plus he designs rockets single handedly

The only part of his products he designs himself are the safety features.

god damn lmao

https://equitablegrowth.org/income-inequality-and-aggregate-demand-in-the-united-states/

TL;DR the reason we have bigger government is because the rich have too much. Deal with inequality if you actually care about small government.

Could you expand more on the Supreme Court ignoring past case law?

In what way?

Are you kidding? You don't need to use your imagination to imagine "nutcase conspiracy theories" on the left or Democratic politicians who have engaged in sexual impropriety that may include rape. No: you don't need to use your imagination, you need to use your memory.

Sexual (perhaps even criminal) impropriety? You don't need to go as far back as the 90s for that. You need to go back a few months.

Conspiracy theories? You can look back at some of the nonsense that you said in the early pages of this thread, for starters. But there's no shortage of people in the #resistance who make all sort of nonsensical and illogical claims that have more to do with fantasy than reality. Clearly, the left is not immune to that either.

I get that Maxine Waters said that we have "God on our side", and, therefore, the moral high ground and the right to an untroubled conscious. I was kind of stunned that she would put it that way: I really assumed that Americans would be suspicious of that kind of language. But when you say that Democrats/liberals/the left engaging in reprehensible acts is unimaginable -- despite the fact that they do --, you're effectively asserting a similar principle: that Democrats are simply constitutionally incapable of the sorts of behaviors and moral miscalculations that Republicans are. That we the good good guys, and they are the bad guys.

"God on our side", indeed.



I mean, the reason why the right is so well organized when it comes to having a large bench of vetted potential Supreme Court justices really goes back to the 1980s, when the Democrats refused to accept Robert Bork as a nominee, then refused his alternative, and then made Republicans settle for Anthony Kennedy. Republicans effectively felt as if they were robbed of a seat on the court, and, in place of what they wanted instead got an associate justice who's been the deciding vote on some of the most consequential "liberal" victories on the court in the past few decades. Much of the apparatus in the conservative legal world really came into prominence after Bork was rejected, in order to ensure that such a thing as the Kennedy appointment would never happen again.

There might be some other things at play here. Maybe there is some kind of liberal jurisprudence. I really don't know and I don't claim to. But I suspect that the fact that originalism is a form of jurisprudence that's associated with the conservative movement allows there to be a kind of litmus test when it comes to conservative justices that can't really exist on the left.

I don't know of any examples of what you're referring to.



You misread my post so bad this doesn't warrant a reply. Reread my post and think about what I'm saying, calmly.



Jesus Christ dude. Can you ever just accept that the conservatives are doing something bad without getting into this waste of time finger pointing nonsense? It doesn't matter "Who started it," if this is even true, what matters is that right now, there's a concerted one-sided effort. Can't you just recognize that it exists and is bad without always going on some tangent about how it's actually the liberal's fault?

Like what theoretical violations of stare decisis and its consequences might look like, or practical examples of it already happening in the US?

So, okay, stare decisis is basically in the eyes of the beholder, as far as I can tell. The standing rule (by tradition) is to consistently apply caselaw until the law ‘needs’ to change. In progressive terms, that might mean upholding abortion bans for many decades, only to reverse course because it is time to do so. Similar for modern expansive interpretations of the 1st and 2nd amendments, limited interpretations of the 4th. Breaking with caselaw happens, basically, and all stare decisis means is that breakage shouldn’t happen too often or too quickly.

That said, there’s nothing that prevents the Supreme Court from deciding that stare decisis means five years... or until they hear the next case. It’s really up to them.

So what this might look like is a Supreme Court that wings every case to advantage a particular party, even if those rulings might be incredibly inconsistent even with decisions they’ve just made. Stuff like saying a partisan gerrymander is okay in South Carolina, but bad in Wisconsin, for example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nj-democrats-loved-the-idea-of-taxing-the-rich---until-they-actually-could-do-it/2018/05/23/259e55c8-5d4f-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.64803345e3a1

If we want to bash Democrats though, **** these guys and their spineless posturing.

Whether I got you wrong here or not doesn't matter: I stand by what I've said. If you want to clarify what you said instead of pretending your intended meaning was self-evident, you can, but I'm not going to pretend your post is worthy of more scrutinizing than I gave it.



When did I say it's liberals' fault? What, did you think that conservatives are solely responsible for the politicization of SCOTUS? Either way, this is clearly relevant information.

Concerted one-sided effort to... pack the court? lol

My post is no more or less a criticism of hypocrisy in how people interpret and understand politics.

Yes, you can generalize it, but no, the criticism isn't symmetric over various topics. This is the bone I have with so much of the "both sides" thing people keep bringing up.

In any case, your original post (from way back) was the problem: you said "imagine if Democrats did this thing" as if speculation about the motives of people in a hypothetical situation is in any way a real criticism of the platform. It's not. And, in fact, this rise of this sort of hypothetical speculation is a big problem today, it's the primary way conservatives operate. You've basically co-opted their method of "deflect criticism and replace it with hypothetical boogeymanning of Democrats".

Yes, Democrats deserve criticism, but when you instantly change the subject constantly from Republican sins to some random crap about Democrats every time, you're serving Republican interests, this is their rhetorical tack, this is how they survive.

Yes, we know, Democrats do it too, and you still never grasped the point if this is what you just thought. Leave the criticisms in their own discussions, don't try to shut down criticism of one side like Sean Hannity.



It's like we have street gang violence, and up til now it's been only fists and threats, but now someone has a gun and is going to kill someone, and you're still harping on who threw the first punch months ago. Dude, someone has a ****ing gun, and they're posturing to shoot someone. Who started it is irrelevant now, something needs to be done about the person who might shoot someone.

I was thinking of practical examples of where it's already happened, but I get the threat. If the courts become more partisan, we're likely to see a weakening of stare decisis as courts shift decisions more radically back between positions.

Jesus Christ dude. "Republicans are doing a bad thing now." "Oh yeah? Well do you remember the 1930's?"

This is literally the same level as those people who say "black people used to vote Republican" as evidence that Republicanism and racism are incompatible.

No, goofball: Democrats are advocating packing the court now. You know. In 2018. In July. I'm not surprised you didn't get past the picture, though.

You can have a court that respects such norms while still being ideologically conservative.

Unless it’s business conservative, lol. Can’t get blood from a stone, can’t get mores from a capitalist.

Look, what I'm saying is, Republicans have only one rhetorical tactic: deflect blame to the Democrats. There are times when this is warranted, but often it's not, and your posting style here is not far from what Sean Hannity does on his show when he redirects blame to Democrats.

You keep doing it. Like, you just did it. I'd like if you could maybe not post like that, because it's actually really destructive to the discourse.

Yes, ideologically conservative judges are fine, those who are genuinely committed to their practice and work on principle.

By business conservative, I believe we're including basically everyone who wants to make America a right to work country, or something? I'm not sure how that would be expressed in any other way.

Yeah, you actually missed the point of those posts. I was pointing out: when it comes to SCOTUS, the stakes are just as high for Democrats as they are for Republicans. If Obama had appointed Garland and then Clinton won and appointed a replacement for Kennedy, then Democrats would have a decisive majority in the court. If the GOP cares as much about its agenda as Democrats do, they would be talking as if the sky was falling right now. So: seeing the other side winning as an existential threat is not a factor that motivates Democrats exclusively (although it certainly does). It also motivates Republicans. That's worth being attentive to. Their actions aren't merely a scramble for power. It's a scramble for power that is justified on the precise same basis that Democrats put forward as their motivation: that the alternative means "the end of democracy".

Should we not be wary, then, when Democrats/liberals/leftists say we need to implement anti-democratic policies in order to save democracy? When they do that, are they not indicating that they are subject to the exact same pressures as the GOP, and that it will look just as tyrannical to Republican voters, and that it will thus further exacerbate conflict?



What? Do you think I'm some kind of GOP stooge or something? This is like on Twitter when someone says something mildly controversial, and then a string of people accuse them of being a bot. I'm not blaming anyone. However, I do see you doing a lot of deflecting and being quite unwilling to engage in self-criticism.

I'm actually writing ideas that, you know, I think are worth talking about. Believe it or not, people who think differently than you are actually speaking their mind, not employing a jujitsu "tactic" to serve the Republican boogeyman's interests.

We should be wary of that, it's just not the response to pointing out that conservatives are attempting to subvert the court system. That's the discourse complaint I'm trying to get at. Not every criticism needs to be immediately balanced by a deflection. We need to acknowledge what's there for what's there.



No, I think you've just pickled your brain from reading too much conservative stuff. Also you don't recognize that you've legitimized their rhetoric instead of being critically minded.

I don't think that Eversor (and myself) will ever see Reid as treating conservatives fairly, so long as he criticizes them not only for their actions, but also their beliefs.

For example, by conservative standards, this new Supreme Court justice is a totally fair pick. Using this as an opportunity to criticize conservatives for picking him, well, that has nothing to do with whether or not you think it was right for them to pick him in this case, and everything to do with what you think of conservatives in general. It's about as healthy for reaching some kind of political understanding as it is when Sean Hannity says that every single reasonable action taken by Democrats was actually a George Soros conspiracy: it just falls on deaf ears among reasonable people.

I don't doubt there is a conspiracy by the business elite to influence all branches of government, but if this is news to anybody, then maybe they should read the Republican party platform.

Wow. You're legitimately bad at conversation. It's pretty incredible that after a year and half of this thread, you continue to surprise me with that with new lows like this.

I don't think I'm harsh on conservatives for believing in fiscal responsibility, or small government, a sensible degree of moral conservatism, etc.

However, no elected Republicans really believe in that crap, so it's kinda irrelevant when discussing our government.

Hold on now. You do it too!

Is this good discourse?

No, it wouldn't be. But that's also not what I've said at all, as much as you wish it was.

I mean, you tend to not admit to being wrong ever, only insisting that everyone is misinterpreting your posts and scrambling to rewrite what you said, so..

I was mostly talking about the pick for the Supreme Court, though. He seems like a pretty straight shooter from what little I've read. And there's a difference between spouting conservative talking points on AM radio, and making a name for yourself in the legal world and going all the way to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Oh, I guess I should say, "none of them ever act on it", since maybe they believe in it but don't act on it, or something.

Judges act on it all the time! It's why they are judges.

At least personally, I haven't commented on the pick because I know little about Kavanaugh. People are saying he's more moderate, which is good. Some people were also saying the sky is falling, which it isn't. When I'm talking about the Koch brothers subverting the courts, this goes much beyond just the SCOTUS nomination.

For sure! It's a good thing they aren't elected Republicans.

But you said this!



So you're against him by default?

By the way, I do see the value of Democrats opposing any Supreme Court nomination, if for nothing else than a negotiating tactic. But I think the cries from Democratic partisans that the sky is falling are more than a little pathetic (and tiresome).

Liberals are actually pretty happy about this pick. There was a short list of other potential justices, and at least one of them was one of those Washington "outsiders", who was basically insane.

What I'm more concerned about is the fact that Ginsberg is 85 years old. I hope that we'll see the day that a Democrat picks her replacement.

smdh

Jones, stop both sides-ing and deflecting? You're playing into the Republicans hands, bro. You're practically Sean Hannity.

Yes, seriously. People are grumbling about how she should've retired in 2014, and I think they're probably right.

Since I doubt people trust my claim here without an argument, here's what's going on. The Kochs love donating money to universities. The language of the donor agreements is pretty restrictive, a description:



The Kochs can't specifically demand that the universities hire faculty they prefer, as it violates accreditation standards, but anyone who's anyone can read between the lines on this ****, those responsible for wrangling donors know what they're inclined to do. And, this isn't just speculation, people have collected data, and sure enough, there's ample evidence that Koch money has affected hiring decisions in many universities.

In specific, let's talk about what's going at George Mason. Documents were leaked which showed the Charles Koch Foundation a key role in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations. I highly recommend you read that article to grasp the full level that Koch money has influenced education to be more right wing. This is, by the way, why the made-up conspiracy about left-wing universities exists, they take something approximating reality and use it as opportunistic rhetoric, to claim being against this corruption is evidence of the left's bias.

But why do they want to do this? Oh, right, it's because they want to create a direct pipeline from universities they ideologically influence to the courts.

So, Kavanaugh aside, this is what I'm concerned about. This is extremely unethical behavior that's borderline illegal, and is very much an all-out assault on free institutions and our judicial system. But hey, Democrats, right?