I am sympathetic to Kagan’s argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we’re in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists’ aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That’s what creates dictatorships, that’s what starts world wars, in summary, that’s what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who’s goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America’s circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it’s hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren’t offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
Serious question, if you see this, do you disagree that fascism is on the rise globally, if not, how do you designate the rising trend of often religious right wing ideology based on racism, sexism and any anti-minority bigotry you can think of?
You sound like a 14 year old pseudo intellectual who thinks throwing around labels (incorrectly) in a message to a nobody on a social app somehow helps…anything. Serious answer? The press is feeding you red meat for clicks, twisting words to make the mundane sound sinister so you’ll read and click and click and read for that sweet sweet ad revenue.
Edit to add - Prime example being this article. Take a look at the headline, then at what he actually said.
What was said: “Serious question, if you see this, do you disagree that fascism is on the rise globally, if not, how do you designate the rising trend of often religious right wing ideology based on racism, sexism and any anti-minority bigotry you can think of?”
Is actually a pretty good screening of unknown persons on social media, as it puts things into context from the damage done to online then offline society by Cambridge Analytica.
“In psychological warfare, the weak points are flaws in how people think. If you’re trying to hack a person’s mind, you need to identify cognitive biases and then exploit them.”
― Christopher Wylie, Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America
similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure
Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and
protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.
So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why “none of that matters” without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of “because unborn babies are important” WITHOUT explaining the “why” of that statement. That’s the point of the court to establish the “why” of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it’s their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That’s the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That’s literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that’s how you know they are full of shit.
So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it’s weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.
That said.
In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements
That’s broad powers. That’s how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they’re Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.
But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is “OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!” Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
I completely agree. I think that I gave the impression that everyone needs to sing kumbaya and that is not what I meant to convey. Roberts I think is trying to respond to the increased scrutiny and while I disagree with his approach, I understand his reasoning/goals. The court is in the spotlight way more than it has been and he sees that I suspect correctly as unhealthy for the institution. To the question of if it should be, I think the obvious answer is yes, in light of recent actions there should be more scrutiny. There should be zero concern that there is influence peddling or neglecting precedent because of ideological lean of the justices.
At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals.
Yes, but with respect to reproductive health rights, that should have been legislated as an amendment long before the court was packed by the Trump administration. Congress is at fault for not enshrining those rights, especially given the long history of speculation regarding the “Legitimacy/Cleanliness” (eye roll I know) of the Roe decision. Instead numerous congresses preferred have campaigned on the very actual threat that those protections under Roe would be taken away and now here we are. I could see your point that there is benefit to a federal vagueness because on occasion because it allows the states to experiment but I think there are some decisions we just need to put to bed and move forward.
How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
If I use this gallup poll data from 5/2/22
Should abortion be legal
Legal under any circumstance 35%
Legal under certain circumstances 50%
Illegal under any circumstance 13%
If that is where the general public is, why can’t congress pass laws? In, this sense I am unserved because every 4 years we are going to roll the dice on how federal laws will be executed. To have something lasting we need amendments and bills speaking to these issues with more specificity. I am arguing that the court while absolutely a problem is a symptom of the larger sickness that is our legislature.
Again I thank you for your reply and any further contribution the discussion. It is nice to talk through the ideas.
I am sympathetic to Kagan’s argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we’re in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists’ aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That’s what creates dictatorships, that’s what starts world wars, in summary, that’s what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who’s goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
I said global. This is a human phenomenon, not specific to US politics.
Think of it like a “greed is the root of all evil” kinda statement.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America’s circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it’s hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren’t offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
deleted by creator
Serious question, if you see this, do you disagree that fascism is on the rise globally, if not, how do you designate the rising trend of often religious right wing ideology based on racism, sexism and any anti-minority bigotry you can think of?
You sound like a 14 year old pseudo intellectual who thinks throwing around labels (incorrectly) in a message to a nobody on a social app somehow helps…anything. Serious answer? The press is feeding you red meat for clicks, twisting words to make the mundane sound sinister so you’ll read and click and click and read for that sweet sweet ad revenue.
Edit to add - Prime example being this article. Take a look at the headline, then at what he actually said.
What was said: “Serious question, if you see this, do you disagree that fascism is on the rise globally, if not, how do you designate the rising trend of often religious right wing ideology based on racism, sexism and any anti-minority bigotry you can think of?”
Is actually a pretty good screening of unknown persons on social media, as it puts things into context from the damage done to online then offline society by Cambridge Analytica.
“In psychological warfare, the weak points are flaws in how people think. If you’re trying to hack a person’s mind, you need to identify cognitive biases and then exploit them.”
― Christopher Wylie, Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America
Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.
In short, “weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments.” The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why “none of that matters” without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of “because unborn babies are important” WITHOUT explaining the “why” of that statement. That’s the point of the court to establish the “why” of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it’s their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That’s the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That’s literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that’s how you know they are full of shit.
So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it’s weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.
That said.
That’s broad powers. That’s how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law “protect animals that might go extinct”, “fix our highways”, and “protect our armed forces” and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they’re Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.
But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is “OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!” Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
Thank you for your reply.
I completely agree. I think that I gave the impression that everyone needs to sing kumbaya and that is not what I meant to convey. Roberts I think is trying to respond to the increased scrutiny and while I disagree with his approach, I understand his reasoning/goals. The court is in the spotlight way more than it has been and he sees that I suspect correctly as unhealthy for the institution. To the question of if it should be, I think the obvious answer is yes, in light of recent actions there should be more scrutiny. There should be zero concern that there is influence peddling or neglecting precedent because of ideological lean of the justices.
Yes, but with respect to reproductive health rights, that should have been legislated as an amendment long before the court was packed by the Trump administration. Congress is at fault for not enshrining those rights, especially given the long history of speculation regarding the “Legitimacy/Cleanliness” (eye roll I know) of the Roe decision. Instead numerous congresses preferred have campaigned on the very actual threat that those protections under Roe would be taken away and now here we are. I could see your point that there is benefit to a federal vagueness because on occasion because it allows the states to experiment but I think there are some decisions we just need to put to bed and move forward.
If I use this gallup poll data from 5/2/22
Should abortion be legal
Legal under any circumstance 35%
Legal under certain circumstances 50%
Illegal under any circumstance 13%
If that is where the general public is, why can’t congress pass laws? In, this sense I am unserved because every 4 years we are going to roll the dice on how federal laws will be executed. To have something lasting we need amendments and bills speaking to these issues with more specificity. I am arguing that the court while absolutely a problem is a symptom of the larger sickness that is our legislature.
Again I thank you for your reply and any further contribution the discussion. It is nice to talk through the ideas.