2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI - Page 57 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2016, 09:52 PM   #841
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 54,164
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Negotiation and compromise are key in democracies.

Not everyone agrees with you. You still have to get along with them.
Irvine thinks compromise matters. Not true! Sad! #makeinterferencegreatagain
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 09:55 PM   #842
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,874
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trojanchick99 View Post
So Mike Pence has endorsed Paul Ryan.

Annnnnd I'm dying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Actually, I would want someone who didn't have an agenda either way.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 10:06 PM   #843
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 54,164
Local Time: 06:38 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.ny...hms-tmobile-us
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 10:48 PM   #844
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,071
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Actually, I would want someone who didn't have an agenda either way.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Negotiation and compromise are key in democracies.

Not everyone agrees with you. You still have to get along with them.
I'm going to go the other way on this.

I understand that the court is supposed to be an apolitical body. In a perfect world, it would be. But the reality is, it is a political body and it is naive to think otherwise. Furthermore, I find it unreasonable to expect intelligent, successful public servants who sit on the court to not allow their personal politics and convictions to affect their decisions just because they're justices and not senators or congresspeople.

Now, I will grant there is a difference between letting your personal politics affect your judicial decisions and having an agenda. I will agree that agendas aren't good. But the political views of judges matter. Conservatives have litmus tests for judges and so we must too.

Is it not fair to say, Irvine, that you would oppose any justice who would vote to restore DOMA and the ban on gay marriage?

I would, and I would also oppose any justice would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, or one that would support Citizens United, or one that thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional. Etc.

At this time, it is not 100% clear what Garland's views on abortion and gay marriage are.

Negotiation and compromise are key, but there are some things we can't compromise on.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 10:56 PM   #845
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,202
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Yes, I would oppose a justice who disagreed with marriage equality were I a Senator, however, tradition dictates that elections have consequences, and generally the president, having been elected by a popular majority, does get to name people to the court. This spirit of compromise stops, of course, when it comes to extremists (i.e., Bork), but if we are talking about SCOTUS, specifically, the sitting president gets some deference. What the GOP is doing with Garland is beyond the pale, but one gets the sense that their tactics would be applauded by some of our more Hard Leftists.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-03-2016, 11:01 PM   #846
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,071
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Yes, I would oppose a justice who disagreed with marriage equality were I a Senator, however, tradition dictates that elections have consequences, and generally the president, having been elected by a popular majority, does get to name people to the court. This spirit of compromise stops, of course, when it comes to extremists (i.e., Bork), but if we are talking about SCOTUS, specifically, the sitting president gets some deference. What the GOP is doing with Garland is beyond the pale, but one gets the sense that their tactics would be applauded by some of our more Hard Leftists.
Oh, I'm not defending what the Republicans have been doing, refusing to even have a hearing or vote on him. Like you say, that's beyond the pale. Absolutely unprecedented and ridiculous.

I was just saying that I would understand if some on the left would be in favor of the President pulling the Garland nomination after the election(if Hillary won and we took the Senate back) so that Hillary could nominate someone more decidedly liberal.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 11:15 PM   #847
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,153
Local Time: 05:38 PM
Well, it's especially warranted for Obama to pull Garland because it's not like he wanted him the first place. It's a political ploy to begin with and that ploy should not be on the Supreme Court.

Again, I'm all for compromise, but kowtowing to the right is a different matter. You don't need to compromise on the Supreme Court. It's going to tend to lean in one direction and the justices vote for whatever they feel is right.

Finding middle ground is always a plus, but when there is no middle ground because one side is blatantly obstructionist in their tactics, then there can be no compromise. As I've reiterated time and again, Clinton is never going to get Republicans to meet her in the middle on anything that they feel leans to the left. I know it won't happen because we saw it not happen when Obama was President. So any legislation that Clinton passes with heavy support from the right isn't some well worked out "compromise"...it's merely her agreeing with the right on something that those on the left do not.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-03-2016, 11:16 PM   #848
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,202
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
Oh, I'm not defending what the Republicans have been doing, refusing to even have a hearing or vote on him. Like you say, that's beyond the pale. Absolutely unprecedented and ridiculous.

I was just saying that I would understand if some on the left would be in favor of the President pulling the Garland nomination after the election(if Hillary won and we took the Senate back) so that Hillary could nominate someone more decidedly liberal.


After this nonsense, yes. I agree.

My earlier point was meant to be really broad.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-04-2016, 12:20 AM   #849
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 149,411
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges? Looking at the other international posters here.

I only know the names of some Australian and New Zealand judges, and practically nothing about their political inclinations. The only time a recent appointment has become a serious political issue is when Campbell Newman, the Queensland premier who won the greatest landslide in state history only to then somehow lose the next election, appointed a grossly unqualified mate who eventually resigned because he lacked the capacity for the job and nobody in the legal profession took him seriously.

Because seriously, I find this one of the more mindboggling parts of American political culture.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 08-04-2016, 07:44 AM   #850
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,439
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Interesting analysis on the success of Donald Trump in becoming a nominee (and not (yet) being crushed in the polls by Hillary): Would Democrats accept a wackadoo nominee?

The site Electoral Vote continues this analogy quite well:
ElectoralVote
Quote:
Now let's go one step further. Imagine there is a big terrorist attack somewhere in America on Nov. 1 and Trump wins the election. He governs badly and by 2020 has an approve/disapprove rating of 20/80, the worst in history. Every Democrat and his uncle thinks he can beat Trump in 2020, so 30 Democrats run in the primary, each averaging about 3%. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian flip a coin and Kim wins. She enters the primary as a Democrat (mostly as a publicity stunt) and with 5% of the vote becomes the leading candidate. Since the Democrats have eliminated the superdelegates and opened all the primaries to please Bernie Sanders, large numbers of Republicans vote in the Democratic primary and she gets the nomination. She is totally unqualified and knows nothing about politics, but campaigns in a skimpy bikini and draws crowds far larger than any candidate in history. Once in a while she reads a speech written by a staffer from a teleprompter and seems like a normal Democrat. As her running mate, she picks a standard Democrat, say Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). The question now is would Democrats support her in the general election against Trump, even though by comparison she makes him—now with four years in the White House under his belt—look like a real statesman. Once again, our guess is yes they would, even though Republicans would say "She's completely stupid and has never run anything."
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 08-04-2016, 07:48 AM   #851
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,439
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges? Looking at the other international posters here.

[...]

Because seriously, I find this one of the more mindboggling parts of American political culture.
Define "politicised".
Because your example describes just as much a political process as the US process. In both situations the judge was appointed by a politician. Only, in the US there's (in theory) a checks and balances system in that the nominee needs to be approved by the Senate. Where it goes wrong nowadays is that the Senate (or at least, part of it) is no longer looking at qualifications, but at the position of the judge on several issues.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 08-04-2016, 07:49 AM   #852
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,900
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges? Looking at the other international posters here.

I only know the names of some Australian and New Zealand judges, and practically nothing about their political inclinations. The only time a recent appointment has become a serious political issue is when Campbell Newman, the Queensland premier who won the greatest landslide in state history only to then somehow lose the next election, appointed a grossly unqualified mate who eventually resigned because he lacked the capacity for the job and nobody in the legal profession took him seriously.

Because seriously, I find this one of the more mindboggling parts of American political culture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that judges in the US actually have a lot to do with setting policy, because Congress has to deal with the constitutionality of what it passes, and constitutional theory is open to interpretation. So, the stakes are very high here. Too many right-leaning judges could easily result in abortion being banned in the vast majority of the country, for instance.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is online now  
Old 08-04-2016, 08:39 AM   #853
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 149,411
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Interesting analysis on the success of Donald Trump in becoming a nominee (and not (yet) being crushed in the polls by Hillary): Would Democrats accept a wackadoo nominee?

The site Electoral Vote continues this analogy quite well:
ElectoralVote
I was going to raise a variant of the objection #2 from the first article, and I don't think the author satisfactorily dismisses it. If the Democrats had nominated Sanders or another person strongly associated with the left, I can see why moderate Republicans would suck it up and stick with their lunatic rather than swap to the other party's lunatic. (I don't mean to say I think Sanders is a lunatic, but that he would have been seen as such by the hypothetical voter under discussion.) But Clinton really does fall into a centrist position; if she were in Australia, I promise you she would be a member of our centre-right Liberal government rather than in Labour or the Greens. The idea that she is the devil incarnate is based - as has been discussed here at length - on a decades-long character assassination almost entirely divorced from reality. The fact that the hard right, the hard left, the Trump populists, and the BMP populists all despise her proves the point that she sits in the middle; go to an extreme and they're shooting in towards her. I would suggest any reasonable Republican able to step back from the hyper-partisanship of today's politics to consider abandoning their party's nominee would not find Clinton as objectionable as the author suggests; she would be the D's Romney rather than the D's Cruz. (And, in fact, I can attest that the handful of Republicans I know outside here are all stumping hard for Clinton. His nuclear weapons comments swung the last who was undecided.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Define "politicised".
Because your example describes just as much a political process as the US process. In both situations the judge was appointed by a politician. Only, in the US there's (in theory) a checks and balances system in that the nominee needs to be approved by the Senate. Where it goes wrong nowadays is that the Senate (or at least, part of it) is no longer looking at qualifications, but at the position of the judge on several issues.
You know what I mean by politicised. Let's not play word games here.

In any case, the fact I can name more US Supreme Court judges than I can name judges of the High Court in Australia proves the point that the partisanship of the appointments process is both surprising and striking. Here, although the governor(-general)-in-council (of the Commonwealth of Australia, for federal courts, or of individual states, for state courts) makes the appointment, it is in wide consultation - e.g. with independent advisory panels, existing judges, the bar. There is no vote in parliament. Apart from the Queensland case where there was brazen defiance of advice received, nobody pays any attention to who's appointed or how, yet there is confidence in the independence of the judiciary. It is not seen as a tool of politics, nor is it seen important whether the judges are appointed by left- or right-wing governments. Nobody would suggest that a particular legal decision was reached because one side of politics or another had stacked the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that judges in the US actually have a lot to do with setting policy, because Congress has to deal with the constitutionality of what it passes, and constitutional theory is open to interpretation. So, the stakes are very high here. Too many right-leaning judges could easily result in abortion being banned in the vast majority of the country, for instance.
This is probably close to the truth. Something like marriage equality, for instance, could not have been settled in the Australian courts, but could in the US.

Edit: for the record, here's the appointment process for Australia: https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcou...cy_May2010.pdf
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 08-04-2016, 09:08 AM   #854
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,202
Local Time: 06:38 PM
if anyone is still fighting back tears and anxiety attacks, take heart: Trump is down 10 points in the latest Fox News poll.

the Fox News poll.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12374000...on-polls-today
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-04-2016, 09:12 AM   #855
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,439
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
I was going to raise a variant of the objection #2 from the first article, and I don't think the author satisfactorily dismisses it.
[...]
But Clinton really does fall into a centrist position; if she were in Australia, I promise you she would be a member of our centre-right Liberal government rather than in Labour or the Greens. The idea that she is the devil incarnate is based - as has been discussed here at length - on a decades-long character assassination almost entirely divorced from reality. The fact that the hard right, the hard left, the Trump populists, and the BMP populists all despise her proves the point that she sits in the middle; go to an extreme and they're shooting in towards her. I would suggest any reasonable Republican able to step back from the hyper-partisanship of today's politics to consider abandoning their party's nominee would not find Clinton as objectionable as the author suggests; she would be the D's Romney rather than the D's Cruz. (And, in fact, I can attest that the handful of Republicans I know outside here are all stumping hard for Clinton. His nuclear weapons comments swung the last who was undecided.)
Yes, you are right that Clinton is not some extremist. She is center-right of the political spectrum. But, as you also indicate, she has been the victim of a decades-long character assassination almost entirely divorced from reality. So she is being viewed by others as an extremist. And that's also the gist of objection #2, her being viewed as an extremist.
In short, while she'll probably be a very good president (and in general, her approval has always gone up when she was in office, while being negative when she was running for office) she is a flawed candidate.

Quote:
You know what I mean by politicised. Let's not play word games here.
It was a genuine question, actually. Especially as to me your example seemed to contradict your statement "Does any other country in the world have such a politicised process of appointing judges?"

Quote:
Apart from the Queensland case where there was brazen defiance of advice received, nobody pays any attention to who's appointed or how, yet there is confidence in the independence of the judiciary. It is not seen as a tool of politics, nor is it seen important whether the judges are appointed by left- or right-wing governments. Nobody would suggest that a particular legal decision was reached because one side of politics or another had stacked the courts.
For a long time this also seemed to hold true for the US, as I tried to mention in my previous post. Reagan appointed a SC judge with a liberal streak, Obama's nominee Garland is quite moderate (and his previous appointed SC judge Kagan wasn't some extreme liberal either).
But yeah, as digitize mentioned, the US Supreme Court is more actively involved in evaluating laws against the constitution or setting precendent. So there a judge's political standing shines through more.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com