2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishinSyria]

Anyway, I can't wait for all those coal and manufacturing jobs to come back to America now that it's great again!

 

[fightingirish26]

If that quote is the reason blacks are scared then that's plain silly.

perhaps they are also scared because david duke couldn't be happier that trump is prez

 

[IrishinSyria]

When you first brought that tweet up, you were using it as an example of why LGBT people would not like Trump. If he bashes a guy who was against same-sex marriage, isn't that a good thing?

He was criticizing the Roberts court. If you don't believe me, he followed up with interviews:
Trump criticizes Supreme Court for same-sex marriage decision | MSNBC

With one day left before the Iowa caucuses, Donald Trump announced that he would “strongly consider” appointing justices to the Supreme Court who would be committed to overturning the decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

“If I’m elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things,” Trump told ”Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. “I don’t like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state – it should be a states’ rights issue.”

 

[BeauBenken]

He was criticizing the Roberts court. If you don't believe me, he followed up with interviews:
Trump criticizes Supreme Court for same-sex marriage decision | MSNBC

Ah, that's fair. Carry on.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Still no sign of NDinLA or Eddy today?

 

[gkIrish]

He was criticizing the Roberts court. If you don't believe me, he followed up with interviews:
Trump criticizes Supreme Court for same-sex marriage decision | MSNBC

I think there is a big difference between someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage personally and someone who wants it to be a state issue, which is basically the libertarian perspective. To me it sounds like he has been punting on the issue so that he can appease his base by saying he wants it overturned but then when he was asked about it in debates he could just say "I just think it should be up to the states." Actually kind of a smart move to me. Definitely don't think it's a position homosexuals should be terrified about.

And this still doesn't explain the actual "fear" that people have expressed. I've seen people say they are worried Trump will kick them out of the country which is just absurd.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think there is a big difference between someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage personally and someone who wants it to be a state issue, which is basically the libertarian perspective. To me it sounds like he has been punting on the issue so that he can appease his base by saying he wants it overturned but then when he was asked about it in debates he could just say "I just think it should be up to the states." Actually kind of a smart move to me. Definitely don't think it's a position homosexuals should be terrified about.

And this still doesn't explain the actual "fear" that people have expressed. I've seen people say they are worried Trump will kick them out of the country which is just absurd.

I think it shows how much people feed on the bs rhetoric and really don't delve into anything much beyond that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think there is a big difference between someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage personally and someone who wants it to be a state issue, which is basically the libertarian perspective. To me it sounds like he has been punting on the issue so that he can appease his base by saying he wants it overturned but then when he was asked about it in debates he could just say "I just think it should be up to the states." Actually kind of a smart move to me. Definitely don't think it's a position homosexuals should be terrified about.

And this still doesn't explain the actual "fear" that people have expressed. I've seen people say they are worried Trump will kick them out of the country which is just absurd.

Sure, the fear's overblown. But whatever you think about the issue ex-ante, he was suggesting in his interviews that he'd look for justices who would ignore stare decisis and overturn the decision, which would be a Very Not Good Thing in the eyes of the gay community.

And there's Mike Pence. Even if Trump's relatively good on the issue, that dude is not.

e. also the KKK endorsement goes into the issue in detail so there's that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think the bottom line is that a lot of people feel like they were making progress and becoming more included in American life. They feel like this election was a direct rebuke to them- backlash against the progress they made. And they feel vulnerable.

I really don't think that sentiment is all that different from the mirror image sentiment that propelled Trump to victory. For better or for worse (and it's definitely the latter) our politics is becoming increasingly polarized.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sure, the fear's overblown. But whatever you think about the issue ex-ante, he was suggesting in his interviews that he'd look for justices who would ignore stare decisis and overturn the decision, which would be a Very Not Good Thing in the eyes of the gay community.

A Progressive worried about someone ignoring stare decisis is pretty rich. Your entire jurisprudence boils down to "whatever we think is right, and to hell with what came before".

 

[IrishinSyria]

A Progressive worried about someone ignoring stare decisis is pretty rich. Your entire jurisprudence boils down to "whatever we think is right, and to hell with what came before".

I more or less think both sides operate on this principle see, e.g., anything Scalia ever wrote but especially Heller.

I think what's known as liberal activism in the courts is more frequently applying existing law to new scenarios than it is using the courts to overturn on-point precedent. Obergefell is a good example of the former.

This is one of the many reasons I didn't like Sanders as a candidate. I'm not a huge fan of Citizen's United, but I'm even less a fan of promising to use willingness to overturn it as a criteria for selecting a nominee.

Finally, yes. People tend to like decisions that protect and advance their interests. I was talking specifically about why the gay community might be scared of Trump.

e. personal story, my grandfather was a Supreme Court Justice in a large state. He was strongly against the death penalty. He got two death penalty cases while he was on the Court. In the first, he voted against the death penalty but lost (I think it was 4-3). A few years later same question came up but one of the most conservative Justices had left the Court and had been replaced by a liberal Justice. Vote was 4-3 again, but this time my grandfather voted for the death penalty. He still felt like it should be unconstitutional, but felt bound by their previous decision.

 

[Buster Bluth]

A Progressive worried about someone ignoring stare decisis is pretty rich. Your entire jurisprudence boils down to "whatever we think is right, and to hell with what came before".

Could also double as the motto of the Constitutional Convention in the first place...

 

[IrishBroker]

I think there is a big difference between someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage personally and someone who wants it to be a state issue, which is basically the libertarian perspective. To me it sounds like he has been punting on the issue so that he can appease his base by saying he wants it overturned but then when he was asked about it in debates he could just say "I just think it should be up to the states." Actually kind of a smart move to me. Definitely don't think it's a position homosexuals should be terrified about.

And this still doesn't explain the actual "fear" that people have expressed. I've seen people say they are worried Trump will kick them out of the country which is just absurd.

Thank you.

I agree with it being a states rights issue. There is nothing in our founding docs that allows this overreach by the SCOTUS.

And I support people being able to marry whom they want...I just want the federal government out of it. Get rid of marriage licenses while we're at it

 

[IrishBroker]

I think the bottom line is that a lot of people feel like they were making progress and becoming more included in American life. They feel like this election was a direct rebuke to them- backlash against the progress they made. And they feel vulnerable.

I really don't think that sentiment is all that different from the mirror image sentiment that propelled Trump to victory. For better or for worse (and it's definitely the latter) our politics is becoming increasingly polarized.

Progress? Maybe gay marriage.

But blacks are actually worse off than before Obama.

 

[ACamp1900]

Progress? Maybe gay marriage.

But blacks are actually worse off than before Obama.

Y'all sure this dude ain't Pat??

 

[wizards8507]

Uh, did we forget who the vice president is?

Two words: Conversion therapy

That's been debunked so many times. Use your brain a little bit.

 

[wizards8507]

perhaps they are also scared because david duke couldn't be happier that trump is prez

So? David Duke probably believes that 2 + 2 = 4. A despicable man believing a thing does not make that thing despicable.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">'No war': This is what a Trump victory means to some Russians <a href="https://t.co/LQhNhyUq74">https://t.co/LQhNhyUq74</a></p>— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/796444587300704256">November 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wow, <a href="https://twitter.com/davemcclure">@davemcclure</a> has a MELTDOWN on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WebSummit?src=hash">#WebSummit</a> stage over Donald Trump election <a href="https://t.co/aRJmFpYyQA">pic.twitter.com/aRJmFpYyQA</a></p>— Adrian Weckler (@adrianweckler) <a href="https://twitter.com/adrianweckler/status/796340770282307584">November 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The ironic lefty nut job response, he really inspired those people to stand too. His rant doesn't even make sense, as the internet is what was used to get real info in electing trump. Not the joke networks

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I more or less think both sides operate on this principle see, e.g., anything Scalia ever wrote but especially Heller.

There are certainly examples of conservative justices engaging in "judicial activism", but looking back over the history of the court, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Originalists have generally placed a heavy emphasis on following procedure, stare decisis, continuity with existing case law, etc., while Progressives have generally viewed such things as anachronisms that stand in the way of justice. You could argue that conservative jurisprudence is a fig leaf for maintaining balances of unjust class/racial/religious power locked in at the Founding, but I don't think "conservatives do it just as much as the Progressives" holds up to scrutiny.

Regardless, I'm eagerly awaiting a renewed (and entirely hypocritical) interest in federalism and checks & balances by the Left.

Could also double as the motto of the Constitutional Convention in the first place...

An originalist would say that, as long as the process is respected, change is welcome. I wasn't looking to argue for conservative jurisprudence so much as point out the hypocrisy of a Progressive wringing his hands over stare decisis.

 

[phgreek]

HAHAHAHAHA Madonna wigging out...

Guess that blowjob with eye contact from skeletor didn't play well.

...maybe 25 years ago...

 

[fightingirish26]

So? David Duke probably believes that 2 + 2 = 4. A despicable man believing a thing does not make that thing despicable.

The question is why they could be afraid and i am giving an answer. I don't think trump is going to bring back the kkk. But, I am sure some black people see david duke getting giddy over trump being elected as a scary thing.

 

[BobbyMac]

The ironic lefty nut job response, he really inspired those people to stand too. His rant doesn't even make sense, as the internet is what was used to get real info in electing trump. Not the joke networks

Yeah, smart dude being an emotional dummy.


In other news, looks like I'll be heading back to the westcoast. Going to live in San Clemente in the new state of San Naranja and then get a ranch up in the state of Jefferson near the border of the People's Republic of Oregon.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">People in California are calling for a <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Calexit?src=hash">#Calexit</a> after Trump’s victory <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpPresident?src=hash">#TrumpPresident</a> <a href="https://t.co/qfYCSmu3ZC">pic.twitter.com/qfYCSmu3ZC</a></p>— Business Insider (@businessinsider) <a href="https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/796486876706275328">November 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishinSyria]

There are certainly examples of conservative justices engaging in "judicial activism", but looking back over the history of the court, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Originalists have generally placed a heavy emphasis on following procedure, stare decisis, continuity with existing case law, etc., while Progressives have generally viewed such things as anachronisms that stand in the way of justice. You could argue that conservative jurisprudence is a fig leaf for maintaining balances of unjust class/racial/religious power locked in at the Founding, but I don't think "conservatives do it just as much as the Progressives" holds up to scrutiny.

Regardless, I'm eagerly awaiting a renewed (and entirely hypocritical) interest in federalism and checks & balances by the Left.



An originalist would say that, as long as the process is respected, change is welcome. I was looking to argue for conservative jurisprudence so much as point out the hypocrisy of a Progressive wringing his hands over stare decisis.

I don't think you can point to too many examples of either side overturning recent case law that's directly on point- which is exactly what calls to overturn Obergefell or Citizen's United amount to. That's where I scream stare decisis.

I think originalism is bunk, and this is a decent short primer as to why: Scalia, Originalism and the Ladder of Abstraction - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money. It really just amounts to question begging, almost every issue that gets before the Court is there because it's ambiguous what the intent of the law in question actually is.

 

[ulukinatme]

HAHAHAHAHA Madonna wigging out...

Guess that blowjob with eye contact from skeletor didn't play well.

...maybe 25 years ago...

Does she still pony up on those millions of blowjobs with a Hillary loss? I mean, girl power!

 

[wizards8507]

Wtf people on Twitter actually think Mike Pence wants to round up all the gays and send them to shock therapy.

Like... LITERALLY. Who is lying to these children?

 

[ulukinatme]

Wtf people on Twitter actually think Mike Pence wants to round up all the gays and send them to shock therapy.

Like... LITERALLY. Who is lying to these children?

Sounds like those people are the ones that need shock therapy, or maybe have their safe spaces torn down.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't think you can point to too many examples of either side overturning recent case law that's directly on point- which is exactly what calls to overturn Obergefell or Citizen's United amount to. That's where I scream stare decisis.

I think originalism is bunk, and this is a decent short primer as to why: Scalia, Originalism and the Ladder of Abstraction - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money. It really just amounts to question begging, almost every issue that gets before the Court is there because it's ambiguous what the intent of the law in question actually is.

Like I said, I'm not interested in defending originalism. I've mentioned before that our founding documents are almost entirely procedural, having nothing to say about the proper ends of politics. My problem with Progressive jurisprudence is that it's forced to lie (due to the procedural nature of our founding documents) about discovering new rights within the "penumbras" of the Constitution. They're doing nothing of the sort, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.

The decisions overturning long-standing state laws against contraception and abortion and fundamentally redefining marriage were radical breaks with legal concepts stretching back hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of years. And those breaks were imposed by judicial fiat, overturning democratically enacted legislation across the country.

So when Trump says that he might not accept the outcome of an election as valid, Progressives run to their feinting coaches over concern that such dangerous rhetoric undermines the democratic legitimacy of our entire system. But when SCOTUS dismisses Christian sexual ethics as animated by nothing except "irrational animus", we're all supposed to stand and cheer? It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

 

[IrishBroker]

The question is why they could be afraid and i am giving an answer. I don't think trump is going to bring back the kkk. But, I am sure some black people see david duke getting giddy over trump being elected as a scary thing.

Why?

Seriously. I want to know what they think is going to happen.

Because the KKK is already around, and their ignorant asses have been hating the whole time. What about them voting makes people more "scared"

 

[IrishinSyria]

Like I said, I'm not interested in defending originalism. I've mentioned before that our founding documents are almost entirely procedural, having nothing to say about the proper ends of politics. My problem with Progressive jurisprudence is that it's forced to lie (due to the procedural nature of our founding documents) about discovering new rights within the "penumbras" of the Constitution. They're doing nothing of the sort, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.

The decisions overturning long-standing state laws against contraception and abortion and fundamentally redefining marriage were radical breaks with legal concepts stretching back hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of years. And those breaks were imposed by judicial fiat, overturning democratically enacted legislation across the country.

So when Trump says that he might not accept the outcome of an election as valid, Progressives run to their feinting coaches over concern that such dangerous rhetoric undermines the democratic legitimacy of our entire system. But when SCOTUS dismisses Christian sexual ethics as animated by nothing except "irrational animus", we're all supposed to stand and cheer? It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

Obviously you and I don't see eye to eye on this, but your point is well taken.

Again, the very specific question I was addressing is why gay Americans fear Trump. And whatever you think about the propriety of Obergefell, it is now settled law and THEY feel like their right to marriage has been validated and is now being threatened. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to yell Stare Decisis but that's at a rather abstract level. For them it's not abstract at all, it's something they believe is a right and they believe is being threatened.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Obviously you and I don't see eye to eye on this, but your point is well taken.

Again, the very specific question I was addressing is why gay Americans fear Trump. And whatever you think about the propriety of Obergefell, it is now settled law and THEY feel like their right to marriage has been validated and is now being threatened. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to yell Stare Decisis but that's at a rather abstract level. For them it's not abstract at all, it's something they believe is a right and they believe is being threatened.

So now logical discussion gives flight to feelings and happiez?

*Slave owner's rights were safely nested in stare decisis but I suppose that was abstract. The slave owners didn't view it as abstraction, it was something they believe was a right and believe any overturning would take away their ability to run their businesses and provide for their families.*

I just threw up in my mouth but I hope you can see how emotional arguments aren't the best approach.

In case it isn't clear, anything in * * is not to be associated with me as I find those words abhorrent.