politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s big deal: the Supreme Court

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s big deal: the Supreme Court

Wikimedia Commons

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Superb David

TheScreamingEagles

I do expect when the Dems control all three branches the size of The Supremes will increase.

rottenborough

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

kle4

Fascinating if long read on 'concept creep' on the last thread, including where it has had positive as well as negative effects.

williamglenn

FPT:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JohnL, I think hoping Russia might help fill a theoretical NATO void or defend the EU is optimistic.

I do wonder about seeing Russia as European, though. Geographically, it's mostly Asian.

Three quarters of the people live in the European part of it. It's a historic European power whose empire happened to stretch over land rather than over the seas which is why they still hold most of it.

Putin and his aides talk a lot about Eurasia as a concept.

Yes and Alexander Dugin's plan is to Finlandise Western Europe, starting with separating Britain from the continent, and to push US influence back to the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

TheScreamingEagles

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

18 states already have automaticity provisions to ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.

kle4

Even with people living longer it seems absurd these judicial appointments are for life, particularly when they are so explicitly political in nature. But such is the way of things I guess.

matt

It’s a strange world where one can read outstanding unpaid writing like this for free while at the same time people like Toynbee, Sylvester or Johnson turn out the same tired old dialogues of the deaf and are lauded and paid for it.

david_herdson

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

That's one possibility. But another is that the Court decides that embryos are 'people' for the sake of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as such, entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and that they cannot be 'deprived of life'.

kjh

Excellent article.

JosiasJessop

Many thanks, David. Fascinating, if not a little worrying from my pov.

TheScreamingEagles

I suppose we can hope that the new appointments do a John Paul Stevens (or a David Souter to a lesser extent)

HYUFD

Kennedy was of course appointed by a conservative president anyway, Reagan and took a relatively conservative line on things like gun control and campaign finance reform but a more liberal one on gay marriage and abortion. Even if the Supreme Court did move in a more socially conservative direction on the latter it would be more likely to allow socially conservative southern and border states to reverse or restrict them than reverse them nationwide.

On healthcare with the Democrats likely to gain at least one chamber of Congress in November Trump has now likely missed his chance to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare. Obama passed Obamacare before the GOP took the House in 2010

HYUFD

Former Conservative MEP and Pro Euro Conservative Party founder John Stevens 'There ie no point reversing Brexit if we do not also join the Euro'

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/06/john-stevens-there-is-no-point-in-stopping-brexit-unless-we-also-join-the-euro.html

Ishmael_Z

Riveting.

As English common lawyers and Montesquieu fanbois we delude ourselves into thinking that the judiciary is apolitical and merely accesses and expounds eternal and objective verities about what the law says. It is good to be reminded that this is baloney. And it's something to bear in mind for when the ECJ has to decide whether Art 50 notices are revocable or not.

Alistair

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

4 states have laws on the books that will explictly automatically outlaw abortion if Roe Vs Wade is over turned. Others have laws to restrict abortion in pricnciple as much as legally possible which means banning if Roe Vs Wade is overturned.

From a wedge issue stand point the things Reps should do is not get Roe Vs Wade overturned bit simply affirm every piece of bullshit states pass to make abortion de facto impossible. That keeps the abortion issue live while still giving their side lots of wins.

And, you know, kills women who seek backstreet abortions.

Sean_F

FPT @David L @ RCS,

That article goes a long way to explain one of the oddest human characteristics - the refusal to take Yes for answer. You'd think that if a pressure group gains what it's demanding, they'd be pleased, but not a bit of it. They need fresh worlds to conquer.

MaxPB

There's an easy way to get the GOP to support abortion, explain that the majority of them are performed on minority single women.

DavidL

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

4 states have laws on the books that will explictly automatically outlaw abortion if Roe Vs Wade is over turned. Others have laws to restrict abortion in pricnciple as much as legally possible which means banning if Roe Vs Wade is overturned.

From a wedge issue stand point the things Reps should do is not get Roe Vs Wade overturned bit simply affirm every piece of bullshit states pass to make abortion de facto impossible. That keeps the abortion issue live while still giving their side lots of wins.

And, you know, kills women who seek backstreet abortions.

I am not saying that this is not a legitimate concern but in a borderless country such as the US it really should not be difficult for American women to go to a State that allows abortion in the same way as the women of Eire and NI come to Britain.

That said, I share the concerns expressed in David's excellent piece. The US Supreme Court has exhibitions at the moment about how they helped in the Civil War with cases like the Prizes case and helped the north. Funnily enough they say a lot less about cases such as Dredd Scott which was, together with the southern majority on the Court, a major cause of the Civil War itself. A Supreme Court with the power to strike down laws can do terrible damage if it is too far out of step with the majority of its populace.

TheKitchenCabinet

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Sean_F

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

It's a horrible example of Morton's Fork for people like Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp. Democrats will be livid if they vote through a conservative Justice. Their voters will be livid if they don't.

Freggles

Fantastic header.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do expect when the Dems control all three branches the size of The Supremes will increase.

The Dems will probably find it increasingly hard to win the Senate, given the overrepresentation of small rural States, unless they can find a way to regain the appeal to rural voters that they once had.

HYUFD

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

Dura_Ace

I don't see Trump doing a total withdrawal of US forces from Europe. Although he is fucking crackers so anything is possible. There are several strategic positions that it would make no sense to relinquish. Ramstein is an important logistics hub for whatever the fuck it is they are trying to do in the ME, NAVSTA Rota gives them complete control of the straits of Gibraltar and the western med, there is all kinds of sneaky spook shit going on at NAS Sigonella, etc.

I could see an almost 100% withdrawal of US ground forces and combat aircraft from Europe though. The Fireplace Salesman can move all the new hardware May is going to let him buy into Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

NickPalmer

Very interesting and thoroughly-evidenced piece - thank you David.

tlg86

matt said:

It’s a strange world where one can read outstanding unpaid writing like this for free while at the same time people like Toynbee, Sylvester or Johnson turn out the same tired old dialogues of the deaf and are lauded and paid for it.

+1

another_richard

MaxPB said:

There's an easy way to get the GOP to support abortion, explain that the majority of them are performed on minority single women.

Add the word 'poor' and they'll support it even more.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

Yorkcity

Brilliant header David .Thank you.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do expect when the Dems control all three branches the size of The Supremes will increase.

The Dems will probably find it increasingly hard to win the Senate, given the overrepresentation of small rural States, unless they can find a way to regain the appeal to rural voters that they once had.

Obama won a majority of US states in 2008 and 2012 so the Democrats can win the Senate without most of the rural states and even there can win the odd rural seat with the right candidate like Manchin

rottenborough

Dura_Ace said:

I don't see Trump doing a total withdrawal of US forces from Europe. Although he is fucking crackers so anything is possible. There are several strategic positions that it would make no sense to relinquish. Ramstein is an important logistics hub for whatever the fuck it is they are trying to do in the ME, NAVSTA Rota gives them complete control of the straits of Gibraltar and the western med, there is all kinds of sneaky spook shit going on at NAS Sigonella, etc.

I could see an almost 100% withdrawal of US ground forces and combat aircraft from Europe though. The Fireplace Salesman can move all the new hardware May is going to let him buy into Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

I'm assuming there will be a huge pushback from the Pentagon on Trump's mad ideas. Who will prevail?

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

Essexit

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

4 states have laws on the books that will explictly automatically outlaw abortion if Roe Vs Wade is over turned. Others have laws to restrict abortion in pricnciple as much as legally possible which means banning if Roe Vs Wade is overturned.

From a wedge issue stand point the things Reps should do is not get Roe Vs Wade overturned bit simply affirm every piece of bullshit states pass to make abortion de facto impossible. That keeps the abortion issue live while still giving their side lots of wins.

And, you know, kills women who seek backstreet abortions.

I am not saying that this is not a legitimate concern but in a borderless country such as the US it really should not be difficult for American women to go to a State that allows abortion in the same way as the women of Eire and NI come to Britain.

That said, I share the concerns expressed in David's excellent piece. The US Supreme Court has exhibitions at the moment about how they helped in the Civil War with cases like the Prizes case and helped the north. Funnily enough they say a lot less about cases such as Dredd Scott which was, together with the southern majority on the Court, a major cause of the Civil War itself. A Supreme Court with the power to strike down laws can do terrible damage if it is too far out of step with the majority of its populace.

If large swathes of the south ban abortion a poor woman in, say, Louisiana might face a long and expensive journey to get to a state where it's legal. Even there anti-abortion influence might mean she has all kinds of hoops to jump through before getting it done.

Mortimer

Fantastic article, thanks David.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

AlastairMeeks

Great article. The consequence of a Supreme Court decisively committed to prioritising state level authority will be to make the USA less united as its states go in radically different directions. I doubt that is something its advocates would welcome.

JosiasJessop

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

"The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male."

Or from, another perspective, want to give a little more equal power to citizens who are not straight, white males. Something straight, white males seem to complain about .

Odd, that ...

david_herdson

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

kle4

Ishmael_Z said:

Riveting.

As English common lawyers and Montesquieu fanbois we delude ourselves into thinking that the judiciary is apolitical and merely accesses and expounds eternal and objective verities about what the law says. It is good to be reminded that this is baloney

It could at least make the attempt to aspire to that ideal

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

OchEye

From the London Review of Books, an interesting view of UK now from 2008, long read but I think worth it...

"After the Fall
John Lanchester
Some of the more pessimistic commentators at the time of the credit crunch, myself included, said that the aftermath of the crash would dominate our economic and political lives for at least ten years. What I wasn’t expecting – what I don’t think anyone was expecting – was that ten years would go by quite so fast. At the start of 2008, Gordon Brown was prime minister of the United Kingdom, George W. Bush was president of the United States, and only politics wonks had ever heard of the junior senator from Illinois; Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France, Hu Jintao was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, MySpace was the biggest social network, and the central bank interest rate in the UK was 5.5 per cent."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n13/john-lanchester/after-the-fall

HYUFD

AlastairMeeks said:

Great article. The consequence of a Supreme Court decisively committed to prioritising state level authority will be to make the USA less united as its states go in radically different directions. I doubt that is something its advocates would welcome.

Indeed, though Mississippi is culturally and economically as far apart from Massachusetts in the USA as Poland is from the Netherlands in the EU

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

Yes it is basically Pat Buchanan v Nancy Pelosi in terms of the party bases

Morris_Dancer

F1: third practice underway.

Alistair

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Good header. But I'm not sure it is quite correct to talk about the Supreme Court outlawing abortion. iirc the collapse of the famous Wade vs Roe will lead to abortion returning to a State by State decision.

4 states have laws on the books that will explictly automatically outlaw abortion if Roe Vs Wade is over turned. Others have laws to restrict abortion in pricnciple as much as legally possible which means banning if Roe Vs Wade is overturned.

From a wedge issue stand point the things Reps should do is not get Roe Vs Wade overturned bit simply affirm every piece of bullshit states pass to make abortion de facto impossible. That keeps the abortion issue live while still giving their side lots of wins.

And, you know, kills women who seek backstreet abortions.

I am not saying that this is not a legitimate concern but in a borderless country such as the US it really should not be difficult for American women to go to a State that allows abortion in the same way as the women of Eire and NI come to Britain.

.

It is already hard for women in states with highly restrictive abortion laws to get a safe legal abortion, add in the cost of travelling hundreds of miles along with the procedure itself and you are looking at situations where a women would be financially crippled in the case of rape as we are talking about states instituting no exception abortion laws.

Sandpit

Very good piece David, many thanks for explaining something I’m sure most of us knew comparatively little about.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Richard_Tyndall

Completely OT but are there really people out there who are moaning about the ethnic background of the person who composes the music for Dr Who? Now I know we Sci Fi buffs are sometimes told we need to get a life but this takes it to a whole new level.

Sometimes quoting Trump is the only reasonable response.

Sad. So sad.

The link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/angry-doctor-hiring-black-composer-dont-understand-show/

Alistair

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

"The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male."

Or from, another perspective, want to give a little more equal power to citizens who are not straight, white males. Something straight, white males seem to complain about .

Odd, that ...

If you are in a priviledged group and haven't thought about it then equality can look like oppression.

Foxy

AlastairMeeks said:

Great article. The consequence of a Supreme Court decisively committed to prioritising state level authority will be to make the USA less united as its states go in radically different directions. I doubt that is something its advocates would welcome.

That surely is the point of a federal system. Only the things that need to be decided centrally are. The EU has very different laws on abortion in Poland and Sweden, Why shouldn't Oregon and Louisiana differ too.

Politicised decisions by courts are to be deplored though. If there is not a clear Federal law on an issue, that does not breach the Constitution, then the State law should decide.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

Sean_F

OchEye said:

From the London Review of Books, an interesting view of UK now from 2008, long read but I think worth it...

"After the Fall
John Lanchester
Some of the more pessimistic commentators at the time of the credit crunch, myself included, said that the aftermath of the crash would dominate our economic and political lives for at least ten years. What I wasn’t expecting – what I don’t think anyone was expecting – was that ten years would go by quite so fast. At the start of 2008, Gordon Brown was prime minister of the United Kingdom, George W. Bush was president of the United States, and only politics wonks had ever heard of the junior senator from Illinois; Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France, Hu Jintao was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, MySpace was the biggest social network, and the central bank interest rate in the UK was 5.5 per cent."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n13/john-lanchester/after-the-fall

While he's right that real wages haven't budged in a decade, the big growth in employment has boosted overall household incomes, which in my view, helps explain why the Conservatives won in 2015, and are polling at 40%+.

Alistair

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

Shelby County is the most unbelievably outrageous Supreme Court decision of recent times. They took a very simple, plain language amendment to the constitution and flat out ignored it.

I've read the decision multiple times and it doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Richard_Tyndall

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Great article. The consequence of a Supreme Court decisively committed to prioritising state level authority will be to make the USA less united as its states go in radically different directions. I doubt that is something its advocates would welcome.

That surely is the point of a federal system. Only the things that need to be decided centrally are. The EU has very different laws on abortion in Poland and Sweden, Why shouldn't Oregon and Louisiana differ too.

Politicised decisions by courts are to be deplored though. If there is not a clear Federal law on an issue, that does not breach the Constitution, then the State law should decide.

Surely that argument was soundly rejected by the Civil War.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tyndall, seems nuts to me. But then, earlier today I saw someone tweeting about POC (ie not-white) authors.

Judging people on skin colour in that way is just crackers.

Sean_F

Alistair said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

"The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male."

Or from, another perspective, want to give a little more equal power to citizens who are not straight, white males. Something straight, white males seem to complain about .

Odd, that ...

If you are in a priviledged group and haven't thought about it then equality can look like oppression.

When one is described as a "Deplorable" one's natural reaction is to vote for the other side, rather than think "She's right. I am Deplorable."

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

Richard_Tyndall

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, seems nuts to me. But then, earlier today I saw someone tweeting about POC (ie not-white) authors.

Judging people on skin colour in that way is just crackers.

Anyone following the saga of the 'Sad Puppies' at the Hugo Awards knows how idiotic this politicization of popular culture has become. It is amusing that those will profess such strong belief in the free market seem to lack faith in the public to make their own educated decisions.

SouthamObserver

This is where the electoral college becomes a problem. A SCOTUS that leans conservative thanks to a president who got millions of votes less than his opponents is one that has the potential to amplify the social dischord that already exists in the US.

HYUFD

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

And Abraham Lincoln was a Republican of course

The_Apocalypse

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Very good article David and I think you are right Trump is likely to go with whichever of teh list presented to him by the Federalist group makes sense.

One point I would disagree with you on is that it may make more sense to wait post-the November elections so that it motivates the base to get out. I get the point but there are two reasons why it makes sense to do it before the election,

1. It puts Democrat senators that are up for re-election in deep-red states in a bad spot. They either vote against the appointee and lose any Republican-base support they had or they back the nominee and infuriate their own base. Given the number of Democrat senators running this year in states where Trump had a majority, that is a terrible place to be.

2. It would likely prod the Democrat left hard core into even more violent words (and possibly actions) over the summer and in the run up to the elections. That is not likely to bother the hard core Democrats or Republicans but it does massively increase the chances that independents and / or swing voters take fright and either don't vote or go to the Republicans.

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Though on 2 Republican activists pushing for an anti abortion and anti gay marriage justice will not exactly appeal to independents either.
It
After November with virtually all state legislatures and most state governors up it is even possible the Democrats could have a majority in most states, if abortion or gay marriage is restricted or reverses it is therefore most likely to be in the solidly Republican southern or border states

The Republicans are certainly capable of annoying even pretty right wing voters, by going too far.

And many moderate Republicans now define as Independents

I find partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats both extremely unappealing.

The former want to put God into Government, while exhibiting very little Christian charity. The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male.

"The latter give every impression of hating any straight, White, male."

Or from, another perspective, want to give a little more equal power to citizens who are not straight, white males. Something straight, white males seem to complain about .

Odd, that ...

+1.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tyndall, that rings a rather faint bell. A bit like Gamergate, I can remember the furore but not the details.

It seems especially weird to make a fuss about this in writing. You can't tell someone's race or even gender from their (pen) name, and relatively few books have photos of the author. Much of it seems like predetermined grievance looking for a pretext.

rottenborough

OchEye said:

From the London Review of Books, an interesting view of UK now from 2008, long read but I think worth it...

"After the Fall
John Lanchester
Some of the more pessimistic commentators at the time of the credit crunch, myself included, said that the aftermath of the crash would dominate our economic and political lives for at least ten years. What I wasn’t expecting – what I don’t think anyone was expecting – was that ten years would go by quite so fast. At the start of 2008, Gordon Brown was prime minister of the United Kingdom, George W. Bush was president of the United States, and only politics wonks had ever heard of the junior senator from Illinois; Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France, Hu Jintao was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, MySpace was the biggest social network, and the central bank interest rate in the UK was 5.5 per cent."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n13/john-lanchester/after-the-fall

Great article. Thanks.

This was very noteworthy:

"A recent analysis by the Bank of England showed that the effect on house prices of QE had been to keep them 22 per cent higher than they would otherwise have been."

SouthamObserver

Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.

Sean_F

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

The_Apocalypse

At the way things are going in the US Dem voters should start inquiring how to move to Canada. I don’t see Trump’s nominee not getting confirmed.

another_richard

OchEye said:

From the London Review of Books, an interesting view of UK now from 2008, long read but I think worth it...

"After the Fall
John Lanchester
Some of the more pessimistic commentators at the time of the credit crunch, myself included, said that the aftermath of the crash would dominate our economic and political lives for at least ten years. What I wasn’t expecting – what I don’t think anyone was expecting – was that ten years would go by quite so fast. At the start of 2008, Gordon Brown was prime minister of the United Kingdom, George W. Bush was president of the United States, and only politics wonks had ever heard of the junior senator from Illinois; Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France, Hu Jintao was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, MySpace was the biggest social network, and the central bank interest rate in the UK was 5.5 per cent."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n13/john-lanchester/after-the-fall

Thanks, that was interesting.

SandyRentool

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

TheWhiteRabbit

The UK has just made three appointments to our Supreme Court, and they didn't make anything except the legal press. How different things are.

FrancisUrquhart

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

To be fair, he was rather distracted by Pamela Anderson's tits at the time....so he was mumbling even more nonsense than usual.

brendan16

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

To be fair, he was rather distracted by Pamela Anderson's tits at the time....so he was mumbling even more nonsense than usual.

Why would he want to repeat a process which nearly destroyed his leadership career last time round? We forget what happened post 23 June 2016 on the Labour side - almost his entire shadow Cabinet quit and he was hours from resigning.

Sean_F

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Philip_Thompson

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

A fugitive arrested in a non death penalty state would be extradited back to a death penalty state though surely?

Morris_Dancer

F1: third practice over, will wait a bit for the markets. Think it's likely to be very tight.

TheWhiteRabbit

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Why are (hypothetical) free States necessarily under any obligation to return slaves, or give any assistance?

Why are (real) abortion States not under more pressure to refuse out-of-towners?

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

At the way things are going in the US Dem voters should start inquiring how to move to Canada. I don’t see Trump’s nominee not getting confirmed.

Surely it is not getting to The Handmaid's Tale type territory ?

Yorkcity

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

To be fair, he was rather distracted by Pamela Anderson's tits at the time....so he was mumbling even more nonsense than usual.

You are never fair when Corbyn is concerned , why start now ?

Philip_Thompson

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Why are (hypothetical) free States necessarily under any obligation to return slaves, or give any assistance?

Why are (real) abortion States not under more pressure to refuse out-of-towners?

They weren't at the time in the uneasy truce that existed in the early 19th century but the logic of Dred Scott implied they should.

Both sides dug in and distrusted the other side.

Sean_F

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I tcontrol

Isuch one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just ).

It showed that free States and slave States everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States,

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

A fugitive arrested in a non death penalty state would be extradited back to a death penalty state though surely?

I don't know what US law is on that point. It would still grate far less than returning slaves to their masters.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's poi control

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Why are (hypothetical) free States necessarily under any obligation to return slaves, or give any assistance?

Why are (real) abortion States not under more pressure to refuse out-of-towners?

No master could bring his slave to a free State if the slave automatically became free, and Free States would be safe havens for any runaway slave. Free States and Slave States would find it very hard to remain part of the same country in that case.

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Bush vs Gore was pretty bizarre, and debated from both sides here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/the_supreme_court_and_the_2000_election/_2.html

TheScreamingEagles

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - should have been returned to their lawful owners and that the Abolition acts in the North should have been struck down. But even Taney wouldn't go that far (though the fact that a future Court *might* must have been a factor in the North's thinking and in the rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Why are (hypothetical) free States necessarily under any obligation to return slaves, or give any assistance?

Why are (real) abortion States not under more pressure to refuse out-of-towners?

Isn’t this where Full Faith and Credit kicks in?

TheScreamingEagles

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Bush vs Gore was pretty bizarre, and debated from both sides here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/the_supreme_court_and_the_2000_election/_2.html

SCOTUS got the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

DecrepitJohnL

Richard_Tyndall said:

Completely OT but are there really people out there who are moaning about the ethnic background of the person who composes the music for Dr Who? Now I know we Sci Fi buffs are sometimes told we need to get a life but this takes it to a whole new level.

Sometimes quoting Trump is the only reasonable response.

Sad. So sad.

The link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/angry-doctor-hiring-black-composer-dont-understand-show/

I don't know. Are there? I read your linked article and then had a quick skim through Digital Spy's Doctor Who forums but could find no such complaints. I dare say there might be one or two else why write the column but with openly gay characters and now a (trans?) lady doctor, I'd not have thought many would be upset by the colour of the new composer's skin. If he buggers up the theme tune, perhaps, but the last version was a bit iffy so anything might be an improvement.

HYUFD

The_Apocalypse said:

At the way things are going in the US Dem voters should start inquiring how to move to Canada. I don’t see Trump’s nominee not getting confirmed.

However conservative the new Justice is they are not going to mandate Massachusetts, New York and California and Oregon ban gay marriage and abortion.

Not all of Canada is Liberal either, Alberta for example is very conservative and would almost certainly have voted for Trump if it was in the USA

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Bush vs Gore was pretty bizarre, and debated from both sides here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/the_supreme_court_and_the_2000_election/_2.html

SCOTUS got the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

The reasoning was certainly shaky enough for the SC to warn it should not be taken as a precedent.

rottenborough

In case anyone else missed this overnight. Farage being investigated by Robert Mueller’s team.

https://hillreporter.com/mueller-probe-is-now-eyeing-pro-brexit-ukip-member-nigel-farage-3209

Alistair

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

At the way things are going in the US Dem voters should start inquiring how to move to Canada. I don’t see Trump’s nominee not getting confirmed.

Surely it is not getting to The Handmaid's Tale type territory ?

Funny you should mention that

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

Obviously the role of handmaids is different here but you know...

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

This would be the politically advantageous position to be taking even if he planned to support a second referendum, because the way to keep everybody in the tent is to be non-committal throughout the negotiation then be shocked, shocked at how terrible the ultimate deal is and how it betrays the hard-working British voters who set a clear democratic mandate for having cake and eating it.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Ironically, it's not just an egregious decision because of what it said, and how it got there, it's also a legally rotten decision because having got there, it then (understandably) flinched at the logic of its own position. If blacks could not be citizens then it should have logically followed that they couldn't be legally emancipated and as such, all (previously) free blacks in the country - including the North - he rise of the Republican Party).

It showed that free States and slave States can't coexist in the same country. The logic of banning slavery in your own territory must be that slavery is wrong everywhere.

Doesn't the same logic apply to abortion?

Or the death penalty?

I think not so much. It's intolerable for free States to have to return slaves to slave States, and to give assistance to slave-catchers, or to enforce contracts for the purchase and sale of slaves, or to allow their own citizens to profit from slave labour.

In the case of abortion and the death penalty, States that oppose these things aren't being required to facilitate them.

Why are (hypothetical) free States necessarily under any obligation to return slaves, or give any assistance?

Why are (real) abortion States not under more pressure to refuse out-of-towners?

Isn’t this where Full Faith and Credit kicks in?

There would be loads of legal/ethical dilemmas.

If a citizen of Massachussets sells a slave-run plantation in Virginia to another citizen of Massachusetts, would a Massachusetts court uphold the contract?

If said citizen borrows from a Boston bank to buy the plantation, and defaults, does the Court allow the bank to enforce the security?

If he dies, willing the plantation to a relative in Massachusetts, will the relative be able to obtain probate?

And so on.

Alistair

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

[snip].

On Roe, I think TSE's point is right. There will not be an outright reversal but it will be eroded at the state level, which most Republicans control

Never underestimate the capacity of the Supreme Court to come up with a shocker, particularly on a contentious issue, and particularly when there's the possibility of a cadre of judges getting into a form of group confirmation bias and reinforcing - and taking further - each others' opinions.

I'm sure I don't need to cite the worst example but it's not the only such one.

I still shudder at the Dred Scott case.

Bush vs Gore was pretty bizarre, and debated from both sides here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/the_supreme_court_and_the_2000_election/_2.html

The Conservtive justices knew the ruling they were making was so shit they made it non binding.

Scalia's Originalist philosophy bullshit was shown up for the flagrant hypocrisy it was when he concurred with the decision.

FrancisUrquhart

Edward Snowden describes Russian government as corrupt

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowden-describes-russian-government-as-corrupt

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1013025780258000896

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1013025780258000896

This Fraser Nelson?

https://twitter.com/someotheralex/status/1012793322518253568?s=21

AndyJS

OchEye said:

From the London Review of Books, an interesting view of UK now from 2008, long read but I think worth it...

"After the Fall
John Lanchester
Some of the more pessimistic commentators at the time of the credit crunch, myself included, said that the aftermath of the crash would dominate our economic and political lives for at least ten years. What I wasn’t expecting – what I don’t think anyone was expecting – was that ten years would go by quite so fast. At the start of 2008, Gordon Brown was prime minister of the United Kingdom, George W. Bush was president of the United States, and only politics wonks had ever heard of the junior senator from Illinois; Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France, Hu Jintao was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, MySpace was the biggest social network, and the central bank interest rate in the UK was 5.5 per cent."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n13/john-lanchester/after-the-fall

"Just as grim, life expectancy has stagnated too, which is all the more shocking because it is entirely unexpected. According to the Continuous Mortality Investigation, life expectancy for a 45-year-old man has declined from an anticipated 43 years of extra life to 42, for a 45-year-old woman from 45.1 more years to 44. There’s a decline for pensioners too. We had gained ten years of extra life since 1960, and we’ve just given one year back."

Morris_Dancer

F1: no tip but a short preamble to qualifying:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/austria-pre-qualifying-2018.html

Sandpit

FrancisUrquhart said:

Edward Snowden describes Russian government as corrupt

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowden-describes-russian-government-as-corrupt

That’s somewhat, err, brave, of him, given that Russia gave him asylum and his own country among many wants to lock him up and throw away the key!

HYUFD

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1012893875093073920

Corbyn was quite clear on Thursday night he opposed a second referendum and also that a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

This would be the politically advantageous position to be taking even if he planned to support a second referendum, because the way to keep everybody in the tent is to be non-committal throughout the negotiation then be shocked, shocked at how terrible the ultimate deal is and how it betrays the hard-working British voters who set a clear democratic mandate for having cake and eating it.

That still does not mean Corbyn would back a referendum even after any deal especially as staying in the EU and reversing the Leave vote means staying in the single market which he is ideologically opposed too and keeping free movement which working class Leave voters in Labour Leave seats oppose

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1013025780258000896

This Fraser Nelson?

And this one.

https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/821969386374332416

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

There would be loads of legal/ethical dilemmas.

If a citizen of Massachussets sells a slave-run plantation in Virginia to another citizen of Massachusetts, would a Massachusetts court uphold the contract?

If said citizen borrows from a Boston bank to buy the plantation, and defaults, does the Court allow the bank to enforce the security?

If he dies, willing the plantation to a relative in Massachusetts, will the relative be able to obtain probate?

And so on.

The other problem would be if the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a contradictory judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.