Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - noel c.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8

This is what the FBI, and DOJ, has “nothing to add to”. :

1) The “Hunter Biden laptop“ is a Hunter Biden Laptop, not a product of Russian disinformation. The DOJ and FBI have nothing to add to that fact.

2) The “Hunter Biden e-mails“ are Hunter Biden emails, not a product of Russian disinformation. The DOJ, and FBI have nothing to add to that fact.

3) The individual who claimed that these items were the product of Russian disinformation, Adam Schiff, lied to the American people. The DOJ, and FBI, have nothing to add to that fact.

If you do not see the position of the DOJ, and FBI as a confirmation, or denial of anything, I think that you missed something.


“Ratcliffe said they had no evidence that is was a Russian disinformation campaign. He stopped short of saying they had verified the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden.”

Nobody with direct information is having reservations regarding authentication of photos, and emails, extracted from this laptop as belonging to Hunter Biden. How do you propose they got onto this harddrive?

“The FBI gave a long winded no comment.”

No, that is what they precisely did not do.

“They got their hand slapped pretty hard because of how Comey handled the Clinton investigation at this time in the last election.”

Comey eventually got his hand slapped for this, and a myriad of other issues before, and since that time, but problems with the current FBI Director’s conformance with protocol, or honesty, are not an element at play in this situation.

“This time is seems like they are trying to say nothing either way. I didn't see anything they said that validates or contradicts Ratcliffe.“

Did you see this (already linked) :

FBI & DOJ concur w/ Ratcliffe that Hunter Biden's laptop & the emails in question weren't part of a Russian disinformation campaign, The FBI DOES have possession of the Hunter Biden laptop in question... Further, A federal law enforcement officer revealed to Fox News' Martha McCallum that Biden's emails are "authentic."."


” ‘Don’t fall into the trap of believing your own press, unless it serves a need unrelated to objective awareness.‘

Good advice for everyone

My observations is that the Trump campaign is trying to replay the 2016 game plan
The release of the hacked emails = Hunter stuff. The error in the timing  is that it doesn't have the same history of traction as the Hillary's emails did. Nor did Trump have to ask the DOJ or FBI to open/reopen a investigations. 

The error in replaying 2016 is that it will only resonate with those already committed to Trump. In a sense Trump is the victim of his past success. The thing he seems to forget is that in 2020 he is running as the incumbent.

I do fully expect fox republicans to make Hunter a issue throughout a Biden administration should he win regardless of findings.

That said I still expect Trump to have 4 more years.”

It is a little early to assess “traction” given that the DOJ/FBI corroborated DNI Director John Ratcliffe’s earlier statements only yesterday. With that observation aside, I must confess some surprise. That was a candid post RL-22.


“If the goal is political damage they better hurry up. The story isn't getting much traction because it has all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign.”

The Democratic narrative has been that this is a “disinformation campaign” by Russia. You are the first person who has asserted “bad timing” on Trump’s part. Usually it is the timing specifically that is cited to discredit the photos, and emails.

“About 30 million votes have already been cast, which is probably about 20% of the electorate. And Trump needs a big move from this.”

The Democratic strategy does rely heavily upon unsolicited ballot voter fraud, and you are correct that Trump needs a big move. I personally think that his timing is spectacular.

“If they can't get the story out more broadly and without corroborating evidence or direct access to the drive the rest of the media are going to continue to ignore this story.”

The “rest of the media” is not needed, and that has been true for about a decade. Further, they “ignore“ releases at their journalistic peril.

“So right now the only people the story is reaching are Trump voters already. And as long as its a NYP/Fox news only story Trump won't get the bump he needs from whatever sandal you think you have the smoking gun evidence for.”

Don’t fall into the trap of believing your own press, unless it serves a need unrelated to objective awareness. The pathway for a President Harris will not survive this. Hilary lost the independent vote over issues of trustworthiness.


“The only reason I can see not to do so is that you are afraid that when an impartial media looks at the drive they will immediately discover much of the information on the drive is faked.”

First, aside from possibly the Christian Science Monitor, there is no “impartial media”. A long time ago I seem to recall that you believed the NYT fell into this category. It does not. My guess as to the reason for modulated release of information is to inflict maximum political damage. Up to this point Uncle Joe has refused to respond to the hard drive contents at all. Only now is he attacking the hard-drive contents with a vague, and general denials. The more specific his responses become, the more targeted will be the releases of information.


“To be clear I was responding to the claim wm made that all media outlets had a copy of the hard drive and were waiting around for other reasons to publish it. If the drive is so damning why not mail a copy to every news room in America?”

Are you operating from a presumption that the drive is genuine at this point?

The purpose of this site is not to “influence the world”, but to better understand the craziness in it.

Getting nervous Donald?


“That's far more motivated an individual than all the people who voted for Trump, and therefore it is false to drag out how many people voted for Trump to discuss this individuals reliability.“

If all you people projecting your motives onto others, who disagree with you, began to display a little more confidence in your certitude, then the captured emails will simply be proven false and disappear as a threat to your political hopes. If you are concerned that there may be something to this story, then you can still relax, because nothing that you do will stop it.


“In other words a sentiment that is motivated by retaliation. I think it is a huge stretch to make that person equivalent with every Trump voter.”

Assuming that your last post was meant to be coherent, I am assuming this is directed to me. What are you talking about?


“That is an objective fact.  But of course you would not admit to hyperbole in your statement.“

Hyperbole: “an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as ‘to wait an eternity.’ “

The difference between two percent, and an eternity, is what separates our concepts of hyperbole. Give it a rest msquared.


“And fortunately for the timing of the claims and the limited release of the data to only Trump friendly media outlets its unlikely for the whole story to go down in flames until after the election.”

Do you consider the FBI Baltimore Field Office a “Trump friendly media outlet”? They have possession of the original hard drive.

“Trump's people (Bannon and Rudy) saw how effective the Weiner laptop was and were trying the same play again. Or maybe they and a legally blind computer tech were duped by a foreign disinformation campaign. I mean the alleged child porn should be a giant red flag. I'm not saying Hunter is the sharpest tool in the shed but I think he's smart enough not to hand a laptop with child porn to a computer tech and then never return to get it.“

Never underestimate people’s capacity for stupidity.

“There's also the location. In 2019 when this laptop was dropped off in Delaware while Hunter was living in LA. So I'm going to say this is almost certainly fake news.”

Either the drive is his, or it is not. Speculation on Hunter’s travel history is irrelevant to that fact.

“Depending on how sophisticated the fake is will determine how long it takes to show its a fake. Was it a foreign intel set up or just a local Trump supporter out to get Biden? A foreign intelligence service could get enough authentic photo's of Hunter, hack some social media, maybe get a few authentic emails, and insert enough disinformation and fake photos and videos to make it take a while to sort out what's real and what's fake.“

You are beginning to sound neurotic. We all trust the FBI, right?


A spread of 2% in the popular vote is close enough to “half”, that to make an issue out of it indicates some lack of appreciation for how campaigning works. It is unfortunate for Hillary that you were not present to advise her. The relevance of my comment is that you do not act as if you understand the difference in importance between the electoral, and popular vote. Trump won an election that was Hillary’s to lose. Get over it.


“Personally, I would be really, really, leery about hanging my hat on any of this, because it is so questionable for so many reasons.  It makes me wonder why people are so keen on accepting it as unvarnished truth.”

Fortunately for you, and anyone else interested, the claims are subject to falsification.


“Or less than half.“

At least you understand how the electoral college works now, correct? It will be important to any candidate wanting to win the presidency.


“COVID mask concealment... you seem to be contending that Biden was wearing masks back in mid 2019.  Now that would have not only been an abundance of caution, but also impressive prescience.
CBS news interviewed Mr MacIsaac and yes, he does characterize himself as ‘legally blind’.”

It is possible I misinterpreted the audio. He clearly states that he had 100 times greater difficulty seeing faces than a year before. Legally blind does not mean functionally blind, as most people understand.

“MacIsaac, the owner, said several times how he felt Mr. Trump was treated unfairly during his impeachment trial and suggested if the alleged documents are true, the "sham" impeachment was reason to release them. He also repeatedly mentioned his girlfriend left him after he voted for Trump in 2016.
Yeah, yeah - fake news, blah, blah, blah.”

He voted for Trump! You mean like half of America? That settles it, he has to be lying.


(Noel): “What will be your position on Uncle Joe’s viability as a presidential candidate if the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt?”

(Y-22): “... honestly with everything Trump's done it doesn't even raise a flag on the scale of corruption anymore. The money is a different issue, but honestly I don't think its any more serious than any of the shady money issues Trump had. The Russian oligarch who bought a house for $50 million from Trump only to rip it down and rebuild something else.”

Leaving aside the distinguishing difference pertaining to conflicted national loyalties in the Biden story, this statement is a paradigmatic example of my problem with alleged Trump “corruption”. Without knowing anything other than what you have just written, I can say that not only is this clearly legal, but it is what property developers do. Can you conceive of a rationale behind this oligarch tearing down the structure that would enhance his investment? What non-nefarious reasons might exist for an astute business person to do precisely this?

“Trump's properties in Panama and some in New York that have been linked to money laundering for organized crime.”

Are you saying that Trump took tainted bank transfers in exchange for property? How does one know an inter-bank transfer is tainted? Unless seedy looking mafioso are hauling in mail bags of cash to escrow companies, I don’t know how this accusation could stand up.

“This story is so implausible. When Trump was making a stink about Hunter Biden and Ukraine. Hunter just happens to spill some water on a computer with incriminating evidence. Instead of going ahead and destroying the thing so the evidence goes away he decides to:
1) Take it to a blind computer repairman.
2) Leave his name but no contact info.
3) Never return to pick up the computer.
4) Then the repairman who conveniently can't identify who actually dropped the computer off because he's blind decides to peruse the computer files for old emails instead of wiping the drive and selling it off.”

Maybe you have the wrong story. It should be noted that Mr. John Paul Mac Isaac, the computer technician, did not invite these “reporters” to his shop, as is made clear in the video. He did not want to talk to them, yet they persisted.

In order:

1) Mr. Issac is not “blind”. He stated that he has a progressive medical condition affecting his eyesight which, compounded by the difficulty caused through COVID mask concealment, prevented his immediate recognition of Hunter. Honestly, I would not recognize Biden out of context, either one of them, and my eyesight is fine. I stood in the airport next to Ron Howard, and Desi Arnez Junior for ten minutes before my traveling companion pointed their presence out to me.

2) Hunter did leave contact information. That is how the technician realized who the owner was. When the contents of the solid state hard-drive from the Model 2016 MacBook Pro, (with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker over the Apple logo), were individually dragged, and dropped, during the data recovery process, legal issues were raised in the mind of the tech which he believed justified involvement by law enforcement. This was not the first time he had done so. Apparently, he previously worked as a technician for Apple Inc. directly, and reported child pornography under similar circumstances.

3) Biden was not given the option of recovering his laptop. As to his stupidity; drug addicts are not known for good judgement. This is the same Hunter Biden who only recently lost a paternity suit to Lunden Alexis Roberts, and had argued against the hearing going forward because of COVID-19, and the fact that his wife, Melissa Cohen, was pregnant. I see the trail of bad judgement that you describe as not only tenable, but predictable, with this dolt.

4) There is nothing “convenient” about data recovery. The man did exactly as Biden requested per the work-order. This ”happened” to result, of necessity, in seeing everything recovered as part of the process. Circumstances were such that “wiping the drive“, as you suggest, would have amounted to destruction of evidence. Incidentally, the original drive was liquid damaged, and not salable even if the intent was to part out the computer.

“How about you, will you be any more skeptical of the right wing propaganda machine when this is shown to be bogus? Rudy and Bannon aren't reliable sources.“

If the hard disk proves to be inauthentic, then that is the end of the discussion for me. If your assumption that fraudulent representations were made regarding it are correct, then Rudi is in huge legal trouble which, as an ex-prosecutor, I am sure he fully understands. I don’t think he is an idiot, but I have experienced greater disillusionment in my life.

My resulting disappointment would not let me go this far. :
“But if graft were proven I would just call for Biden to be impeached and say hello to President Harris.“

To vote for a person that is known to behave in a manner justifying post-electoral impeachment is just too cynical for my taste, especially if Harris cannot win on her own merits, as your putative replacement president. That would be inherently undemocratic.


“You didn't answer the question.
What would you do it this Hunter thing isn't true or can't be proved to be true?”

Nothing could be “done”, just like nothing came of that ridiculous impeachment circus last year.

Your turn...

Seriously, would you vote for a presidential candidate who concealed an ill-gotten stake in the Chinese economy?


“Is that also the reason that George W. Bush didn't release it?”

George W. Bush: born July 6, 1946 (74 years)

Parents married: January 6, 1945, at the First Presbyterian Church in Rye, New York

Not likely.


“Nothing burger
Fake news“

Is this a conclusion based upon real scrutiny, or hope?


“And what will you do when it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?  What will you do when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a forgery only intended to try to fool people like you into believing a lie... “

You expect the hard-disk to be “forged“?

“... like the whole Obama birth certificate scandal?  What will you do then, noel?”

I never bought into the Kenya birth story. The reason that Barry would not release his Long-Form birth certificate is that it contradicted his book. He was illegitimate.

... Although I think the photograph found on the drive of Hunter asleep in bed with a crack pipe is pretty compelling.


“And the only source for that is Steve Bannon. The answer is yes, I have problems with the sources.”

There is plenty of time prior to the election to verify correspondence by Hunter’s attorney, and to perform a forensic analysis of the hard drive.

What will be your position on Uncle Joe’s viability as a presidential candidate if the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt?



“What if it was a legitimate business run directly by the president's child and the scion in question asked Chinese officials and businesses for sweetheart deals because 'my father is now the President'?  Would that be any different?“

- It could if Hunter had any business experience in the energy industry. The fact that he hired an attorney to run this operation as a legal structure indicates to me that he is a cipher proxy for “the big guy”.

- It could be different if the “big guy” was not allocated a percentage of revenue according to an authenticated email.

- It could be different if Joe’s brothers, Frank and James, had not accused the father/son pair of being "grifters", and using this tag-team method of gaming the system for years.

“BTW, Noel, how many syllables are in your name?“

One syllable.

(Y-22) ”The timing is just about right for disinformation campaigns. Not long enough left in the campaign for them to be completely debunked but enough time to cause a news splash if people aren't being careful with their sources.”

(Noel) Do you have an issue with the sources?

(Y-22) ”Yes“.

Does the fact that Hunter’s attorney is demanding the return of Hunter’s hard drive persuade you of its provenance?

As an aside; it appears that the New York Post story from last week has grown legs. Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, said on Monday that Schiff's assertion that the story is “being run from the Kremlin” is unsupported by intelligence assets. You may be a victim of wishful thinking.


“Honestly given that the last story of this nature is looking to be a Russian disinformation campaign I'm unlikely to believe that Ukraine, Russia, or Rudy have access to either Hunter or Bo's old laptop computer.”

Hunter’s attorney seems to be the individual interested in retrieving the hard drive, and nobody but Joe seems to believe this 50 year old juvenile has overcome his drug habit. His situational awareness is apparently too compromised to worry about things like that.

“The timing is just about right for disinformation campaigns. Not long enough left in the campaign for them to be completely debunked but enough time to cause a news splash if people aren't being careful with their sources.”

Do you have an issue with the sources?

“But even if the story is true I think we're better off electing then impeaching Biden than keeping Trump in office.”

I think that last year’s impeachment circus cheapened a very serious corrective recourse. Beyond that, you would elect an individual who is beholden to, and blackmailable by, China?

When Donald starts doing math, look the other way.


Hillary’s fourteen point advantage was not enough in 2016.

As I see it, Biden needs another eight points to be competitive, good luck with that.  ;D


In all seriousness, have you decided? Does it matter to you if the Biden’s have made a business out of plundering through the public trough?

I think that the average voter may not be so complacent.

Little Hunter; the gift that keeps giving. :

“The Ukrainian parliamentarian said: 'The facts that confirm international corruption are stored on the second laptop. This laptop was handed over to Ukrainian law enforcement officers, and the ‘workers’ themselves are now witnesses in criminal proceedings.'
Derkach says the workers are 'ready to tell' about international corruption involving the Bidens.  He warns: 'But most importantly! These are not the last witnesses or the last laptop.’ ”


If publicity of Uncle Joe’s self-enrichment schemes is left to the major news outlets, or leftist voters, there is not a chance that this story will gain traction. Witness the reaction from this board. Fortunately the WSJ did pick it up, and waited for an ABC reaction.

Did Stephanolopus’ “moderator” function indicate any concern? :

1- COVID, will he take a vaccine by years end? Answer; “Yes, if the scientists are behind it.”
2- Taxes, will he raise taxes on the wealthy, and corporate America even if the “recovery“ continues? Answer; “Yes”.
3- Racism, Young black man asks why he should vote for Biden? Answer; “Because I am holy.”
4- Court Packing, Will Biden pack Court? Answer; “It all depends on how ‘this is handled‘ ”.
5- Chinese and Ukrainian graft... crickets...

Note: the audience bleachers are empty except for “voters” (political shills) who read their pre-rehearsed questions from cards.

Contrast this with ABC summary of Trump’s “townhall”. :

1- Were you warned about the dangers of a COVID pandemic? Answer; “No”.
2- Do you owe $400,000,000 to a foreign entity? Answer; “Not that I know of, it is a small fraction of what I am worth.”
3- Were you tested for the Corona virus on the day of the debate? Answer; “I am not tested every day, I cannot remember.”

ABC did point out, correctly, that very few people remain undecided at this point, This week’s in-person debate should address Biden’s “family business”, Sicilian style, managed by his talentless, cocaïne inhaling, dishonorably discharged, scion that uncle Joe claimed in the debate to be “proud of”... after equivocation about his dead son, Bo.

The electorate sees this.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 18, 2020, 11:37:43 AM »

“So, somehow though the writers of Amendments 13, 14 and 15 (passed in 1869) made it clear that they were not striking down "miscegenetion laws" (if they had, it wouldn't have taken a whole *censored*ing century until they were actually struck down), you're claiming that those amendment somehow did manage to strike down miscegeneration down -- but nobody noticed until 1969, a century later.“

The reconstruction amendments would have been understood by any reasonable person, of that period, as referring to unequal racial application of the law. The logic imbedded in that understanding inevitably applies to the dismantling of miscegenation laws.

And laws about ‘aberrant sexuality’ being different to laws about miscegeneration? You are arguing that wanting to have sex with people of other race isn't "aberrant sexuality"?

“How very progressive of you, but am afraid again not very originalist or textualist or constitutionalist or whatever else you may want to call it.“

Clarence Thomas would strongly disagree with you.

“As a funny aside, when I had my (now late) Greek mother watch some episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer back in the early 2000s, she seemed more taken back with Xander being willing to date a black woman in... season 7 I think it was, than with the Willow-Tara lesbian relationship. Sure gay relationships happen, but interracial relationships, who would ever do that? /s (also note that by that point Xander had also been in a relationship with a demon, and Buffy with vampires, and the lesbian relationship was a thing since season 5, but white people dating black people... well that took until season 7)“

Not being a fan of Buffy, I can only relate vicariously, but yes, people can be funny.

“I'm not familiar at all with any of those and those decisions, so I don't comment on any of those.“

Wise, and I did acknowledge that the possibility of tangential discussion was likely when I took this detour.

“You seem to have a real problem with this not actually being a private discussion between you and Donald, do you?“

I do not have a problem discussing Scalia’s judicial philosophy with you Aris, but Donald’s thread was focused upon “saving the country”, presumably from repeal, or modification of a few pet laws. His specific references were to the ACA, and Roe v. Wade. I am fine going on about sodomy if you prefer, but it is unlikely to come before ACB.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 18, 2020, 10:56:30 AM »

You are stepping in for Donald?

“How does the "Equal Protection Clause" somehow allow DOMA or laws against homosexual sodomy, but it also somehow bans state restrictions on interracial marriage?”

Per your link. :

“This is precisely the argument that was made by the state of Virginia with respect to race in Loving: blacks and whites were equally forbidden from marrying someone of a different race.”

“... men and women were equally forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.”

This is a straw-man misrepresentation of Scalia’s reasoning. He referred to the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, 15), which as a body dealt with the general classe of race/national origin, not bodily orifice preferences. :

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (14th amendment)

Justice O'Connor was not an originalist, as is clear by her conflation of miscegenation laws with aberrant sexuality.

Do you think that Donald is incapable of defending constitutional application of provisions relevant to his stated concerns of preserving the ACA, and Roe, ie. , the commerce clause, and the elusive “privacy” right?

General Comments / “Big Guy” Biden Catches Hand in Chinese Cookie Jar
« on: October 18, 2020, 08:16:30 AM »
The continuing embarrassment, VP son Hunter, ramps-up as Uncle Joe’s graft ties to now bankrupt Shanghai conglomerate China Energy Co. exposed in authenticated emails. Is it clear at this point why China was defended against COVID isolation by Joe’s claims of “racist” motives behind Trump travel restrictions?

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 18, 2020, 07:55:25 AM »

“I note you didn't address how that Confederate flag in Michigan could be considered in any way BLM-supportive... “

Have you also noted that you have not addressed some of your more exaggerated claims regarding alleged Senate Republican obstruction of Barry’s appellate judicial nominations as a supposed justification for Harry’s introduction of the “nuclear option“, your misdirected strategy to “save America” through equivocal definitional shell-games, or your anemic assertions of inconsistent application of textualist/originalist jurisprudence by Scalia, and by anticipatory extension ACB?

All in all, I would call out your focus on the Boogaloo movement, and Confederate flag use, as a diversionary canard to your topical thesis.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 12:00:34 PM »

“Feel free to use Google and search for articles, reviews and opinions that you disagree with. Then read them with the assumption (and this is the hard part) that your previous understanding was incorrect.“

Do you really believe that I can do a better job of making you case than you can? Feel free to begin with the commerce clause.

“You don't need to actually change your mind, but you do need to park your previous assumptions at the door while trying to understand a foreign point of view.”

As a general principle of negotiating, that is excellent advice, but it is entirely unresponsive my critique of your position.

“There are many observations of where Scalia's ruling are inconsistent with his philosophy - whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant... “

If so, you should have no difficulty citing an example that you are willing to defend. More broadly, I disagree with your quip that “goodness or badness is irrelevant”, and so should you if your priority is that judges can, or should “not legislate from the bench”.

“... whether they can be excused or rationalized away is another topic, but the observations of his inconsistencies are well documented.“

Yes, so you have implied, however; you have neither supported your assertion’s factuality, nor it’s “excusability“. Beyond that, I have not heard your position regarding the ethical implications of leftist “outcome oriented” jurisprudence. Is it okay with you if conservative jurists employ a liberal judicial philosophy?

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 11:06:52 AM »

“... whereas he (Scalia) was simply not immune to ignoring his own philosophy when it was convenient to justify conservative results.“

I realize that this may lead to a discursive tangent, but would you deign to cite any specifics regarding Scalia’s violation of principled jurisprudence?

I am also having difficulty with you basic argument. Are you now endorsing, or condemning, the more creative law-making philosophies of the left? It appears as though you are an enthusiast, unless, as you allege, the right adopts it.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 10:51:39 AM »

Never mind, I was reading you in an overly optimistic manner.

“Republicans having stacked the courts; and it is possible that those courts will not overturn precedent in privacy rights, the ACA... “

By “stacked”, you mean Trump successfully seating textualist/originalists into appellate court vacancies per Federalist Society recommendations.

By “legislating from the bench”, you do not mean following the intent, and wording of the law, but upholding “progressive” overlays upon the intent, and wording, of the law; ie. “legislating from the bench”. You are a stare decisis kind of guy, but only if the preserved “precedent” is judge-made law... specifically “progressive judges”. I cannot see how that approach could possibly “feed into the dysfunction“.

By “privacy rights”, and the “ACA“, you mean sustaining specific instances of judicial overreach in finding phantom constitutionality in patently unconstitutional results.

I stand corrected. You are right to fear ACB’s appointment.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 10:01:23 AM »

“Unfortunately ‘doing the same thing right back’ just feeds into the disfunction.”

Is this your official rejection of Harry’s “legislative urgency“ rationalization underpinning the destruction of the judicial appointment debate cloture rule?

But if the courts do legislate from the bench as is feared, that would have direct and significant effects on real people's health and lives... “

If you have adopted textualism in statutory interpretation, and originalism in constitutional interpretation, how could you possibly be threatened by Amy Barrett’s appointment to the Court?

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 10:45:39 PM »

“Should Trump win, the confirmation process would go ahead, but if Biden wins, the Republicans would agree not to confirm ACB.  In return for the Republicans agreeing to this, the Democrats would agree to preserve the filibuster if they win the Senate.”

Omitting additional comment on the long-overdue acknowledgement that Harry Reid’s destruction of the judicial filibuster started this fur-ball of a fight; so long as Donald’s scenario remains wistful, there is no breach of constitutional protocol. Given that Amy Barrett has completed the extra-constitutional confirmation hearings, and has a clear path to her seat on the SCOTUS, in what world does derailing this nomination accord with constitutional process, or convey the “correct spirit”?

What, precisely, is being “salvaged”?

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 10:03:34 PM »

“I tend to agree with the notion that judicial activism is a large part of the root of this current crisis. Partisan personal beliefs among justices might seem like it's less than idea, but it wouldn't matter so much if the judges were disciplined to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of interpreting the law impartially.”

I would take this line of thinking a step further. The larger problem is the leftist expectation that politically animated, outcome oriented, Judges ought to be available as resources to legislate otherwise unobtainable social results. Look at the title of this thread. What kind of mentality would presume to “save the country” by proffering multiple unconstitutional assaults upon an effective, and independent, judiciary?

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:18:30 PM »

“Who conducts this judicial review?”

Obviously the appellate court system, and it will look upon the issues of our day as trite, barbaric, and uninformed by a vastly superior modern perspective.

In truth, the virtue of this future Court will be no more charactered than the personal challenges that their society compels them to confront. On our present trajectory, I do not have high expectations of their wisdom.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 01:05:29 PM »
“Here's a side question: in the system of checks and balances, what is the appropriate and designated check against the judiciary making rulings that are outside of their purview?”

Judicial review, and correction.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 12:54:17 PM »

“I hope the democrats pass a constitutional amendment that puts 18 year term limits on SC justices.”

The Democrats cannot pass a constitutional amendment. That could only happen with Republican complicity, and 75% of State legislatures.

“We could see if it could pass in republican controlled states given they have the current edge in the court.“

Not a chance, why should republicans agree to something like that?

“But it would make each nomination less important.”

Yes, but would you have wanted liberal justices over the last sixty years to have been “less important”?

“Barrett could conceivably be on the court for 40 years. As life spans lengthen and presidents keep trying to find younger people to nominate this only gets worse.”

Yes, she could. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the most stable branch of government by design. Have you considered that it might be a better idea to just start electing the presidents who you want to nominate federal judges?


“Noel, your Wikipedia quote glosses over how few judicial nominations were processed in the last two years of Obama's presidency.“

If you closely examine Republican collegiality over the period of Barry’s presidency, specifically as it relates to judicial nominations, you will discover an environment that a contemporary Republican President could only dream of.

So, what do you think caused the judicial log jam? Twenty-two years ago Robert Bork was stonewalled. In 2009, only eleven years ago, a far left judge like Sotomayor could still glean forty Republican confirmation votes, while one year later Elena Kagan could muster no more than four.

Possibly republicans became impatient with Barry’s injunction that we “need to move to the back of the bus...” because “elections have consequences”.


“Live with it. Use it for fundraising and to gain control of House, Senate, and the WH. Then do the same thing right back. That's the solution, not upending institutions or trying to make deals with untrustworthy people.”


General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 10:34:41 AM »
Just to clarify some incorrect conceptions that keep popping up in these discussion wherein “hundreds“, or “all” of Barry’s nominations were blocked by Senate republicans, actual facts are as follows. :

“U.S. President Barack Obama nominated over four hundred individuals for federal judgeships during his presidency. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed 329 judgeships, 173 during the 111th & 112th Congresses[1] and 156 during the 113th and 114th Congresses.[2]

The most potent filibustering of Obama's nominees occurred in the Republican controlled 114th Congress. Obama nominated 69 people for 104 different federal appellate judgeships during this Congress, and although some nominees were processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, many of them stalled on the floor of the Senate. With the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, in the beginning of a presidential election year, the Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forward by Obama”

Barry’s Sonya Sotamayor nomination had 40 Republican confirmation votes in August 2009, Elena Kagen was confirmed in May 2010 with four votes by Republican Senators.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 08:05:29 AM »

“... it was short term gain that led to filibustering hundreds a judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS confirmations”

Within the 2/3 majority closure rule, correct. This was the original purpose of the filibuster, and it worked as designed.

“... as was refusing to confirm all Obama judicial appointments...”

Nope, we are talking about three appointments to the most important appellate court in the United States.

“... as was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations... “

No again, Harry was given fair warning. It is not the Republicans job to politely bend-over to accommodate Democratic expediency.

“... as was refusing to consider Garland whatsoever... “

All within the new Harry paradigm.

“... as was how the investigation of Kavanaugh went down”

Yes, to the shame of Democrats.

“... as is the current rushed confirmation  of Barrett.”

Per RGB’s prescription for presidential prerogative, and with the approval of a significant majority of voters.

“Each of those followed the rules, and each was an escalation.”

There was only one first use of the “nuclear option”, and your team set the new standard for judicial appointments.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 03:39:08 AM »

“... the Democrats would need to show unilateral restraint... but they could do this by "packing" the courts - or rather, expanding them... This proposal is to expand the court not to just 13 jurists, but rather to 25 or 30, thus making each nomination, and the position of each judge,  far less important.”

This is the style of “restraint“ that lost Merrick Garland a seat on the Supreme Court.

The left’s lock on the Court has only persisted to this point through the collegiality of Republicans going back to Eisenhower who gave you; Warren, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, Breyer, White, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor based upon judicial competence, not political reliability. What you are really proposing is transformation of the third branch of government into a mini-senate with life terms, which would only enlarge the scope of judicial “packing”. Why stop at “30”? Once the “nuclear option“ was deployed, escalation was made acceptable political recourse. How about 100 Supreme Court justices, or 200?

The road taken by Dirty Harry leads nowhere good. A most promising way to reestablish functional government, is to behave reasonably. Sometimes that means knowing how to accept short-term defeat in exchange for long-term stability, but that requires a level of self-restraint not yet displayed by the Democratic Party which felt the appellate court appointments of three such judicial luminaries as; ... what are their names again?... was worth this race to the bottom.

Even Harry knows the idea is bad, suggesting as a nod to traditional restraint that the Senate be “packed” instead by admitting Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as states. :

General Comments / Amy Coney Barrett: not only a Shoe-In But a Leg-Up
« on: October 15, 2020, 07:37:36 PM »
I would not have blamed Ms. Barrett if she had turned down Trump’s nomination rather than subject herself to a Senate inquisition. As it turns out, she powered through partisan posturing, by the likes of Amy Klobuchar, as though she was there to school a Junior High debate team during her lunch hour. She not only acquitted herself flawlessly, but boosted Trump’s political capital. :

“By an 8-point margin, voters say that the Senate should vote on Barrett’s nomination as soon as possible, rather than wait to see if the president can defeat Democratic nominee Joe Biden on election day.“

I would love to be a fly on the wall when she elaborates on her criticism of Chief Justice Robert’s error in his ACA reasoning. It seems Scalia has returned... as a woman.

General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 14, 2020, 12:01:28 PM »

“You mean like, from the FBI? Maybe you'd like to reread Director Wray's testimony?”

Be specific about what Russian intervention in American politics concerns you. Russian purchased Facebook ads are both comical, and aimed in a bi-partisan spread.

“It's funny that you'll have a panic attack about 7 mishandled ballots,“

“Mishandeld”, really? Your attitude is what’s funny. Aside from the fact that my “panic” is not about the nine, not “seven“, discarded military ballots, why are you so sanguine about a Democratic pattern of antipathy to the military vote?

“... but dismiss Russian influence that could have had many times that impact, not to mention the psyops portion of undermining confidence in elections.“

Could you please supply evidence when making statements like this? Whatever Russia may have attempted pales in comparison to the effect unsolicited ballots, and ballot applications, conjoined with “Drop-Box” voting has had. The left has demolished confidence in fair voting results by cultivating a system that iinvites virtually unmonitorable fraud.

“The ultimate goal of which is civil unrest. Russia would love to destabilize the United States, or at least keep us distracted to the point where they have free reign in their areas of interest.”

Yes, they probably would like to, but Putin is a piker compared to DNC efforts at “expanding” the vote.

General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 14, 2020, 09:45:02 AM »

“Other countries have been mentioned as trying to interfere with American politics (sometimes even at the behest of presidents) like the UK or Israel. One difference with these (and not the only one btw) is that those countries may have been trying to boost their favored candidate, but without seeing USA as a whole as an enemy that must be harmed as much as possible. Russia on the other hand, both in regards to Europe, and in regards to the USA, supports political campaigns of virulent hatred and misinformation that are aimed at harming the nations it targets.“

Your comments overlook, somewhat, the internal perspectives of politics in America. Barry has made the phrase “existential threat” a part of common campaign jargon since his State of the Union speech in 2016 when he denied its application to ISIS. He has since labeled everything from obstruction of petty party priorities, to the current president, as existential threats. This is the type of division that no democracy can endure.

Russia’s antics in this regard have been ongoing since the 1940s, and look silly by comparison in both presentation, and effect. Can you give a specific modern example of Russian influence upon American politics that falls into your category of concern?

General Comments / Re: Biden Undercuts Confidence in Election Results
« on: October 14, 2020, 12:22:52 AM »

“Quote from: noel c. on October 11, 2020, 12:57:14 PM
Biden :

“Biden says 'the only way' he can lose election is through 'chicanery' “

“My question to you, noel: was Trump undercutting confidence in election results, when Trump said: ‘We're not gonna lose this except if they cheat’?”

This thread was my feeble attempt to illustrate how inane the whole “confidence in the election” narrative has become. The 2020 contest is already fully compromised, with or without commentary from either candidate. Ill conceived measures aimed at expanded “enfranchisement”, at the expense of the in-person secret ballot, have shredded the reliability our electoral process beyond recovery.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8