possible mental deficities.
Same goes to Melanie. Who is concerned about the way she responds to things with her BODY? This sounds like a bad gossip sketch from Sex and the City. I can't resonate with people, who wants to tear down Melanie for posing in a certain way, or accuse her son of being autistic. ~2 years ago we had similar shit here, when the daughter of the PM got married. "Why did she dress so fancy?? Why is her husband so handsome?? Why does our PM gave them gifts when I still did not get the raise I wanted??" - absolute cesspool, not to mention the whore and bitch counters were off the charts.
I If you actually speak/understand Hungarian, then here's my gift to you
tempus est umbra in mente
Someday, you'll get over the fact that I decimated your indifferent bullshit. If you're going to defend Melania Trump for posing in a tacky photo spread depicting her eating jewelry like it's spaghetti, spell her name right.
But you're insinuating that I'm rattling off crazy conspiracy theories... Like what? The idea that this promise to not overturn one piece of pro-LGBT legislation is a smokescreen for incoming anti-civil rights legislation? Here's another conspiracy theory: Neil Gorsuch will be Trump's SCOTUS nomination... and to quote the guy, "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.... Liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent."
But hey, I hope I'm wrong about that "conspiracy theory."
Last edited by Jinsai; 01-31-2017 at 02:55 PM.
Trollhunter
@Jinsai No, he won't. He still gets sour about all of the times I've sent him scurrying in the past. He does this regularly. Pollutes a thread (Feminism is his favorite one to fuck with). Gets angry when countered and destroyed. Fucks off for a bit. Repeats process again.
I think it's weird he's so shocked and angry that fans who frequent the MB of a guy who made Year Zero might also be liberal leaning.
On topic, looks like DeVos is getting through. She'll be real good at dumbing down and draining money from public schools. So that's just lovely. My nephew will be two in June.
Nice to see Dems FINALLY speaking up about things. Some action to back that up would be better, though. Say, like...NOT confirming Sessions.
Throbbing Member
Another (major) reason why we need to get rid of the electoral college: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/.../?ex_cid=538fb
Administrator
I definitely think there are things going on that the president doesn't want us to know but the Muslim ban is deliberate. He said he was going to do it and he did. Even if it was some sort of distraction, it's still tyranny imo. It affected a lot of people. For no fucking reason. The press secretary made it seem like it was a mild inconvenience for the people who were detained. The woman who was ask to prove that she breast feeds her detained child was humiliated and scared. Their rights were violated and Spicer condescendingly suggests that it was no big deal for anyone. It's just gross and wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tempus est umbra in mente
Well, I guess my SCOTUS nomination prediction was correct.... Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck this.
God is an American
^ Oh boy, you said a mouthful... what a cheery fellow, he sounds not at all nightmarish
Yeah I know but Orwell didn't literally write the script for this administration a decade before it happened. Seriously, go read up on the ARG backstory to YZ.
Last edited by botley; 01-31-2017 at 11:00 PM.
Active Member
WT was his record where he directly made a political statement, so trying to base your argument on a record that happened 10 years ago is rather loose, especially if we consider that TDS and TF were his biggest hits, which made the base of his fanbase.
I don't have to get over any decimation or destruction, I don't expect a winner to be called between two people "who are always right". You see, you should not act as if you were on the same level as Jintai. You are a mental disaster living on pills and you went out your way to nag me every corner on this board and ran away, like the coward you are. You are a nuisance, who lacks his own thoughts and only capable of bandwagoning others opinion, basically saying "hell yeah, exactly!".
Jintai represents a personality - perspective, if you like - on the politicial palette with whom I greatly oppose, and that's it. I am really happy he is willing to stand his ground and not shy away his words, even if - once again - I disagree with him. Worst case scenario I understood where he comes from; that's something, I guess.
I don't like to get into a complicated argument with him, because if I am not willing to dwell into the depths of American politics, I can only talk about the surface (ie. calling him out for seeing the worst in E V E R Y T H I N G), and not the 3rd and 5th point of this and that law made back in 2013 or something. I don't like to get into any agument with you, because you are insane, volatile and try to give every argument an emotional layer to protect yourself. My mother was (well, still is) bipolar, so I grew to just let it slide when insecurity fueled bullshit is flinged my way, but as I said, you go above and beyond to put yourself in my sight. Hope you see the difference.
Also, I don't fuck with any thread, but I can imagine your suffering when I brought up topics, which were challenging to discuss. You can't even say all the girls hated them all the time, but you are just a simpleton white-knight, you probably get offended 4 times before you even leave your house.
Active Member
For what it's worth, I used it as a joke/play on phrases we'd know. Nothing more.
God is an American
Maybe once Gorsuch hits the Supreme Court bench, it'll soon be more apt to compare the USA to Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale.
Bite me
Word is that he is more of a Justice Kennedy than a Scalia. He's a state's rights guy and that's not unusual on the SCOTUS, and neither is the emphasis on the judicial branch not being the branch that creates laws but interprets laws as to constitutionality per the constitution. It takes the Court away from issuing decisions based on public opinion and, instead, on stare decicis and strict constitutionality. People in law respect this stance.
If Kennedy hangs in there for 4 yrs, then the Court will still be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives.
"Handmaid's" was written about the Reagan-era administration and those Falwell people. Luckily, these people seem to worship capitalism more than Jesus.
Re Year Zero, that album could have applied to the Bush administration (since that zeitgeist is what informed the creation of the album) or any number of future GOP presidents since they are all equally kooky.
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 12:49 AM.
Bite me
Here's the thing, though: he is right.
I am a lifelong liberal, but I've also studied law and been in it for nearly 30 years, and I can still objectively say he's right. We have become such a litigious society, we DO rely too much on lawsuits and case law and not NEARLY enough on electing people we KNOW will represent our interests by passing actual LAWS that represent our interests. Laws are always better than case law for all change, especially civil rights. The Civil Rights Act was MUCH more effective in bringing real change than the court decisions that preceded it. The executive branches of government are required to enforce laws; it's much more complicated (and requires more litigation) for them to enforce case law, ESPECIALLY from a Federal decision where there may be no case law in each state to modify.
LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights are ALWAYS best served via state laws first and then Federal laws to protect and reinforce those state laws. It makes everything more enforceable and effects real change.
Take this police brutality situation, for instance: lacking any state or Federal laws pertaining to acceptable use of force, society instead relies on SCOTUS decisions which ultimately favor police; all a cop has to do is say he/she was afraid for his/her safety and the safety of the public. Because the SCOTUS relies on prior case law and CURRENT LAW to form an opinion. It doesn't decide based on morality or facts relative to how they the affect on society, etc. because that's too subjective. Real change would be effected by real legislative changes. LAWS pertaining to acceptable use of force.
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 12:50 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
It's more the issue of his obvious agenda on display, and his partisan bend is clear, despite bemoaning the loss of judicial impartiality. The liberal issues that he references there are things that I think matter, and he has a track record backing Christian and hard conservative stances. The gun guys will love him, but screw it. He's obviously a smart guy, and he will present his stance in a legally eloquent bundle. I don't believe he's impartial or objective.
Bite me
Obama still wasn't / isn't a strict constitutionalist. I thought for SURE, when he was elected in '08, he'd devote a ton of time and energy to righting areas of law that are totally unconstitutional, like the PATRIOT ACT. Instead, he became highly political and focused on the legacy issues he thought sure he could win in some way, either via a Democratic Congress or via EOs; and he did often stretch the typical boundaries of the Executive branch. Which set precedent for THIS current administration.
tempus est umbra in mente
God money I'll do anything for you
God money just tell me what you want me to
God money nail me against the wall
God money don't want everything he wants it all
No you can't take that away from me
Head like a hole
Black as your soul
I'd rather die than give you control
Anyway, enough talking about NIN in this non-NIN section of the board.
Bite me
SCOTUS justices, contrary to popular belief, aren't political. They are liberal or conservative AS TO THEIR COMPARING CASES AND CASE LAW TO THE US CONSTITUTION, which is their job.
The Hobby Lobby case, which we discussed a lot here, was based on LAW that already exists: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Clinton. The question became: if you provide rights to NON PROFIT organizations relative to religious convictions, does that not also apply to FOR PROFIT corporations? And the strict conservative Justices said yeah, it just enforced the current LAW. That's not religious, really. We've seen "religious" Justices uphold Roe v Wade. It is easy for liberals or conservatives to blame Justices for being biased when decisions don't go their way; HOWEVER, reading the dissenting opinion always informs as to the logical basis of the opinion.
Gun laws have always been interpreted by SCOTUS justices based on stare decicis (case law) and the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS only creates law by issuing rulings that modify prior existing laws (modernized based on new facts and evidence) combined with prior opinions related to that law, if any; there is not much a SCOTUS will do at this point relative to gun laws, except interpret new laws if called upon to do so.
Gun lobbyists and right-to-life lobbyists hoping a conservative SCOTUS will effect laws that support their beliefs would be guilty of using the courts to enforce same, rather than using legislation; the very same thing he accuses liberals of doing.
Justices have often explained in opinions, confirming or dissenting, that they may agree that the topic MATTERS but they are not called upon to issue LEGAL opinions based on subjective opinions like "it matters." Instead, they have to remain within the boundaries of current law, if any, plus facts presented, weighed against the text of the US Constitution and existing case law (precedent). Justices are liberal or conservative only as to the strictness of their sticking to those elements; the liberal justices are far more guilty of introducing external elements like public opinion and what is "right" in their opinion, which is subjective and not objective.
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Bite me
@Volband thought With Teeth is a political record, but With Teeth was primarily about Reznor going through rehab after being addicted to alcohol, coke and heroin for years; it wasn't a political record, at all. Reznor did stay out of politics (it used to be rumored that he was a Republican because Courtney Love supposedly let that cat out of the bag) but "Year Zero" and his anti-Republican comments to audiences confirmed that he wasn't anymore.
tempus est umbra in mente
@allegro , we've seen conservatives side with liberal causes and vice versa. In justices that do their job we get objective rulings.
It comes down to interpretation of the constitution, and we see disagreements on that. Some justices are predictable on where they will fall on an issue, and they will present their reasoning in a well-presented argument. It doesn't mean that it isn't cherry picking or coming from a place of personal bias, even though it shouldn't.
This is going to be one of those "well, I guess we'll see" things, but I have had a bad feeling about this guy since I first heard his name. There's a reason I was saying that this was the one Trump was going to pick.
Bite me
Bad feeling: subjective.
Chief Justice Roberts upheld the ACA. TWICE. Conservative or Liberal re SCOTUS Justices relates solely to their strict or liberal application of stare decicis: NOT on personal political leanings. Trump said he thinks Roberts is "terrible" because he upheld Obamacare. No, Roberts' opinion made TOTAL SENSE if you objectively read the Opinion and put away your OWN biases and read the Opinion based on that same NON-political agenda required of SCOTUS Justices.
The only two REALLY PREDICTABLE Justices were / are Scalia and Thomas, because they were / are VERY VERY LITERAL in interpretation. But I've seen the other "liberal" Justices join an Opinion with the conservative Justices
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 01:47 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
well, I'm not a SCOTUS justice
well, given that he's started his speech with grandiose praise of Scalia...the only two REALLY PREDICTABLE Justices were / are Scalia and Thomas, because they were / are VERY VERY LITERAL in interpretation. But I've seen the other "liberal" Justices join an Opinion with the conservative Justices
Bite me
Scalia's legacy is strict interpretation. But I think this guy is mostly praising Scalia because he is nominated to REPLACE Scalia, and it is rare for a SCOTUS Justice to die while still seated.
RBG and Scalia were good friends, even RBG says she misses Scalia.
I at least UNDERSTOOD Scalia's Opinions, they were often brilliant (although too literal for my tastes, they were pretty much always logical). I HATE THOMAS, though. Ugh.
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 02:23 AM.
Bite me
Interprets the words LITERALLY. Not necessarily how they were originally "understood" because that is subjective, we can only guess that. Literal interpretation does not require strict "historian" interpretation that prevents old text like the US Constitution or old case law from being read not only based on strict literal reading (and the text's intent) but also through a modern lens. What strict text reading does is prevents Opinions from introducing anything OUTSIDE the text and its intent.
But, yes, a Justice who is strictly literal is not a friend to somebody or something that strays outside the text.
One of the biggest things you see in any decision that any Judge makes: intent. Since language in laws and contracts are often ambiguous, Judges are there to look at the whole text and the intention of the document or law.
Look at Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion re gay marriage: he isn't against it; he stresses that his literal interpretation of the cases that were presented to the Court do not (in his opinion) violate any part of the Constitution (not in a literal sense) and he mostly argues state's rights. Prior case law ("Loving") is supportive of the plaintiff's stance, but the Federal decision in that case would have better been better served by legislation and not via court opinion. Even Scalia's dissenting opinion stressed "hey, good luck enforcing this, because we don't make law; we interpret law." He's against the intent of the lawsuit desiring new Federal law to assist the Plaintiff when legislation is the proper channel. For those on the dissenting side, it was an issue of Federal rights trumping state's rights as the main intent, and state's rights is a huge part of the US Constitution that they rarely disregard.
Yes, it's weird to focus on strict textual interpretation as always being "conservative." Each time Roe has been upheld, the opinion primarily focused on strict application of Roe and Casey. The dissenting opinions are always a disagreement as to whether or not Roe or Casey were strict applications of the text of the US Constitution, or the dissenting opinion disagrees with the main opinion's lack of strict interpretation of case law or appliation of the US Constitution (straying outside the lines and using assumptions or public opinion etc.).
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 01:39 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
This comes back to my point; that the ulterior agendas of justices on the SCOTUS do matter, especially in a situation like we're currently in. I disagree with @allegro (and you, I would presume) on the benefit of state law preempting federal law. We're too broad, and lately we're too divided. The whole #CalExit thing is ludicrous, but it at least demonstrates a voice for us... We meant nothing in this election, but we have the largest voting population. Ultimately, our voice was thrown on the giant dumpster fire that is now, unfortunately, the presidency
Active Member
Whenever I try to not explain myself, so that I cut off from the wall of text, which can be a chore to read, I get misunderstood. Argh!!
I know WT is not political, but it has THTF on it, which is a direct message from the singer to the audience, while the second verse is a direct critique of Bush and the war in Iraq. HLAH is a song defying greed, but you could stamp it onto any government.
If he was indeed a Republican though, THTF and its lines about naivety and still trying to hold on gives it a slightly different meaning.
Trollhunter
Oh, @Volband, that must've cut deep for you to resort to baseless inaccurate personal attacks. I know what you are here on ETS, I know nothing of you personally (don't want to), but you apparently haven't a clue about me. You could easily go back and see where I've posted many times about who I am and what my stances are, with honesty. In fact, you would have to know this given the personal attacks (though I am not on any pills other than for medical issues. I am not taking any antidepressants. Haven't in years).
Do you see how this works? I'm not playing a character. I don't get off on trolling like you do. I don't load up a "question" piņata with shit waiting for someone to break it open. I ignore you mostly until I see others, especially people I like, falling for your shitty game.
You're a sad tired act.
Sorry for derailing, everybody. I'm aware WT is political (went to multiple shows on that tour). YZ is the more obvious one.
Last edited by Swykk; 02-01-2017 at 06:40 AM.
Bite me
But, see, that's state's rights. State's rights is working pretty well with the sale of marijuana right now. State's rights are clearly indicated in the Constitution. Sometimes they seem unfair, but we are a Republic made up of separately-governed states under one Federal government. Federal overreach can be REALLY bad, too. Like in education right now with the new head of the Dept of Education, said Dept having control over education in all the states in a negative way since Bush was in office with "No Child Left Behind" and then "Common Core" with Obama.
Last edited by allegro; 02-01-2017 at 11:31 AM.
Trollhunter
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...er-dem-boycott
Great work, GOP. <golf clap>
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
