Pardon My Ignorance

[Mynnion]

While it is obvious to me why the Right hates Hillary (she's been a target sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly since Bill's candacy).  What I don't get is how so many who attack her for lying and misleading the public completely ignore the same traits in Trump.  Yesterday the judge refused to throw out the Trump U fraud case (it may be acquard if he is convicted).  There is currently a long list of creditors who claim Trump failed to fulfil his obligations to pay them.  A civil lawsuit is underway for rape.  On a number of occasions he has pledged the proceeds of his products to charity and has not followed through.  He purchased sports memorabilia with money from Trump Charities.  He has been a supporter of LGBTQ rights, divorced and remarried, supported abortion rights......There is plenty more but you get the picture.  Following Snopes he had more "Pants-ON-Fire" lies than all of the other GOP candidates combined.

I get the fact that people in general tend to overlook the flaws in their chosen candidates but this seems beyond the pale.  He certainly has more charisma than Clinton and as mentioned above she has been a GOP favorite target for years.

I personally will vote for Clinton for the same reason many others will.  The next POTUS will be appointing at least two members to the SCOTUS. I am a moderate and while I was not particularly happy with some of the 5-4 decisions at least the balance was close.  The idea of a 6-3 court scares me.

So while I dislike Hillary and wish a better option existed she is a known factor and basically a place holder while Trump is a loose cannon who has the potential to do devastating harm.

[Pete at Home]

Haven't seen or heard reference to the Trump fraud case before.  That sounds significant.  OTOH, Americans seem reconciled to dishonesty and sharklike behavior in business.  In fact, they think rapacious selfishness as a nation will serve and protect us.  I've tried to make arguments against that, since with intelligence and other assistance, America's power has a lot to do with good faith.  Not to mention the economic crash that will happen if folks stop believing in our dollar.

Trump adulteries and such are right out in the open.  no "i did not sleep with that woman" moments.

Trump has never assisted in the destruction of a democratic government and setting up of a murerderous raping military dictatorship as Hillary did in Honduras, in exchange for money and favors. (see Why does Hillary have more money than Trump ).
 
Trump does not have a reputation for treating his employees and associates like chattel, and has never assisted in perpetuating a state of slavery, as Hillary has done in Haiti, for international businesses that didn't want to pay their employees more than $3/day.

[TheDeamon]

In fact, they think rapacious selfishness as a nation will serve and protect us.  I've tried to make arguments against that, since with intelligence and other assistance, America's power has a lot to do with good faith.

I would like to provide counter-evidence in the form of pointing out that after 8 years of President Obama, we don't really have much "honor" left to lose on the International Stage, Obama did a pretty good job of putting the hatchet to that on his own, as the Iraqi people, and many Afghans, can already attest to.

Not saying Trump would be an improvement, but in an ironic twist, he'd probably gain some respect in many corners for at least being honest and up front about it.

Those bridges are already on fire, Clinton will chose to ignore that they're burning and wait for them to either collapse or miraculously burn themselves out. Trump will probably just knock the things down.

[AI Wessex]

I would like to provide counter-evidence in the form of pointing out that after 8 years of President Obama, we don't really have much "honor" left to lose on the International Stage, Obama did a pretty good job of putting the hatchet to that on his own, as the Iraqi people, and many Afghans, can already attest to.

So you are of the opinion that we should still be fighting active wars in both countries after 15 years?  How much of the national budget would you allocate to endless war in those countries?

Not saying Trump would be an improvement, but in an ironic twist, he'd probably gain some respect in many corners for at least being honest and up front about it.

So far he's been condemned by virtually every other country that has responded to his comments on potential policies he would institute.  The only exception I can think of is Russia, which is rooting for him.

[Pete at Home]

In fact, they think rapacious selfishness as a nation will serve and protect us.  I've tried to make arguments against that, since with intelligence and other assistance, America's power has a lot to do with good faith.

I would like to provide counter-evidence in the form of pointing out that after 8 years of President Obama, we don't really have much "honor" left to lose on the International Stage, Obama did a pretty good job of putting the hatchet to that on his own, as the Iraqi people, and many Afghans, can already attest to.

That's something Trump could fix right now, by calling on the Republican Senate to allow our Afghan translators and their families into the country before the Taliban finish killing them.  Because it's the Repubs who are keeping them out based on general islamophobia.  but THESE GUYS ALREADY PASSED OUR BACKGROUND CHECKS when they risked their lives to help our military.  debt of honor.

[Pete at Home]

Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America, Trump compared his plan to the Japanese internment camps used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II.

“This is a president highly respected by all, he did the same thing,” Trump said. “If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse. I mean, he was talking about the Germans because we’re at war.

painful ignorance.  Roosevelt did that on the recommendation of General de Witt, who was more interested in getting his buddies able to buy Japanese-American farmland (like the whole city of Henderson Nevada and swaths of California) at ten cents on the dollar.

It has been shown that de Witt LIED about facts in order to deceive Roosevelt of the necessity of those acts.

It frightens me that Trump is speaking without getting correct information, and may act that way once he's president.

[Mynnion]

The adulterous relationships were merely mentioned as a point of character since many of those supporting him are evangelicals. 

One of the problems in comparing the two is that anything done in public life is fair gain for political attacks like Bengazi whereas Trump's lies, and other alleged issues are primarily in the private domain and not under direct political control.  The fact that the House and senate have been controlled by the GOP over the last several years has also given them the power to push investigations for political gain and obstruct investigations that hurt them.

There are actually both civil and legal actions against Trump on the Trump University.

The rape allegations are interesting but you will probably hear very little about them since they involve the pediphile billionaire Epstien and since he was also a Clinton supporter any attack could backfire.

I completely agree that what happened in Honduras was horrible but the US has a long history of such behavior.  The hypocrisy associated with the US spreading democracy to the world has always been a point of shame when our only real interest is insuring our lifestyles.

You will not find me defending Clinton.  I believe she is no different then the vast majority of political tools that are represented by both parties.  It just bothers me that many of the same arguments used to attack her equally apply to Trump.

[Pete at Home]

The adulterous relationships were merely mentioned as a point of character since many of those supporting him are evangelicals. 

One of the problems in comparing the two is that anything done in public life is fair gain for political attacks like Bengazi whereas Trump's lies, and other alleged issues are primarily in the private domain and not under direct political control.  The fact that the House and senate have been controlled by the GOP over the last several years has also given them the power to push investigations for political gain and obstruct investigations that hurt them.

There are actually both civil and legal actions against Trump on the Trump University.

The rape allegations are interesting but you will probably hear very little about them since they involve the pediphile billionaire Epstien and since he was also a Clinton supporter any attack could backfire.

I completely agree that what happened in Honduras was horrible but the US has a long history of such behavior.  The hypocrisy associated with the US spreading democracy to the world has always been a point of shame when our only real interest is insuring our lifestyles.

You will not find me defending Clinton.  I believe she is no different then the vast majority of political tools that are represented by both parties.  It just bothers me that many of the same arguments used to attack her equally apply to Trump.

Trump won't care about the fate of hatians, but his speeches give the impression that he won't support hatian slavery when the multinational corporations that paid for his opponent's race are using hatian slaves to make goods, depriving americans of jobs.

As for Honduras, he's openly committing class treason, which gives one hope that he'll be against the oligarchs.

Does the phrase "hope and change" ring a bell?

[TheDrake]

Following Snopes he had more "Pants-ON-Fire" lies than all of the other GOP candidates combined.

Just a small note, it is Politifact that rates "pants on fire", not snopes. I find Politifact to be partisan shifted with respect to ratings, although the information they cite in their analysis is usually credible.

Snopes is far more objective with their "true, mostly true, false, mostly false, and unproven" ratings. They perform a slightly different function, so you can't just use them however.

[Pete at Home]

"Following Snopes he had more "Pants-ON-Fire" lies than all of the other GOP candidates combined."

I'm going to submit this quote to Snopes.

[Mynnion]

To many hours of work and not enough sleep   I read both.  I will point out that I was comparing "Pants-on-Fire" ratings between GOP candidates during the primaries so bias should not have been significant until it became obvious Trump would win.  A large part of why he needed a teleprompter was the fact that he constantly made wild claims. 

[AI Wessex]

Well, a teleprompter suppresses his tic syndrome, like a surgeon with Tourette's who lets loose after he closes.  The  morning after his acceptance speech when he thanked his supporters he made sure to tell everyone that he doesn't need Cruz's endorsement, and in fact he doesn't want it.  His "people" are already criticizing Kaine's phony Spanish.  This week you'll see the Dem's pivot to do a 180 from everything you heard last week.

[Pete at Home]

Until then, Obama wears his new GOP colors proudly; He even has a “Make America Great Again” hat.
...“I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart,” Malik Obama told The Post from his home in the rural village of Kogelo. “Make America Great Again is a great slogan. I would like to meet him.”

Obama, 58, a longtime Democrat, said his “deep disappointment” in his brother Barack’s administration has led him to recently switch allegiance to “the party of Lincoln.”

http://nypost.com/2016/07/24/why-obamas-half-brother-says-hell-be-voting-for-donald-trump/

I've warned you for years that this would happen.  Republicans would learn the Democratic party's tricks and use them back.


In other news, http://nypost.com/2016/07/21/male-escorts-are-making-crazy-money-at-the-rnc/

Male prostitutes contacted by The Post said business is booming and Republican National Convention attendees — most of them married — are clamoring for their services.

“Business has been way better. I’ve seen 10 clients so far,” one male escort said.

Yikes.  That sounds like a pain in the butt.

---
edited to add -- and the irony keeps rolling in!  http://pagesix.com/2016/07/18/monica-lewinsky-power-lunches-with-hot-shot-hillary-donor/

[NobleHunter]

Yikes.  That sounds like a pain in the butt.

Not if you do it right.

[Pete at Home]

Yikes.  That sounds like a pain in the butt.

Not if you do it right.

There's a right way to do ten different clients in 2 days?

[TheDeamon]

Yikes.  That sounds like a pain in the butt.

Not if you do it right.

There's a right way to do ten different clients in 2 days?

Escorts aren't always used for sex. Sometimes it really is "just for the companionship/eye/arm candy."

You're also assuming all of the clients were performing as "pitchers" rather than "catchers" in the advent that it did go there.

[LetterRip]

TheDrake,

yes politifact has two big areas of bias - what they choose to investigate - a politician they favor will tend to get their truer statements investigated and tend to have their lies ignored; while politicians they dislike will have their lies investigated and ignore when they tell the truth.  Also they judge harshly those they don't like, and judge leniently those they favor.

[AI Wessex]

You will acknowledge that there is some subjectivity in your assessment of their methods...?

[Pete at Home]

Yikes.  That sounds like a pain in the butt.

Not if you do it right.

There's a right way to do ten different clients in 2 days?

Escorts aren't always used for sex. Sometimes it really is "just for the companionship/eye/arm candy."

You're also assuming all of the clients were performing as "pitchers" rather than "catchers" in the advent that it did go there.

Shrug.  I've never defended a male escort.  I just know that when the female clients I had in the trade came in to pay their legal bills and said they'd had five clients in the last few hours, they walked funny.  (And no, I never charged that much for misdemeanors; many of them stopped by the drug man first.)

[cherrypoptart]

I read that story about the male prostitutes making hay while the GOP convention sun was shining and there is nothing in that whole story that couldn't have been just totally made up by anyone from anywhere. I liked the part at the end about the female prostitutes getting even less than usual. That was a nice touch but... to be honest it was a little too nice of a touch and that's what really strained the credibility of the whole thing. My point is don't believe everything you read on the internet.

As to the original question of why vote for Trump with all his problems and lies, one answer for the Trump supporters is the same as with Hillary supporters: the Supreme Court. If Hillary wins it's almost a certainty Heller will be overturned and with it the right to own a gun in your home. The four liberals already said there was no such right in the Constitution so it will only take one more to make it so. There are many other issues like that of such great importance that ride on this election and to be honest they really do overshadow all of the flaws of both of the candidates put together, none of which matters compared to the Supreme Court decisions which will be coming down for the rest of our lives one way or the other and all determined by the results of this election.

[AI Wessex]

As to the original question of why vote for Trump with all his problems and lies, one answer for the Trump supporters is the same as with Hillary supporters: the Supreme Court. If Hillary wins it's almost a certainty Heller will be overturned and with it the right to own a gun in your home. The four liberals already said there was no such right in the Constitution so it will only take one more to make it so. There are many other issues like that of such great importance that ride on this election and to be honest they really do overshadow all of the flaws of both of the candidates put together, none of which matters compared to the Supreme Court decisions which will be coming down for the rest of our lives one way or the other and all determined by the results of this election.

I agree that this alone makes this the most important election in many years.  The legacy of Scalia, Alito and Thomas has been chipping away at the foundation of our freedoms for decades. It's time to rebalance and get back some of what was lost.

[AI Wessex]

Cherry, guess who just aired this political ad:

"You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you're not one," says Moe, to an ominous soundtrack. "And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there's someone left to help you."

[TheDeamon]

TheDrake,

yes politifact has two big areas of bias - what they choose to investigate - a politician they favor will tend to get their truer statements investigated and tend to have their lies ignored; while politicians they dislike will have their lies investigated and ignore when they tell the truth.  Also they judge harshly those they don't like, and judge leniently those they favor.

Oh, they'll do one better than that. If there is any ambiguity in regards to what a politician is claiming, they'll skew it such that their favored(usually Democrat) candidate is given the benefit of the doubt, while the other is strictly interpreted(or even misinterpreted outright) in order to give them a negative result.

I remember them pulling that stunt on Romney during one of the Presidential Debates when they were discussing oil drilling. IIRC, Romney (correctly) cited that oil production on Federal Land was at the lowest level in several years. Politifact skewered him on it, said he was wrong(he wasn't, in regards to Federal Land), and countered by supporting Obama's claim that Oil Production in the United States was at an all time high. (Which was only true when you included oil production on private and state owned lands)

In that case it was almost literally Romney Citing table 6-1 and Obama citing Table 6-3. Politifact only bothered to check Table 6-3 and called Romney a liar.

[cherrypoptart]

I'm not sure Al but that sounds like fear mongering to me, the type people are complaining is coming from Trump.

One thing that is very inaccurate about that quote is that Trump isn't going to round up ANY Hispanic immigrants. He's never said anything of the sort. He won't deport Hispanic immigrants either. Where are you getting that information?

Most of the violence at the Trump rallies was caused by those against Trump. Does that not count too?

If you're talking about that Lewandowsky incident the slow motion replay clearly shows your journalist committed assault and battery on Trump by touching him first. He already refused to talk to her because he was on his way out. No means no, and shouldn't wouldn't take it for an answer so she basically attempted to journalistically rape the poor man and Corey had to step in to do the Secret Service's job who were probably still daydreaming about their most recent prostitute adventures.

Well we all agree about the importance of the Supreme Court. If you want to keep an individual right to bear arms Trump is the only choice. What kind of freedoms should we be worried about the Trump justices taking away?

[NobleHunter]

Freedom of religion and the right to vote seem like the most likely candidates. Depending on how literally to interpret some of his sentiments and if a judicial fig-leaf can be found: the right to assemble, freedom of the press, due process, freedom of speech, and the right to choose.

ETA: Granted, some of these are probably conspiracy level probabilities.

[AI Wessex]

I'm not sure Al but that sounds like fear mongering to me, the type people are complaining is coming from Trump.

Kasich.

[cherrypoptart]

That was a pretty good quote, Al. I'll admit I didn't peg it coming from him. Seems more like Jeb. But anyway that's why Kasich lost, and deserved it. Gotta admit I liked Cruz and didn't care for Trump calling him "Lying Ted" but it turned out Trump was right again (although to try to be fair, Cruz still has to try to sleep with his wife while Trump doesn't). All the primary Republican runners who didn't endorse Trump as the Republican candidate after promising that they would just made themselves out to be liars which is hilarious of course seeing as how they all made such a big deal about Trump not jumping on that promise so fast. With the lack of support coming from many Republicans from all of the Bushes to Romney and most of the primary field, Trump has proven that he was correct all along about the establishment not really caring if the Republicans lose so they were all unworthy of the mantle.

[AI Wessex]

You come across as a black belt in head standing gymnastics.  It's hard to imagine you could twist yourself any further.  BTW, Jimmy Kimmel stopped people on the street (yesterday?) and asked if there was anything Trump could say or do that would make them NOT vote for him.  Some of them cleared the bar at murder, finding out that he has a Nazi swastika tattoo on his arm, or child molestation.  Are you one of those?

[Seriati]

While it is obvious to me why the Right hates Hillary (she's been a target sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly since Bill's candacy).

What's the standard for measurement of hate here?  Do you think it's equally obvious, for instance, that the "Left hates Bush"?  Or is the idea to try and emphasize that it's an unreasonable feeling for her?  I can't say I hate her, cause I don't, but I do think she'll be a terrible President, that she has no moral or ethical foundation, that she lies for convenience and has yet to demonstrate anything but poor judgment and fundamental spitefulness in her actual job performance.

What I don't get is how so many who attack her for lying and misleading the public completely ignore the same traits in Trump.

Well first of all, you don't have to ignore the traits to believe, with reason, that Hillary's demonstrated them to a greater extent and in fields that are far more damaging to the public interest.  There's no doubt Trump is the most narcissistic candidate put forward by a major party in living memory, that doesn't mean we have to ignore that President Obama was a narcissist, or that Hillary is one as well, even if Trump takes it to a different level.

The only reason I can see to frame it the way you are, is to try and build an excuse for her. 

I personally will vote for Clinton for the same reason many others will.  The next POTUS will be appointing at least two members to the SCOTUS. I am a moderate and while I was not particularly happy with some of the 5-4 decisions at least the balance was close.  The idea of a 6-3 court scares me.

The "logic" of a moderate voting for Clinton because of Supreme Court appointments escapes me.  I think you should relook at where you actually sit on the political spectrum.  If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution.  Who believe that they've been enshrined with the ?divine? authority to interpret the law in accordance with their own beliefs rather than its actually meaning.  I get why the left wants that, it lets them change the law without the approval of a majority of the populace or the Legislature, but there's no reason that a moderate would want that.  Why would you want philosopher kings?

So while I dislike Hillary and wish a better option existed she is a known factor and basically a place holder while Trump is a loose cannon who has the potential to do devastating harm.

Hillary is a known factor.  You can be 100% certain she will act in her own self interest, act corruptly and be vindictive and manipulative.  I guess its true with Trump, you can only be mostly sure he'll do the same.  Just not sure why that's an argument in favor of  voting for Hillary?

[Seriati]

painful ignorance.  Roosevelt did that on the recommendation of General de Witt, who was more interested in getting his buddies able to buy Japanese-American farmland (like the whole city of Henderson Nevada and swaths of California) at ten cents on the dollar.

I'm not exactly a history master, but this sounds like a re-interpretation that over weighs something obscure.  It's really doubtful that the primary reason interment camps were actually implemented was a corrupt real estate deal, even if it was a real and provable motive of some of the players.

[Seriati]

I agree that this alone makes this the most important election in many years.  The legacy of Scalia, Alito and Thomas has been chipping away at the foundation of our freedoms for decades. It's time to rebalance and get back some of what was lost.

Somehow they "chipped away at your freedom" by refusing to allow others to re-write the constitution on a whim, while they were perfectly capable of doing so with an amendment (if they could get anyone to agree with them).  I don't if I'm more scared by the possibility that you actually believe what you say, or by the possibility that you say it knowing its not true.

[AI Wessex]

Well first of all, you don't have to ignore the traits to believe, with reason, that Hillary's demonstrated them to a greater extent and in fields that are far more damaging to the public interest.

As you asked just a second earlier:

What's the standard for measurement of hate here?

Somehow you dropped your ruler when it came to applying the same standard to Trump.  It's continually fascinating to watch people who have such visceral hatred for Hillary wriggle out of this kind of hypocritical statement, as if they are escaping from a straightjacket.  The rest of your post puts more nails in the coffin you are building for her.  It's laughable how you and Cherry stand on each other's shoulders to outdo each other in the most partisan vomiting.  I'm running out of metaphors!

Another gem:

Somehow they "chipped away at your freedom" by refusing to allow others to re-write the constitution on a whim, while they were perfectly capable of doing so with an amendment (if they could get anyone to agree with them).

You constantly amaze me.

[Seriati]

From your response it's not clear to me you understand what the word hate means.  Unless you're just doing a naked motive speculation of some sort.  It seems to me you think any criticism = hate.  Or are you using it the form of the slang phrase, "don't be such a hater, playa"?

[AI Wessex]

From your response it's not clear to me you understand what the word hate means.  Unless you're just doing a naked motive speculation of some sort.  It seems to me you think any criticism = hate.  Or are you using it the form of the slang phrase, "don't be such a hater, playa"?

I think you don't understand the word.  You continually twist speculation into facts, all of which make Hillary come out looking like an evil witch.  That you don't realize it is the part that amazes me.  It reminds me of interviews I've seen with white southerners who insist that they aren't racists, when every action they take toward blacks screams it.

[Seriati]

I see, so when you can't demonstrate a point, you tar me with an assertion that what I'm doing is just like what racists do, and you make this assertion obliquely, to pretend that you weren't drawing the noxious connection?  Does that sum up your philosophy on how to argue?

Very well, what "speculations" have I "twisted into facts"?  Show me you understand the difference between an assumption, a fact, a conclusion and an opinion, and how each is set off in the written word.  Knock yourself out.

[AI Wessex]

I see, so when you can't demonstrate a point, you tar me with an assertion that what I'm doing is just like what racists do, and you make this assertion obliquely, to pretend that you weren't drawing the noxious connection?  Does that sum up your philosophy on how to argue?

Not at all, but I have nothing to demonstrate.  All you did is heap invective and absurd speculation on her (and Obama).  You don't seem to understand that simply declaring that:

If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution.

...is a far right-wing partisan assertion that has absolutely no grounding in fact or reality.  There's nothing for me to argue with because you've said nothing of substance, only once again bared your bias as if your vaunted self-worth is all the justification you need to back up what you say.  I'm not sure you even understand the meaning of the word narcissist if you apply it to Obama, despite the fact that it's yet another fave right-wing insult that is tossed around about everything that Obama seems to stand for.

[Pete at Home]

i

I read that story about the male prostitutes making hay while the GOP convention sun was shining and there is nothing in that whole story that couldn't have been just totally made up by anyone from anywhere. I liked the part at the end about the female prostitutes getting even less than usual. That was a nice touch but... to be honest it was a little too nice of a touch and that's what really strained the credibility of the whole thing. My point is don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Why would you question it?  Gays are quietly coming home to the Republican party, since the Democrats want to take away their only means to protect themselves and their families from hate crimes.  Out of the closet on homosexuality, many now find themselves in a second closet, secretly supporting Republican candidates who want to screen homophobic murderers out of the country and to allow gays to protect themselves rather than walking around like bright pink sheep for the slaughter.

[Seriati]

If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution.

...is a far right-wing partisan assertion that has absolutely no grounding in fact or reality.  There's nothing for me to argue with because you've said nothing of substance, only once again bared your bias as if your vaunted self-worth is all the justification you need to back up what you say.  I'm not sure you even understand the meaning of the word narcissist if you apply it to Obama, despite the fact that it's yet another fave right-wing insult that is tossed around about everything that Obama seems to stand for.

If you want to make a reasoned argument about the Supreme Court, please start us off with something sensible.  To my knowledge you've never once made a single argument about judicial philosophy that reflects even a rudimentary understanding of what the legal positions the Justices take are actually based on.  You just tally whether they  agree with the result you're looking for and move on, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.  There are any number of in depth write ups I've done on various controversial legal decisions on this board and the prior one.  So, show me wrong, or do what I actually expect you to do, and just write up your own comments that reflect, "nothing of substance, only once again bared your bias as if your vaunted self-worth is all the justification you need to back up what you say."

[AI Wessex]

If you want to make a reasoned argument about the Supreme Court, please start us off with something sensible. 

.  You make a completely unsubstantiated speculative assertion and want *me* to make a reasoned argument?  I've made so many of those in the past about the 2A, abortion, voting rights and others that it would be boring for me to simply repeat them yet again.  Instead, since you started this little spat with your anti-Hillary snit, why don't you make a reasoned argument why "If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution"?  That might give me something to talk about.

[Seriati]

/yawn.  Of course you're not going to make a reasoned argument.

So my opinion, which is actually based on extensive reading of Supreme Court opinions about the way and the why of how the current Justices vote, and what we're likely to see out of additional Justices appointed by Clinton, is what you meant when you claimed I was asserting my opinions as fact?  Like I said, you have no ability to correctly interpret the written word. 

[AI Wessex]

/yawn.  Of course you're not going to make a reasoned argument.

So my opinion, which is actually based on extensive reading of Supreme Court opinions about the way and the why of how the current Justices vote, and what we're likely to see out of additional Justices appointed by Clinton, is what you meant when you claimed I was asserting my opinions as fact?  Like I said, you have no ability to correctly interpret the written word. 

You realize you just did it again, asserting your authority to make an outlandish claim without actually backing up what you said, just that you read good.  One more time (<sigh>), explain why and how "If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution."

[Mynnion]

The SCOTUS has always been political in nature.  Decisions change based on culture.  Why do you think the Pro Lifers continue to push the limits of Roe V Wade or gun control advocates are constantly pushing law changes.  The hope is obviously that they will get a different constitutional interpretation.  An individuals ideology plays a rule in how they interpret.  While some issues seem pretty straight forward many are solely opinions.  To say that one individuals views of the constitution are purer than someone else's seems like wishful thinking.  If the constitution was not open to interpretation there would be no need of the SCOTUS.

The court has leaned 5-4 to the right for a while now.  You can argue against that fact but the number of 5-4 rulings with conservative wins with the noted exception of social issues shows otherwise.

I believe that the next president WILL appoint 2 justices replacing Ginsberg and the open seat.  While I can live with a 5-4 leaning liberal court I have significant concerns about a 6-3 conservative one.

This of course is my opinion based on how I view the court which in itself is no purer than Serati's.  Of course I feel my views are better but that again is based on my world view.

[Seriati]

No, what declined to do, was to write a senior thesis for your amusement, so you could continue to respond without demonstrating in any way that you understand legal theory.  I'm not spending hours of my time, recreating a convincing case about the basic judicial philosophy of each Justice to persuade someone who is fundamentally unwilling to be persuaded and has not demonstrated that he even has a basis upon which to form a reasoned opinion.  If I want argue about programming with a computer programmer, it's on me to get the level of education that I'd need to do so, not to whine at them with demands that they restate their own expertise in someway I understand so that I can continue to disagree with them based on misconceptions that I started with. 

[Seriati]

To say that one individuals views of the constitution are purer than someone else's seems like wishful thinking.  If the constitution was not open to interpretation there would be no need of the SCOTUS.

I think you can draw a distinction in the field of "purity" between textualists (those who believe in interpreting the words to mean what they say as written, and to make change by using the processes built into the system - amendments) from those who believe in a living Constitution (those who believe in reinterpreting the words to have a new context in light of changes in modern society, without bothering to go through amendments).  Both philosophies have merit, and unless you blend them you end up with something that is too rigid to be of use, or too flexible to provide protection, but I think the latter is definitely less "pure" and far more dangerous because there are no constraints on it other than personal preference of the Justices.

The court has leaned 5-4 to the right for a while now.  You can argue against that fact but the number of 5-4 rulings with conservative wins with the noted exception of social issues shows otherwise.

The court has been 4-4  for a while, with a swing voter that goes both ways.  What's changed is it's now 4-3 with a swing voter, with the potential to become 5-3, with a swing voter.  You may think that's what you want, but you should take a closer look at some of those 5-4 decisions, and consider not just the immediate case at hand but what the implications of going the other way would have been.  And then you really should consider what will happen when there is a 5 Justice voting block that doesn't need to appeal to a swing voter, both in the kinds of cases they accept and how far they are willing to go with them.  Not to mention, we have a long history of media scrutiny protecting us from conservative excess while ignoring or even downplaying liberal excess.

I believe that the next president WILL appoint 2 justices replacing Ginsberg and the open seat.  While I can live with a 5-4 leaning liberal court I have significant concerns about a 6-3 conservative one.

There's no chance Ginsburg retires without a liberal President.  She may die in office, but she won't retire.  If she doesn't die, a Conservative President would replace Scalia, who was without a doubt a solid Conservative and leading legal thinker.  If Ginsburg were to die, and we were left with the 4-3 balance, still with a swing voter, in favor of the Conservatives, the confirmation fight over anyone but a centrist would literally never end.

Plus, if you look at the actual Justices appointed, it's exclusively those appointed by Republicans that are active or even regular swing votes, the Democratically appointed justices are "party line" voters almost without fail.  If you really want a Justice that will vote both ways, there's only side with an actual record of appointing them.

[Pete at Home]

There's no way in hell that Obama steps down to Trump without filling the SCOTUS vacancy.

Save your breath with Al on issues of legal reasoning.  He's like one of those lawyers that uses the "I don't understand" line to waste our time in court.  After you explain it six or seven times, the subject drops, and then next week he's saying he still doesn't understand, say, why the 2a US Militia clause doesn't apply exclusively to government structures that weren't even conceived until a century after the constitution was written. 

[AI Wessex]

No, what declined to do, was to write a senior thesis for your amusement, so you could continue to respond without demonstrating in any way that you understand legal theory.

No need to spend hours trying to find some justification for your biased comment.  Just show why it's not biased in a few crisp sentences (or a paragraph if you have 10 minutes) justifying why "If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution."  I'd like more, but that would perhaps be enough to start a serious conversation.

If the constitution was not open to interpretation there would be no need of the SCOTUS.

This, of course, is the key, and is one that belies the insistence on so-called originalism.  The concept of judicial review gives the SC the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, which is an ongoing activity as cultural changes and new laws are created to address current circumstances.  You would be hard-pressed to say that very many decisions rendered by the SC are anti-constitutional.  Even Scalia, whose departure from the SC I welcome (but not his death)) was acting in what he believed was consistent with the Constitution, though I disagreed with a large majority of his opinions.  To argue that any justice who disagreed with him was doing the opposite is itself an absurd statement.  The balance of different and independent opinions by the full complement of justices on the SC determines at that time in the nation's history what is or isn't constitutional.

[NobleHunter]

I'm fond of the theory that the founders never intended it to be quite so hard to amend the Constitution as it is now. It wouldn't be easy to find something 3/4 of the east coast agreed on but it's not insurmountably difficult.

3/4 of the modern US? Ha! No. Too diverse, too many conflicting interests, and too much talking required.

Of course, there'd need to be an amendment to make the Constitution easier to amend. Good luck with that.

[Pete at Home]

Here's the pattern.  Truism, mention an accurate fact, followed by a straw man, then a statement that's flat-out false.

No, what declined to do, was to write a senior thesis for your amusement, so you could continue to respond without demonstrating in any way that you understand legal theory.

No need to spend hours trying to find some justification for your biased comment.  Just show why it's not biased in a few crisp sentences (or a paragraph if you have 10 minutes) justifying why "If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution."  I'd like more, but that would perhaps be enough to start a serious conversation.

No matter what you do, he'll say you haven't done enough, and when he runs out of objections or gets bored, he won't acknowledge your final product, the subject will drop, and he'll ask the same question again in a month at ground zero.

This, of course, is the key, and is one that belies the insistence on so-called originalism.  The concept of judicial review gives the SC the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, which is an ongoing activity as cultural changes and new laws are created to address current circumstances. 

All very true, within the very narrow limits of the ninth and tenth amendment, not by Carte Blanche.  You can't just say the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply anymore because the culture's changed. 

 

You would be hard-pressed to say that very many decisions rendered by the SC are anti-constitutional.  Even Scalia, whose departure from the SC I welcome (but not his death)) was acting in what he believed was consistent with the Constitution, though I disagreed with a large majority of his opinions. 

In most of his decisions, yes.  In Raisch (medical marijuana) I don't think that even he believed that what he was doing was consistent with the Constitution.

To argue that any justice who disagreed with him was doing the opposite is itself an absurd statement. 

Straw man. 

The balance of different and independent opinions by the full complement of justices on the SC determines at that time in the nation's history what is or isn't constitutional.

Rephrase: You can't say that the supreme Court would ever do anything unconstitutional, because by definition, whatever it decides IS, at that time, constitutional.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[Mynnion]

Thanks Serati for your thoughtful response.  While I would agree with you about the swing vote impacting the 5-4 votes I believe most of those swings to the liberal side dealt with social issues.

I also would agree with you about the balance between a living document and amendments although I believe the amendment process was never meant to be as cumbersome as it has become.

I have two reasons for leaning towards Hillary.  The SCOTUS is the first (I believe that the current/past court has almost always ruled in favor of big money over individual rights) and I actually want to retire before I'm 70 and if Trump follows through on some of his isolationist claims or fails to fulfill US financial obligations I see the economy tanking.  The Economist listed trump as one of the biggest threats to the global economy.  Selfish I know but........

[Seriati]

No, what declined to do, was to write a senior thesis for your amusement, so you could continue to respond without demonstrating in any way that you understand legal theory.

No need to spend hours trying to find some justification for your biased comment.  Just show why it's not biased in a few crisp sentences (or a paragraph if you have 10 minutes) justifying why "If she appoints justices to sit on the court, we could have up to six justices who don't believe they have to honor the Constitution."  I'd like more, but that would perhaps be enough to start a serious conversation.

Well 4 + 2 = 6, and it's pretty clear to me that we have 4 Justices on the left who don't believe the text or meaning of the Constitution is static, and therefore is something they can align to what they believe the answer should be rather than what it is.  Such behavior is not consistent with the Rule of Law, where predictability and stability with the freedom to make changes through a reasoned process is an inherent component of the protection that such society enjoys.  What they advocate is little more than a supra executive/legislative function whereby they make the laws - without possibility of appeal - on an issue where their whim dictates.  There is zero chance that Hillary is going to appoint a Justice that doesn't believe in a living Constitution.

If the constitution was not open to interpretation there would be no need of the SCOTUS.

This, of course, is the key, and is one that belies the insistence on so-called originalism.  The concept of judicial review gives the SC the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, which is an ongoing activity as cultural changes and new laws are created to address current circumstances.[/quote]

I see.  Please provide the citation to the Constitutional provision that provides for the SC to be the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of law.  Please cite to anything in federal statutes or the Constitution that supports your interpretation.

It's not like it's impossible, I'll help you out, you should Google Larry Tribe or one of the other Con Law professors at a top law school.

Pete, I agree with you, I don't know why I waste my time arguing with someone who's just reiterating what they teach you about the "three branches" of government in middle school.