Unusually, I disagree with much of the thrust of a DH posting.
It's not Trump voters (a sub set of the Republican coalition)that senators fear. As David points out the whole Republican base wants Kavanaugh nomination approved and therefore Republican senators naturally reflect that.
That is because, as Susan Collins said, the allegations made didn't hold water. Even Dr Ford's best friend repeatedly refused to corroborate them, including during the most recent FBI investigation.
Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.
Where I do agree with David Herdson is that the evangelicals are solidly behind Trump. Mike Pence buttresses that element of support and on an almost weekly basis the Trump administration espouses the pro-life position - just this week with regards to the rights of Downs Syndrome people.
A lot of the older American Democrats I know see Trump as a buffoon but fear any movement for impeachment as it would mean Pence becoming President,
The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population
Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.
Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?
The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?
The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent. What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?
We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.
The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?
The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent. What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?
We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.
The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
I had the details wrong in my memory, but 41 votes used to be enough to prevent a nomination if the 41 felt strongly enough to filibuster.
But what had Gorsuch done that was so wrong, other than obviously having a right wing outlook on the US legal world ?
The Democrats would have been better off saving their filibuster for Kavanaugh..
My point wasn't about Gorsuch, but that the super-majority meant that more of the Senate had to acquiesce, if not approve, a confirmation, so the argument about a minority of voters imposing their will on the majority was less of an issue.
That said, Democrats could not forgive Gorsuch for not being Garland. The Republican refusal to consider Garland's nomination was a monumental abuse of power. The best thing you can say about it is that Republican voters approved of those actions and at least the bitter divides in American society are playing out in ruthless procedural battles in Congress and the Courts rather than in civil warfare.
Unusually, I disagree with much of the thrust of a DH posting.
It's not Trump voters (a sub set of the Republican coalition)that senators fear. As David points out the whole Republican base wants Kavanaugh nomination approved and therefore Republican senators naturally reflect that.
That is because, as Susan Collins said, the allegations made didn't hold water. Even Dr Ford's best friend repeatedly refused to corroborate them, including during the most recent FBI investigation.
Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.
Where I do agree with David Herdson is that the evangelicals are solidly behind Trump. Mike Pence buttresses that element of support and on an almost weekly basis the Trump administration espouses the pro-life position - just this week with regards to the rights of Downs Syndrome people.
A lot of the older American Democrats I know see Trump as a buffoon but fear any movement for impeachment as it would mean Pence becoming President,
Very sensible. One of the disadvantages of mass communication is that people seek for instant solutions rather than taking a longer view. A bit like voting for Brexit to ‘stop immigration’ when in fact it could lead to more, albeit different.
But what had Gorsuch done that was so wrong, other than obviously having a right wing outlook on the US legal world ?
The Democrats would have been better off saving their filibuster for Kavanaugh..
And it would still have been nuked and Kavanaugh would still have been confirmed.
Gorsuch is a straight partisan hack, an intellectual lightweight (for the SCOTUS). I've read some of his decisions on contraversial issues and they leave me underwhelmed, especially on the topic of undue burdens for medical facilities that perform abortions.
He was also not Merrick Garland. That was the main reason for the filibuster.
I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.
Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
That’s because you have a cultural aversion to judge-made common law.
No, no, this is not a correct analogy at all. Judges made common law in the UK but this never involved taking away power from Parliament to legislate to institute a new law which modified or overturned common law.
The USSC claim incorrectly that abortion is protected by the constitution thus barring any ability for the legislature to make democratically derived laws on the subject. That is nothing like common law. That is unelected judges trying to legislate from the bench. However much I agree that abortion should be available, that is simply wrong. There is no good Democrats complaining that Trump appointed judges will now overturn things that they hold dear when they were happy for them to behave this way when it suited them.
This, as usual, is a very good piece by David and I would agree with a lot of what he says. Where I have a problem is seeing the Democrats electing someone vaguely moderate enough to make a credible candidate. All the names being mentioned so far are falling over themselves to be more radical and anti-Trump. Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian, Booker and Harris have seemed like idiots in the SC nomination process and moderate voices are being drowned out.
Also, one thing to look out for in the California Senate race. I have seen a lot of comments posted where Republicans say they will vote for De Leon to punish Feinstein for her handling of the Blasey Ford allegations. She is consistently below 50% with a large percentage undecided. If CA Republicans choose to punish her, that might be enough to tip the balance to De Leon.
Yes, because the Democrats were going to filibuster the nomination. I'm guessing this most recent round of politisication started with Merrick Garland, but looking back there seem to be longish periods of almost unanimity (Clinton era), interspersed with controversial and close appointments right back through US history
Nathan Clifford's appointment in 1858 being the earliest example (26-23).
Garland/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh might have poisoned the well for a while now though.
The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population
Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.
Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?
The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?
The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent. What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?
We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.
The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.
Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
That’s because you have a cultural aversion to judge-made common law.
No, no, this is not a correct analogy at all. Judges made common law in the UK but this never involved taking away power from Parliament to legislate to institute a new law which modified or overturned common law.
The USSC claim incorrectly that abortion is protected by the constitution thus barring any ability for the legislature to make democratically derived laws on the subject. That is nothing like common law. That is unelected judges trying to legislate from the bench. However much I agree that abortion should be available, that is simply wrong. There is no good Democrats complaining that Trump appointed judges will now overturn things that they hold dear when they were happy for them to behave this way when it suited them.
Why is it incorrect? To save some back and forth try and come up with an argument that doesn't also allow states to make getting medical treatment illegal.
Wasn't it the Democrats who got rid of the 60 vote rule? Mitch McConnell said at the time they would be sorry.
Fact check:
'Partially true'
Eliminating the filibuster for presidential nominees
In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.
Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Personally I'm hoping Avenatti runs in the Democrat primaries
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
I
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
Those progressive measures carried out in the past seem a bit less clever. The problem with those who refer to themselves as 'Progressives', they assume that their version of progress is the same as everyone else's. What can be done can be undone. Cheer on an activist supreme court bypassing the legislature when you agree with what they are doing and care less about the process... Guess what, two can play that game. Remember what Trump supporters have worked out is that when it comes to Identity Politics, they will win. There's more of them and the rules are there for everyone to see now.
IP falls apart when the majority group work it out.
If the Brexit campaign taught us anything it must be this.
The campaign wasn't won on Sovereignty, or trade, or economics of any sort; it was won on "how much do you hate immigrants", which is what lots of people care about
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Is there any past evidence of Justices moderating their stances on some issues when they become seen as "swing votes" on the SCOTUS? ie. is there ever any level of self correction in the general balance of the court?
Do you not regard it as a possibility that someone could campaign on popular issues, get elected, and notbe like Hitler?
Indeed, but the premise is get elected as a populist.
How many populist election winners have turned out not be total dicks?
I don't think populist really means anything, people can define it any way they like.
No. Populism certainly has a set of characteristics as a definition, but its generally now seen as someone who presents a series of popular measures that you personally disagree with.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Obama claimed to be black, didnt do him any harm.
There are more Black American voters than Native American one, IIRC!
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
That’s because you have a cultural aversion to judge-made common law.
No, no, this is not a correct analogy at all. Judges made common law in the UK but this never involved taking away power from Parliament to legislate to institute a new law which modified or overturned common law.
The USSC claim incorrectly that abortion is protected by the constitution thus barring any ability for the legislature to make democratically derived laws on the subject. That is nothing like common law. That is unelected judges trying to legislate from the bench. However much I agree that abortion should be available, that is simply wrong. There is no good Democrats complaining that Trump appointed judges will now overturn things that they hold dear when they were happy for them to behave this way when it suited them.
Why is it incorrect? To save some back and forth try and come up with an argument that doesn't also allow states to make getting medical treatment illegal.
I can't make that argument because it is not the legal position in America. The US is a federation of sovereign states. They retain all powers except for those delegated upwards to the Federal Government. Abortion is not one of these powers. Roe v Wade overcomes this by creating a legal fiction of an implied constitutional right. It may produce the right result, but you must be able to appreciate that if they can magic up rights in one place they can do it somewhere else where you will be much less happy.
The states do have the right to legislate and control abortion. I am not a fan of the US Constitution - I think it is totally flawed. But US citizens need to change it if they don't like it. Unelected Judges making it up as they go along is not the answer.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
And if Garland had replaced Scalia would it have been okay if even with electoral support no conservative measure had survived a Supreme court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years ?
Not to forget that Thomas is 70 and Alito is 68 - are you expecting them to stay on the court until they're centenarians ?
Do you not regard it as a possibility that someone could campaign on popular issues, get elected, and notbe like Hitler?
Indeed, but the premise is get elected as a populist.
How many populist election winners have turned out not be total dicks?
I don't think populist really means anything, people can define it any way they like.
No. Populism certainly has a set of characteristics as a definition, but its generally now seen as someone who presents a series of popular measures that you personally disagree with.
I don't think that counters what I actually mean - many things have an actual definition, but gets used so widely and loosely as a political attack as to become pretty meaningless.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
And if Garland had replaced Scalia would it have been okay if even with electoral support no conservative measure had survived a Supreme court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years ?
Not to forget that Thomas is 70 and Alito is 68 - are you expecting them to stay on the court until they're centenarians ?
Garland was specifically named as an excellent Justice perfect for the Supreme Court by Republican Senators when Scalia died.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
And if Garland had replaced Scalia would it have been okay if even with electoral support no conservative measure had survived a Supreme court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years ?
30 years is clearly hyperbole - but Garland is a true centrist, unlikely to block any but the most objectionable legislation, from whichever side it originates.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
That’s the problem with Brexit isn’t it; people were voting ‘out’ for a number of different reasons, and ‘in’ for a number of other reasons.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
And if Garland had replaced Scalia would it have been okay if even with electoral support no conservative measure had survived a Supreme court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years ?
30 years is clearly hyperbole - but Garland is a true centrist, unlikely to block any but the most objectionable legislation, from whichever side it originates.
He’s also 65.
Garland being nominated to replace Ginsburg would be amusing.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Obama claimed to be black, didnt do him any harm.
There are more Black American voters than Native American one, IIRC!
Sad really, when you think about it.
Hence Churchill's merited riposte to an American society hostess in the 1930s:
"Mr Churchill - what are you going to do about your Indians?"
Is there any past evidence of Justices moderating their stances on some issues when they become seen as "swing votes" on the SCOTUS? ie. is there ever any level of self correction in the general balance of the court?
Yes, there is (on both sides). But not among the partisans or ideologues (which on the right include Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh). And two of those are likely perjurers.
That Roberts is now the swing vote is amusing in a slightly perverse way.
King Cole, that's legitimate. It's also very odd, when you think about it, that the Government proposed a referendum on something it didn't want to happen. And then didn't either itself or have another body put together an alternative to the status quo.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
Obama claimed to be black, didnt do him any harm.
There are more Black American voters than Native American one, IIRC!
Sad really, when you think about it.
Hence Churchill's merited riposte to an American society hostess in the 1930s:
"Mr Churchill - what are you going to do about your Indians?"
"Least ways, madam, not what you did with yours."
LOL. I always wonder at the hypocrisy of Trump et al when railing against ‘immigrants’ and the effect on ‘their country’!
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
And if Garland had replaced Scalia would it have been okay if even with electoral support no conservative measure had survived a Supreme court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years ?
30 years is clearly hyperbole - but Garland is a true centrist, unlikely to block any but the most objectionable legislation, from whichever side it originates.
He’s also 65.
Garland being nominated to replace Ginsburg would be amusing.
Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.
However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid
Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.
No he doesn't: campaign on stuff most people care about and they might win. That's how it works is nonsense because of course Clinton did win the popular vote by 3 million.
Clinton failed because her campaign team did not understand the rules, and chose not to campaign in the rustbelt states. What is unforgivable is that the same candidate and the same team made exactly the same mistake a decade earlier when losing the nomination to Obama.
ETA: the reason we can make money betting on politics is that so many people engaged in politics know damn all about politics!
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
That’s the problem with Brexit isn’t it; people were voting ‘out’ for a number of different reasons, and ‘in’ for a number of other reasons.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
The number of incompetent election campaigns in recent years also includes the Conservatives in 2017, Labour in 2015, the non Corbyn Labour leadership campaigns and YEStoAV.
Aside from their incompetence in office, our current politicians aren't even competent at being politicians.
King Cole, that's legitimate. It's also very odd, when you think about it, that the Government proposed a referendum on something it didn't want to happen. And then didn't either itself or have another body put together an alternative to the status quo.
Indeed. I was very surprised that the body which did the work in 1975 didn’t, or wasn’t called upon to, do the same in 2016. IIRC in 1975 it was both organised and effective,
Mr. JohnL, a good point that general media should've made more strongly. For all the division and culture wars, Clinton lost because she made idiotic campaigning choices and decided in a tight election to call half the electorate a 'basket of deplorables'. It was hers to lose, and she duly lost it.
King Cole, I do wonder if it was just another case of lazy complacency from Cameron.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
That’s the problem with Brexit isn’t it; people were voting ‘out’ for a number of different reasons, and ‘in’ for a number of other reasons.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
The number of incompetent election campaigns in recent years also includes the Conservatives in 2017, Labour in 2015, the non Corbyn Labour leadership campaigns and YEStoAV.
Aside from their incompetence in office, our current politicians aren't even competent at being politicians.
Agree. Of course YestoAv was sabotaged by a) not being a very good idea and b) the people who were supposed to be at best neutral... Cameron and Co...... being actively opposed.
This, as usual, is a very good piece by David and I would agree with a lot of what he says. Where I have a problem is seeing the Democrats electing someone vaguely moderate enough to make a credible candidate. All the names being mentioned so far are falling over themselves to be more radical and anti-Trump. Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian, Booker and Harris have seemed like idiots in the SC nomination process and moderate voices are being drowned out.
Also, one thing to look out for in the California Senate race. I have seen a lot of comments posted where Republicans say they will vote for De Leon to punish Feinstein for her handling of the Blasey Ford allegations. She is consistently below 50% with a large percentage undecided. If CA Republicans choose to punish her, that might be enough to tip the balance to De Leon.
Booker and Harris seemed to be making excellent cases that Kavanaugh's nomination was corrupt but all that got lost in the decades old he said/she said sex assault allegations.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
That’s the problem with Brexit isn’t it; people were voting ‘out’ for a number of different reasons, and ‘in’ for a number of other reasons.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
The number of incompetent election campaigns in recent years also includes the Conservatives in 2017, Labour in 2015, the non Corbyn Labour leadership campaigns and YEStoAV.
Aside from their incompetence in office, our current politicians aren't even competent at being politicians.
It's all a party with a political class that routinely operates on the basis of half-formed opinions/policy positions and (at best) justified on the basis of 'evidence' specifically selected to justify their opinions. Policy based evidence making, if you like. This extends to political campaigns which are conducted on the basis of how what they think will motivate (electorally significant numbers of) voters to support them, rather than what will actually motivate them.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
That’s the problem with Brexit isn’t it; people were voting ‘out’ for a number of different reasons, and ‘in’ for a number of other reasons.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
The number of incompetent election campaigns in recent years also includes the Conservatives in 2017, Labour in 2015, the non Corbyn Labour leadership campaigns and YEStoAV.
Aside from their incompetence in office, our current politicians aren't even competent at being politicians.
Worth remembering that right up until Sunderland declared, the Leave campaign wasn’t held in high regard.
If the Brexit campaign taught us anything it must be this.
The campaign wasn't won on Sovereignty, or trade, or economics of any sort; it was won on "how much do you hate immigrants", which is what lots of people care about
What people care about is a moving feast.
At GEs people generally move towards "sensible" concerns, like the economy, cost of living, unemployment, the NHS etc.
Mr. JohnL, a good point that general media should've made more strongly. For all the division and culture wars, Clinton lost because she made idiotic campaigning choices and decided in a tight election to call half the electorate a 'basket of deplorables'. It was hers to lose, and she duly lost it.
King Cole, I do wonder if it was just another case of lazy complacency from Cameron.
Indeed; Cameron made a very good speech to the Tory Conference which won him the leadership, and never having to have really scrapped for anything he did well in the 2010 election. Clegg gifted him the PM’s job; a fully fit Charlie Kennedy would have done a great deal better, and probably as I’ve said before would have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian
The Pocahontas angle is funny but it strikes me as pretty much the most underwhelming political dirt in the history of ever, is there any evidence that it bothers the voters?
It's less than fuck all compared to the baggage that came with Trump.
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.
Yup, campaign on populist rhetoric and get democratically elected.
Like Hitler...
Yet he never actually did win an election.
Technically did if you claim May won last years election. Technically didn’t need to win outright to take control of a democracy being the more interesting point. Similar is embarrassingly undramatic capture of the winter palace by the Bolsheviks 2017, they just tentatively walked in.
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
I'm curious what they think the purpose of taxation is.
Scrolling down the thread, somebody is making the argument that the government could just print money to cover the cost of spending, so they say that the purpose of taxation is to prevent the inflation that the money-printing would cause
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
That's not what Hodge said. Reread his Tweet and try again.
Hodges playing stats for hits again. Trumpton’s approvals have moved from total shite to 99.9% shite. As HYUFD rightly points out, they remain at historically low levels.
Dems have thrown away their enthusiasm gap advantage on this failed attempt.
I think this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If they hadn't put up much resistance to the nomination, the enthusiasm gap would have closed the other way, by Dem voters becoming less enthused
I think their hope now is that the anger of their voters that Kavanaugh is nominated will be more enduring than the anger of GOP voters that they tried to block it (which I'm very dubious about), plus that the extremely fast news cycle in the US will have moved on by election day.
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
That's not what Hodge said. Reread his Tweet and try again.
Hodges playing stats for hits again. Trumpton’s approvals have moved from total shite to 99.9% shite. As HYUFD rightly points out, they remain at historically low levels.
The big question right now in US politics is what effect the Kavanaugh saga will have on the midterms. I don't think it's too unreasonable to use movement in Trump's approval ratings as one proxy measure of that.
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
That's not what Hodge said. Reread his Tweet and try again.
Hodges playing stats for hits again. Trumpton’s approvals have moved from total shite to 99.9% shite. As HYUFD rightly points out, they remain at historically low levels.
The big question right now in US politics is what effect the Kavanaugh saga will have on the midterms. I don't think it's too unreasonable to use movement in Trump's approval ratings as one proxy measure of that.
Well they are currently at the level they were in late August. So a shiftette back but frankly very poor regardless.
F1: well, that's frustrating. I was just about to post early so the price would stay the same, but it's changed.
Anyway, backed Leclerc at 17 (19 with boost) each way to be the winner outside the big 6. He's now 13. Still value, I think.
Also, with a tiny stake (not a 'proper' tip, so won't count in the records) I've backed Toro Rosso to top score at 751 (901 with boost). Bear with me. There's every chance one or both Red Bulls will break down. If Raikkonen or Vettel collides with a Mercedes (again) then suddenly the chaps starting 5th and 6th have a very real chance of just edging into top scoring positions. The Toro Rosso pace, whilst a shade off Haas and Sauber, is not a mirage. I'm not saying this is likely, but if you've got ten pence or a pound to fritter on a long odds but value bet, this is a good place to put it.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
That's not what Hodge said. Reread his Tweet and try again.
He suggested the GOP's chances of taking the House have improved, based on the evidence of Bill Clinton's approval rating in 1994 they have not to any significant degree
Have they? Trump's approval rating according to Gallup is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama's, George W Bush's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, Jimmy Carter's, Richard Nixon's, JFK's and IKE's. Only Reagan had a worse approval rating at this stage.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
That's not what Hodge said. Reread his Tweet and try again.
Hodges playing stats for hits again. Trumpton’s approvals have moved from total shite to 99.9% shite. As HYUFD rightly points out, they remain at historically low levels.
Had he been more candid about his sniphat happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.
I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
The whole point of the Kavanaugh nomination and the theft of the Gorsich seat is that even with electoral support, no progressive measure will survive a Supreme Court judgement on it being constitutional... for the next 30 odd years
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
Exactly. And this why the tweet that Iain Martin is responding to is not ‘hysterical.’
This, as usual, is a very good piece by David and I would agree with a lot of what he says. Where I have a problem is seeing the Democrats electing someone vaguely moderate enough to make a credible candidate. All the names being mentioned so far are falling over themselves to be more radical and anti-Trump. Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian, Booker and Harris have seemed like idiots in the SC nomination process and moderate voices are being drowned out.
Also, one thing to look out for in the California Senate race. I have seen a lot of comments posted where Republicans say they will vote for De Leon to punish Feinstein for her handling of the Blasey Ford allegations. She is consistently below 50% with a large percentage undecided. If CA Republicans choose to punish her, that might be enough to tip the balance to De Leon.
Booker and Harris seemed to be making excellent cases that Kavanaugh's nomination was corrupt but all that got lost in the decades old he said/she said sex assault allegations.
I thought Booker and Harris - especially the latter - were excellent in the hearings. I didn’t think much of Harris before, but she has definitely gone up in my estimation.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
Yes, hardly Mrs May's party for everyone! but we knew that was cant already.
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
I'm curious what they think the purpose of taxation is.
Scrolling down the thread, somebody is making the argument that the government could just print money to cover the cost of spending, so they say that the purpose of taxation is to prevent the inflation that the money-printing would cause
Ah, the joys of MMT ("Modern Monetary Theory", often misused by proponents as "Magic Money Tree")
In short, if you look at sovereign entities printing money from a different angle, you can have it so that instead of:
Viewpoint One: traditional: We get taxation and borrowing in, and we use the value we get to spend value on public spending (and use the public spending angle as the injection method for currency into the world, but if you print more than you receive (monetising debt), you get inflation (because you've merely increased the amount of currency rather than, you know, the value that the currency represents so the amount of value represented by each unit of currency has to fall by simple arithmetic)
You get Viewpoint Two: MMT We inject currency into the world as part of our public spending but need to balance it with taxation-and-borrowing, otherwise we get inflation (for the exact same reason)...
Which seems a pretty pointless reframing, except that if you scan over it quickly and omit the second half, you can say "you get spending from injecting currency" and skip mentioning the need for the taxation bit to balance it.
So - yeah. You get those who want something from nothing loudly proclaiming that MMT gives them just that.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
I think it's a terrible view as does Clarence Thomas otherwise he'd view restrictions on weapons using smokeless powder (another thing not mentioned by the constitution) to be perfectly legitimate.
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
I think that you have been reading too much dystopian fiction and treating it as fact.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
Really ?
Is there anything about LoR's previous posts that makes you think they are being serious
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Indeed. It's almost a religious belief in the founders.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
I think it's a terrible view as does Clarence Thomas otherwise he'd view restrictions on weapons using smokeless powder (another thing not mentioned by the constitution) to be perfectly legitimate.
Sorry, I am not sure I understand that. I did disagree with your post earlier that we will see Conservative activism in the new Court. What we will see is the opposite. The Court will restrict the scope of activism at the Federal level. This may irritate Trump from time to time but it is likely to infuriate a Democratic Congress and the next Democratic President.
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
The US constitution does not 'stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs'. It explicitly allows for the Constitution to grow, by the procedure of the Constitutional amendment, which has occurred 27 times to date. However, to elevate a law to be part of the Constitution, it imposes a higher hurdle than 50%+1.
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the EU constitution Lisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.
Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
+1
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Indeed. It's almost a religious belief in the founders.
A literal belief in the wording of centuries old documents is rarely a foundation for dealing sensibly with the problems of today.
Comments
How many populist election winners have turned out not be total dicks?
That said, Democrats could not forgive Gorsuch for not being Garland. The Republican refusal to consider Garland's nomination was a monumental abuse of power. The best thing you can say about it is that Republican voters approved of those actions and at least the bitter divides in American society are playing out in ruthless procedural battles in Congress and the Courts rather than in civil warfare.
A bit like voting for Brexit to ‘stop immigration’ when in fact it could lead to more, albeit different.
Gorsuch is a straight partisan hack, an intellectual lightweight (for the SCOTUS). I've read some of his decisions on contraversial issues and they leave me underwhelmed, especially on the topic of undue burdens for medical facilities that perform abortions.
He was also not Merrick Garland. That was the main reason for the filibuster.
The USSC claim incorrectly that abortion is protected by the constitution thus barring any ability for the legislature to make democratically derived laws on the subject. That is nothing like common law. That is unelected judges trying to legislate from the bench. However much I agree that abortion should be available, that is simply wrong. There is no good Democrats complaining that Trump appointed judges will now overturn things that they hold dear when they were happy for them to behave this way when it suited them.
Also, one thing to look out for in the California Senate race. I have seen a lot of comments posted where Republicans say they will vote for De Leon to punish Feinstein for her handling of the Blasey Ford allegations. She is consistently below 50% with a large percentage undecided. If CA Republicans choose to punish her, that might be enough to tip the balance to De Leon.
Nathan Clifford's appointment in 1858 being the earliest example (26-23).
Garland/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh might have poisoned the well for a while now though.
To save some back and forth try and come up with an argument that doesn't also allow states to make getting medical treatment illegal.
'Partially true'
Eliminating the filibuster for presidential nominees
In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.
Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271
This is what Trump means when he talks about the job being done in his first term.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-4-potential-nominees-would-change-the-supreme-court/
The successors to Ginsburg and Breyer are key, though Thomas has served for a long time now too.
IP falls apart when the majority group work it out.
"campaign on stuff most people care about" sounds great, except...
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1048516245056831488
If the Brexit campaign taught us anything it must be this.
The campaign wasn't won on Sovereignty, or trade, or economics of any sort; it was won on "how much do you hate immigrants", which is what lots of people care about
Sad really, when you think about it.
The states do have the right to legislate and control abortion. I am not a fan of the US Constitution - I think it is totally flawed. But US citizens need to change it if they don't like it. Unelected Judges making it up as they go along is not the answer.
Not to forget that Thomas is 70 and Alito is 68 - are you expecting them to stay on the court until they're centenarians ?
It would be very difficult for the Dems to block a Garland appointment but it would still shift the SC a little bit rightwards.
You seem keen to state speak for people with whom you disagree and whose views you never shared.
I was voting against an ever greater degree of integration, steps on the road to a United States of Europe. Migration didn't come into it a jot.
As for 'hating foreigners', that's certainly a cheap shot at people with genuine concerns about the very large scale migration that's occurred in recent years. I'd also repeat what I've said before, namely that integration is probably even more important than numbers. People would be more relaxed about migration if the Establishment weren't more worried about 'cultural sensitivities' than hundreds of working class white kids being raped.
On the EU, if the political class had kept its promise on Lisbon we could've applied brakes then, instead of having to leave the vehicle altogether. It turns out reneging on manifesto promises doesn't necessarily engender trust in the democratic process.
He’s also 65.
And the ‘debate’ was, as I’ve posted before, IMHO marked by one of the most incompetent political campaigns I’ve ever seen on one side and one, if not the, most dishonest on the other.
And I’ve active in politics and interested in the mechanics of elections, since I was about 16.
"Mr Churchill - what are you going to do about your Indians?"
"Least ways, madam, not what you did with yours."
But not among the partisans or ideologues (which on the right include Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh). And two of those are likely perjurers.
That Roberts is now the swing vote is amusing in a slightly perverse way.
Clinton failed because her campaign team did not understand the rules, and chose not to campaign in the rustbelt states. What is unforgivable is that the same candidate and the same team made exactly the same mistake a decade earlier when losing the nomination to Obama.
ETA: the reason we can make money betting on politics is that so many people engaged in politics know damn all about politics!
Aside from their incompetence in office, our current politicians aren't even competent at being politicians.
IIRC in 1975 it was both organised and effective,
King Cole, I do wonder if it was just another case of lazy complacency from Cameron.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/06/juncker-criticises-british-media-and-urges-limits-to-press-freedom
At GEs people generally move towards "sensible" concerns, like the economy, cost of living, unemployment, the NHS etc.
A merry foreign politician wanting to restrict British press freedom is not an edifying spectacle.
Edited extra bit: changed 'foreigner' to 'foreign politician'.
https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1048518505753141248
Glad I checked that, as I was looking at 15 for him to be the winner outside the big 6.
Even Bill Clinton's rating was 2% higher than Trump's currently is and Clinton's Democrats got thumped in the 1994 midterms losing both the House and Senate
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6246775/Millions-British-families-lose-200-month-Universal-Credit-benefits-changes.html
Exit: or they're a Russian troll.
I think their hope now is that the anger of their voters that Kavanaugh is nominated will be more enduring than the anger of GOP voters that they tried to block it (which I'm very dubious about), plus that the extremely fast news cycle in the US will have moved on by election day.
Anyway, backed Leclerc at 17 (19 with boost) each way to be the winner outside the big 6. He's now 13. Still value, I think.
Also, with a tiny stake (not a 'proper' tip, so won't count in the records) I've backed Toro Rosso to top score at 751 (901 with boost). Bear with me. There's every chance one or both Red Bulls will break down. If Raikkonen or Vettel collides with a Mercedes (again) then suddenly the chaps starting 5th and 6th have a very real chance of just edging into top scoring positions. The Toro Rosso pace, whilst a shade off Haas and Sauber, is not a mirage. I'm not saying this is likely, but if you've got ten pence or a pound to fritter on a long odds but value bet, this is a good place to put it.
Pre-race tosh will be up shortly.
What are “benefit debts”?
Betting PostF1: pre-race ramble for Japan up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-pre-race-2018.html
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
In short, if you look at sovereign entities printing money from a different angle, you can have it so that instead of:
Viewpoint One: traditional: We get taxation and borrowing in, and we use the value we get to spend value on public spending (and use the public spending angle as the injection method for currency into the world, but if you print more than you receive (monetising debt), you get inflation (because you've merely increased the amount of currency rather than, you know, the value that the currency represents so the amount of value represented by each unit of currency has to fall by simple arithmetic)
You get Viewpoint Two: MMT We inject currency into the world as part of our public spending but need to balance it with taxation-and-borrowing, otherwise we get inflation (for the exact same reason)...
Which seems a pretty pointless reframing, except that if you scan over it quickly and omit the second half, you can say "you get spending from injecting currency" and skip mentioning the need for the taxation bit to balance it.
So - yeah. You get those who want something from nothing loudly proclaiming that MMT gives them just that.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
The US constitution does not 'stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs'. It explicitly allows for the Constitution to grow, by the procedure of the Constitutional amendment, which has occurred 27 times to date. However, to elevate a law to be part of the Constitution, it imposes a higher hurdle than 50%+1.
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the
EU constitutionLisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.