monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

At this point in US history, I'll take whatever glimmer of good news I can get. Since the court favors conservatives, I am surprised they side stepped the debate and didn't lift the ban outright. It seems rulings by the Court leave precedents, if they lifted the ban, that would not be a good precedent to leave.

2 Replies

In or on-going series, Voices From the Right. Today's entry from the Weekly Standard

Quote:

President Trump tweeted Saturday night a link to a sycophantic website that traffics in conspiracy theories and has aligned itself to the alt-right and white nationalist movements.

...Trump’s promotion of a fake-news site came shortly after another tweet of his blasting CNN’s international channel as “fake news.”

WS

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Various legal writers that I've read (eg Greenhouse at NYT) find reason to believe that Roberts actually cares about the reputation of the SC. And that reputation is going to be, mainly, a consequence of how the members individually and collectively act. Side-stepping a hot-button issue is a means of aiding in that goal. An example of the court's reputation being severely damaged was their finding in the Florida recount matter.

That being said, I don't know enough about the legal matters here that I can insist the decision to leave the lower court ruling intact was a PR move rather than a fairly simple procedural step with much precedent.

0 Replies

As some of you will know, Time magazine is being bought by an entity funded by the Koch brothers. Unlikely this will be a passive acquisition. But it will allow Trump to be on the cover.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Creating a power vacuum in a largely lawless powder keg wasteland didn't work with Iraq and it didn't work with Libya.

You may recall that the people of the country were engaged in a serious effort to overthrow Qadaffi, and we only stepped in once they were getting literally slaughtered. And we only provided air support, we didn't put troops on the ground.

Obama and Clinton didn't sit around and cook up a revolution in Libya, but they did save thousands of lives by assisting the rebels.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

This week will see some intense gymnastics as the Senate desperately tries to finish the tax cut for the wealthy bill as quickly as possible, before the special election on the 12th of December.

As I've said before, the bill is a disaster. It raises taxes on nearly half of Americans in order to preserve permanent tax cuts for Corporations that don't need them. It doesn't simplify the code in any way. There's really nothing to recommend the bill at all, unless you're an advocate of cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the deficit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hightor,

Sure when it's their ox being gored.

BTW: I didn't mean to imply you were the turned worm. I didn't to go past 5 pages of 200 or more to collect the quotes posted, but I take your word that you didn't post in that thread. Sorry for the confusion.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And Bush saved the poor Iraqis!!

Amazing the way you guys twist around so hypocritically.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

And Bush saved the poor Iraqis!!

On the contrary; the Iraqis were not in the process of rebelling against Saddam when we decided to invade. We did not decide to assist an ongoing rebellion, we engaged in a proactive war against a country who had not attacked us. This is what we call a false analogy on your part; Bush didn't 'save' anyone.

Quote:

Amazing the way you guys twist around so hypocritically.

Given the above, this is amusing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Here are a few pieces from the Conservative site National Review, about how dumb the current GOP tax plan is. I really recommend both, as it gives the lie to the idea that the plan is only being opposed by Liberals.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454053/tax-reform-dont-pinch-salt-deduction

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454051/gops-tax-plan-paving-way-democratic-majority

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Lower courts have vacated the travel ban on the basis of the 14th amendment's initial paragraph which guarantees equal protection of the law. This is that paragraph in its entirety:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Note that after addressing the rights and privileges of citizens, it refers to "any person" (which I have highlighted). This has been interpreted in the past by the Supremes to refer to absolutely anyone. In Yick Wo versus Hopkins (1886), the court held that any law which is race neutral on its face, but which is prejudicial in its effect violates the 14th amendment. In the majority opinion, the Court held that: These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. Note the highlighted part of the text. Courts which have vacated the travel ban are not required to address the issue of religions, because it blatantly discriminates on the basis of nationality. Yick Wo has been cited well over 100 times by the Court, and it would be a serious violation of precedent to ignore that ruling, which has been a part of so many later decisions, in particular beginning in 1950 with the Warren Court, as it struck down so-called "separate but equal" provisions in public accommodation.

I seriously doubt that the Roberts Court wants to revisit so many seminal rulings in the last more than 60 years.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Sure when it's their ox being gored.

Yes, that's sometimes what it takes. But the natural course of events is often unpredictable. What may seem as a principled action at its inception and perhaps may continue to show promise along the way can veer off in an unexpected manner. I don't think people should be criticized too heavily for not being able to view the future with 20/20 foresight.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Sure when it's their ox being gored.

Yes, that's sometimes what it takes. But the natural course of events is often unpredictable. What may seem as a principled action at its inception and perhaps may continue to show promise along the way can veer off in an unexpected manner. I don't think people should be criticized too heavily for not being able to view the future with 20/20 foresight.

Let's see:

Leaking State Secrets that put people's lives at risk and leaking DNC email that put Clinton's victory at risk.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced the change in opinion is anything less than 99% unprincipled, self-serving, hypocrisy.

4 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

More accurate to say 'has become an agent of Russian propaganda.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Leaking State Secrets that put people's lives at risk and leaking DNC email that put Clinton's victory at risk.

Sure, that might have been the trajectory for some of the new critics but there was enough of an unsavory atmosphere around the guy for a lot of the luster to have rubbed off already. And some on the libertarian left may have differentiated between publishing state secrets and revealing the contents of a private citizen's personal e-mail.

Quote:

I'm not convinced the change in opinion is anything less than 99% unprincipled, self-serving, hypocrisy.

We'll see if your opinion is borne out over time. I think that basically the rules and assumptions have changed — for state secrets and personal privacy alike. Electronic communication can be considered to be about as secure as a message written on the back of a postcard.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Leaking State Secrets that put people's lives at risk

That one gets tossed around and mostly with unthinking abandon. Has anyone bumped into any actual evidence that this has happened?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

there was enough of an unsavory atmosphere around the guy for a lot of the luster to have rubbed off already.

long ago

__

I'm still an (in general) supporter of the idea of things like wikileaks. but .... Assange is something else. A former Abuzz/A2ker is an Australian journalist who'd written about Assange before wikileaks. Assange was an odd duck long before wikileaks and long before the sexual assault allegations.

transparency - yes

Assange - no

timing? still deciding whether I care about that. I think that I like the idea of dropping the info when they get it .. but then I think I'd want it vetted by journalists to make sure no one's safety is compromised. an ongoing this/that/yes/no/maybe

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Leaking State Secrets that put people's lives at risk

That one gets tossed around and mostly with unthinking abandon. Has anyone bumped into any actual evidence that this has happened?

Plame - but that was Bush/Cheney so probably doesn't matter eh

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/11/former_cia_officer_valerie_plame_wilson_to_speak_at_smith_college.html

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote Finn:

Quote:

Leaking State Secrets that put people's lives at risk and leaking DNC email that put Clinton's victory at risk.

So you are saying that it's a lesser evil if Russia choses who becomes President of The United States?

Don't know if you said ever said that directly before. I know McGentrix has, but until now I didn't know if you did.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Finn and others of his ideology still adamantly insist that Bush/Cheney had nothing to do with that at all.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know