-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
But I don't want to take that chance. Correction, I am not taking any chances. Trump might decide to re-look at the position once in office. There is just no way to predict what he might do.
You can predict that he will act in self-interest.
Hilary is admittedly the safe choice. I'm voting Trump, not because I like the man, but because I'm willing to gamble on the candidate that is more likely to bring in real change. Not Obama-style change, but capitalist, America-first change. Far more importantly, he'll appoint conservative judges to the supreme court, which will define the country for a generation.
Hilary is admittedly the safe choice. I'm voting Trump, not because I like the man, but because I'm willing to gamble on the candidate that is more likely to bring in real change. Not Obama-style change, but capitalist, America-first change. Far more importantly, he'll appoint conservative judges to the supreme court, which will define the country for a generation.
Kirby J. Parasol can u explain to me why conservative supreme court justices are Good because i vomited a little in my mouth when i read that
Long story short, conservative justices more often stick to the constitution and less often legislate from the bench
You mean like when conservatives in 1982 tried to claim that undocumented immigrant children were not protected by the 14th amendment?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
The amendment literally says "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."
But you know, scary brown people who don't speak good english clearly don't have any rights.
I could present many many more cases with bullshit nonsense like this, but I really don't have the time.
Meanwhile, the first time anyone on the right really ever got in a tizzy over the Supreme Court making sweeping liberal decisions was under the Warren Court in Brown v Board of Ed... That's where the idea of "judicial activism" comes from. Nixon as a part of his southern strategy campaigned on replacing these "activist judges" with conservatives. So just know that you have segregationists as your bedfellows when you use that term.
The amendment literally says "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."
But you know, scary brown people who don't speak good english clearly don't have any rights.
I could present many many more cases with bullshit nonsense like this, but I really don't have the time.
Meanwhile, the first time anyone on the right really ever got in a tizzy over the Supreme Court making sweeping liberal decisions was under the Warren Court in Brown v Board of Ed... That's where the idea of "judicial activism" comes from. Nixon as a part of his southern strategy campaigned on replacing these "activist judges" with conservatives. So just know that you have segregationists as your bedfellows when you use that term.
Everyone has some strawman as a bedfellow.
And yes, I do mean exactly like that case, where the dissenting judges said that the majority decided "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction". As the quoted amendment states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Denying publicly funded education to illegal immigrants is a far cry from denying them "life, liberty, or property", nor is it denying them "equal protection of the laws". As the Wikipedia article you linked to says, creating a subclass of illiterate residents--NOT citizens, but ILLEGAL residents--would certainly exacerbate social issues. But it is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to legislate. That is Congress' job. Anything else is a disregard for our system of checks and balances.
So then. My original statement stands. Conservative judges more often stick to merely interpreting the constitution, and less often legislate from the bench.
And yes, I do mean exactly like that case, where the dissenting judges said that the majority decided "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction". As the quoted amendment states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Denying publicly funded education to illegal immigrants is a far cry from denying them "life, liberty, or property", nor is it denying them "equal protection of the laws". As the Wikipedia article you linked to says, creating a subclass of illiterate residents--NOT citizens, but ILLEGAL residents--would certainly exacerbate social issues. But it is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to legislate. That is Congress' job. Anything else is a disregard for our system of checks and balances.
So then. My original statement stands. Conservative judges more often stick to merely interpreting the constitution, and less often legislate from the bench.
Please don't try to argue that Donald Trump would appoint good Supreme Court justices. If anything, I find he'd be more likely to appoint justices who would overturn such decisions as:
Note: I'm a registered Republican, so don't go throwing "typical liberal Obama supporter response" or some shit because that isn't gonna work here.
- Roe v. Wade
- Obergefell v. Hodges
- Miller v. California
- Riley v. California
Note: I'm a registered Republican, so don't go throwing "typical liberal Obama supporter response" or some shit because that isn't gonna work here.
No doubt that bias plays into everyone, but on average, conservative judges try to stick with the meaning of the constitution more than trying to institute an agenda. To again cite the above example, the dissenting judges AGREED that it's a bad idea for the kids to not get education. But they said IT'S NOT THEIR JOB to bother with that; they're only there to accurately interpret laws that CONGRESS has passed.
As for your unbalanced fears: as long as there's no such thing as an unbiased judge, either candidate will "unbalance" the court. We're looking at two, three, even four justices replaced this term. Trump will appoint conservative justices, Hilary will appoint liberal justices.
As for your unbalanced fears: as long as there's no such thing as an unbiased judge, either candidate will "unbalance" the court. We're looking at two, three, even four justices replaced this term. Trump will appoint conservative justices, Hilary will appoint liberal justices.
Sure, I'll give you the point that both Clinton and Trump would throw the court balance. At this point, though, I think I'd rather have the liberal justices Clinton would appoint; at the very least recent landmark decisions like Hodges would be in no danger, and at this point I'd be cool with a court that would overturn Citizens United.
Anyway, 14A is definitely very clear on saying that Congress can't pass any laws denying equal protection to all persons (not just all citizens). How would denying equal access to education for immigrant children... not violate that?
Anyway, 14A is definitely very clear on saying that Congress can't pass any laws denying equal protection to all persons (not just all citizens). How would denying equal access to education for immigrant children... not violate that?
I think you missed the two parts where they used the words PERSON. Which I bolded.
There's a reason why the first part is applying only to citizens. There are things that are fundamental rights of ONLY citizens, like voting. There are however also many fundamental rights like life, liberty, property, and equality under the law apply that the amendment explicitly granted to all PEOPLE.
I think you got that actually, based on your post. But if that is true, then you're still fundamentally misunderstanding what equal protection is. Denying access to publicly funded programs is very literally a violation of equal protection. This means if a state is going to do this, they need to have a valid state interest. This can be fairly asserted in many cases i.e. they can deny undocumented immigrants access to welfare and food stamps and social security (in fact the federal government already does prohibit this... any non-citizen accessing these benefits is defrauding the government). None of these are essential to life, liberty, or property. So it's just equal protection, and the valid state interest in denying these benefits to non-citizens is that it would create a magnet for poor immigrants.
But they don't deny things that would be considered fundamental rights like the ability to call for an ambulance and use an emergency room (ie to not die just because your appendix bursts.)
And on the equal protection front, they don't deny education to children who didn't even have control over the status of their citizenship.
Why? Well, this is not a magnet. Extensive fact finding at lower courts determined that no one had come to the US illegally because of free public k-12 education. That just wasn't a factor. The only state interest they could assert was saving some money. That doesn't survive the scrutiny for how much discrimination it would cause, setting up a subset of kids to fail due to something they could not control.
There's a reason why the first part is applying only to citizens. There are things that are fundamental rights of ONLY citizens, like voting. There are however also many fundamental rights like life, liberty, property, and equality under the law apply that the amendment explicitly granted to all PEOPLE.
I think you got that actually, based on your post. But if that is true, then you're still fundamentally misunderstanding what equal protection is. Denying access to publicly funded programs is very literally a violation of equal protection. This means if a state is going to do this, they need to have a valid state interest. This can be fairly asserted in many cases i.e. they can deny undocumented immigrants access to welfare and food stamps and social security (in fact the federal government already does prohibit this... any non-citizen accessing these benefits is defrauding the government). None of these are essential to life, liberty, or property. So it's just equal protection, and the valid state interest in denying these benefits to non-citizens is that it would create a magnet for poor immigrants.
But they don't deny things that would be considered fundamental rights like the ability to call for an ambulance and use an emergency room (ie to not die just because your appendix bursts.)
And on the equal protection front, they don't deny education to children who didn't even have control over the status of their citizenship.
Why? Well, this is not a magnet. Extensive fact finding at lower courts determined that no one had come to the US illegally because of free public k-12 education. That just wasn't a factor. The only state interest they could assert was saving some money. That doesn't survive the scrutiny for how much discrimination it would cause, setting up a subset of kids to fail due to something they could not control.
No, you're right, we disagree on the interpretation of equal protection. Equal protection is simply a guarantee that we're not gonna discriminate based on religion, race, etc. Rights to medical care would fall under the right to life, not under equal protection.
At least that's my understanding, perhaps I really don't "get it". I'm not a lawyer, that's for sure.
Hodges absolutely SHOULD be overturned, it's probably the best example of legislation from the bench that there is. The court literally redefined marriage, and then overrode the democratic process that was ongoing in the states, robbing the people of their self-governance. I'm not talking about any moral implications right now, I'm strictly talking about legal implications. To quote Justice Alito, "...all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."
At least that's my understanding, perhaps I really don't "get it". I'm not a lawyer, that's for sure.
Hodges absolutely SHOULD be overturned, it's probably the best example of legislation from the bench that there is. The court literally redefined marriage, and then overrode the democratic process that was ongoing in the states, robbing the people of their self-governance. I'm not talking about any moral implications right now, I'm strictly talking about legal implications. To quote Justice Alito, "...all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."
And what are the legal implications of allowing two men or two women to marry? Remember that from the government's perspective, marriage is a civil, not religious, issue. We're talking access to benefits that are afforded to two people who decide to engage in them together. But only when they are a man and a woman. What is the valid state reason for denying these same benefits to two men or to two women? If you cannot come up with one then it's a violation of equal protection. Advocates for the states tried very hard to come up with reasons, but all of them were rightly rejected.
The only not overtly religious distinction between a marriage of a man and a woman vs two men or two women is in the biology. Basically, child rearing. But the government does not ask on marriage licenses, "are you going to have kids?" and then rejecting people who say no. It's not asking them if one or both members of the marriage are infertile, or in a woman's case very likely menopausal if they're just above a certain age. Furthermore, marriage just isn't about having kids. I challenge you to find me any traditional marriage vows that even mention kids. It's about the union of those two people. Or do we ban couples from divorcing when they have kids to raise? And do we ban single parents from adopting kids? If the state cares so much about increasing the number of children being born and raised in two parent opposite-sex households, it has many opportunities to do so without demeaning lgbt people and withholding from them literally over 1,000 public benefits.
But you know, next you're going to tell me that state bans on sodomy were also ok because straight people can commit sodomy too. You very clearly don't get it.
The only not overtly religious distinction between a marriage of a man and a woman vs two men or two women is in the biology. Basically, child rearing. But the government does not ask on marriage licenses, "are you going to have kids?" and then rejecting people who say no. It's not asking them if one or both members of the marriage are infertile, or in a woman's case very likely menopausal if they're just above a certain age. Furthermore, marriage just isn't about having kids. I challenge you to find me any traditional marriage vows that even mention kids. It's about the union of those two people. Or do we ban couples from divorcing when they have kids to raise? And do we ban single parents from adopting kids? If the state cares so much about increasing the number of children being born and raised in two parent opposite-sex households, it has many opportunities to do so without demeaning lgbt people and withholding from them literally over 1,000 public benefits.
But you know, next you're going to tell me that state bans on sodomy were also ok because straight people can commit sodomy too. You very clearly don't get it.
The legal implication is that the Supreme Court can redefine any term that it wants to, as long as that redefinition is "in vogue" with the current waves of the culture. If you can redefine words, you can twist anything into a right--or, out of being a right. Regardless of your opinion of LGBT rights, you must agree that this case has set a precedent that gives the Supreme Court unprecedented legislative power.
Last edited:
"Redefining" a word is a nice little meme you can use but it doesn't mean anything. The supreme court interprets words. That's literally their job. If you don't like it, then please go strip out article 3 of the constitution.
If you don't think it's their job to define what words mean then how do you explain countless cases that have hinged on one or two words in the law? One off the top of my head is http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sandifer-v-united-states-steel-corporation/ what are clothes?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/yates-v-united-states/
what are tangible objects?
Pretty much every single fourth amendment case
What are police "searches?"
If you don't think it's their job to define what words mean then how do you explain countless cases that have hinged on one or two words in the law? One off the top of my head is http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sandifer-v-united-states-steel-corporation/ what are clothes?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/yates-v-united-states/
what are tangible objects?
Pretty much every single fourth amendment case
What are police "searches?"
Last edited:
You are being purposefully obstinate if you refuse to acknowledge that Hodges is a case of the Supreme Court outright redefining a word. Never before in American culture had marriage meant the union of anything but a man and a woman. Interpretation of the law is an effort to effect the spirit of the law, that is, the author's intent. This is impossible unless words are understood by their standard meanings at the time the laws are penned.
So yes, the Supreme Court interprets words, that's literally their job. But they are to find a singular, objective meaning; not subjectively define things however they fancy.
More precisely, they are to find the meaning that the LEGISLATURE intended. Not what they--the court--wishes or thinks that Congress should have intended.
So yes, the Supreme Court interprets words, that's literally their job. But they are to find a singular, objective meaning; not subjectively define things however they fancy.
More precisely, they are to find the meaning that the LEGISLATURE intended. Not what they--the court--wishes or thinks that Congress should have intended.
No. The supreme court's job is NOT to just decide what congress (or the president) said. They are a co-equal branch of government entitled to judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. It sure looks like you believe Marbury v Madison never happened or shouldn't have happened. But that has been the court's role since just barely after the founding of our country, while the founders were all still alive and approved.
Their primary function is constitutional law. They don't engage in fact finding. And in fact, they really don't even care about legislative intent anymore. Conservative justices have pushed a preference for the literal text of the law, where previous more liberal courts would give legislative intent a good bit of weight. These days, they barely even ask that question in oral arguments.
If you want to live in a country where the court's only job is to interpret laws and not determine constitutionality, you need to move to a civil law country. France (for most of its history... they changed recently) would be a good example. But we follow the English common law tradition and this is how our courts work and have always worked.
Their primary function is constitutional law. They don't engage in fact finding. And in fact, they really don't even care about legislative intent anymore. Conservative justices have pushed a preference for the literal text of the law, where previous more liberal courts would give legislative intent a good bit of weight. These days, they barely even ask that question in oral arguments.
If you want to live in a country where the court's only job is to interpret laws and not determine constitutionality, you need to move to a civil law country. France (for most of its history... they changed recently) would be a good example. But we follow the English common law tradition and this is how our courts work and have always worked.
So who here follows FiveThirtyEight?
Easily the best coverage of the election in statistical terms, and probably the best coverage of the election, period. They have a forecast which tracks the candidate's percentage chances of winning.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Right now Trump is around 41 percent and Clinton is around 59 percent currently, which means Trump is very well capable of winning the presidency. Even if his win chances drop ten percentage points because of the debates or whatever he's more likely to win than Scald is likely to burn or Focus Blast is likely to miss.
Easily the best coverage of the election in statistical terms, and probably the best coverage of the election, period. They have a forecast which tracks the candidate's percentage chances of winning.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Right now Trump is around 41 percent and Clinton is around 59 percent currently, which means Trump is very well capable of winning the presidency. Even if his win chances drop ten percentage points because of the debates or whatever he's more likely to win than Scald is likely to burn or Focus Blast is likely to miss.
Yeah, Nate Plastic, Nate Sewage, I know the resume. I don't take Nate's word as indubitable super-truth but he's still an extremely good statistician and generally accurate with his predictions. Sure he was wrong about Trump, but in all seriousness the only person who thought that Trump stood a chance at first was Trump.
I mean the most important thing about 538 compared to other poll aggregators is their pollster rankings, which causes them, for example, to totally exclude Rasmussen polls. They also adjust for house effects.
Basically, if polling companies are all as good/bad at their job this election as they were in 2012, then Nate Silver's predictions are going to be better on average than RCP or HuffPo predictions because 538 is making adjustments to the polling results themselves in their model. If the polling companies are significantly different at how good they are (ie if Rasmussen isn't radically off and should have been included all along) then his predictions will be worse.
Basically, if polling companies are all as good/bad at their job this election as they were in 2012, then Nate Silver's predictions are going to be better on average than RCP or HuffPo predictions because 538 is making adjustments to the polling results themselves in their model. If the polling companies are significantly different at how good they are (ie if Rasmussen isn't radically off and should have been included all along) then his predictions will be worse.
Of all the sad things in this election, perhaps the saddest to me is how the FBI, long trusted as independent of politics and 'above the fray' when it comes to their investigations, has eroded to a state that no one reading the daily document dump would possibly trust them to be nonpartisan at this point. This article runs through just a brief overview of what I am referring to.
It honestly looks to me as though there is literally nothing Hillary Clinton - or any other high-ranking establishment Democrat - could do to get prosecuted.
I work for a government contractor, and so take it from me that every single government employee, no matter how low-level and no matter how unlikely they are to deal with classified information, is told in no uncertain terms that if we are responsible for a security leak after the conclusion of our (rigorous) security training, we will be prosecuted and subject to jail time regardless of our intent. And I have never once handled classified information - I can only imagine how much more strict the rules/regulations and how much more thorough the training is for our highest government officials.
I'll run through what I see as the most concerning facts of the case, though I encourage people to look at how things played out for themselves, and not just take it from me or from an editorial article:
- The FBI granted blanket immunity to literally everyone involved with the security breach during or even before their investigation began, from the technicians involved with wiping Hillary's e-mails from the server up to her chief of Staff at the State department, Cheryl Mills, who demonstrably knew about the security violations yet neglected to report anything for literal years - and who 'sat in' on Hillary's lone interview with the FBI (???)
- Said immunity typically requires cooperation from said recipients in the form of testimony, and yet every single person granted immunity has plead the fifth on testifying against Hillary - and yet they still have immunity! Just so people are clear, pleading the fifth means that one cannot be forced to testify against oneself - and yet these people were granted blanket immunity already.
- Hillary Clinton's reason for explaining why she could not remember her vital security and classified information training was that she 'had a concussion' in 2012 and therefore has a foggy memory. And the FBI took this as a reasonable defense and never followed up on it.
- Neither the President of the United States nor Congress were informed at any point (well, or at least neither claims to have been informed) of any of the above steps in the investigation, and Barack Obama claims to have learned about this from 'news reports'. Congress was not informed of Cheryl Mills' reception of immunity until last week, a full year after it was granted.
- When Congress requested the relevant e-mail documents, they were told to 'get a FOIA' - a Freedom of Information Act request for private citizens - which does not apply to the Congress of the United States.
- Third-world hackers and foreign governments are now dumping Hillary's e-mails, which we were previously told there was 'no evidence were taken/hacked'.
- FBI investigators, in spite of their bosses giving blanket immunity in exchange for zero testimony to every single potential witness, still found masses of evidence of blatant disregard for national security.
The notion that this could happen within the FBI, which prosecuted Richard Nixon, which has for decades resisted external political influence, is devastating. That our government could become so corrupt as to no longer be able to regulate powerful persons within it is far more disconcerting than any bad choice between political candidates I strongly disagree with and dislike (which both Trump and Clinton are, independent of this investigation).
It takes generations to build trust with the public of the sort the FBI had.
And that's the saddest thing of all.
It honestly looks to me as though there is literally nothing Hillary Clinton - or any other high-ranking establishment Democrat - could do to get prosecuted.
I work for a government contractor, and so take it from me that every single government employee, no matter how low-level and no matter how unlikely they are to deal with classified information, is told in no uncertain terms that if we are responsible for a security leak after the conclusion of our (rigorous) security training, we will be prosecuted and subject to jail time regardless of our intent. And I have never once handled classified information - I can only imagine how much more strict the rules/regulations and how much more thorough the training is for our highest government officials.
I'll run through what I see as the most concerning facts of the case, though I encourage people to look at how things played out for themselves, and not just take it from me or from an editorial article:
- The FBI granted blanket immunity to literally everyone involved with the security breach during or even before their investigation began, from the technicians involved with wiping Hillary's e-mails from the server up to her chief of Staff at the State department, Cheryl Mills, who demonstrably knew about the security violations yet neglected to report anything for literal years - and who 'sat in' on Hillary's lone interview with the FBI (???)
- Said immunity typically requires cooperation from said recipients in the form of testimony, and yet every single person granted immunity has plead the fifth on testifying against Hillary - and yet they still have immunity! Just so people are clear, pleading the fifth means that one cannot be forced to testify against oneself - and yet these people were granted blanket immunity already.
- Hillary Clinton's reason for explaining why she could not remember her vital security and classified information training was that she 'had a concussion' in 2012 and therefore has a foggy memory. And the FBI took this as a reasonable defense and never followed up on it.
- Neither the President of the United States nor Congress were informed at any point (well, or at least neither claims to have been informed) of any of the above steps in the investigation, and Barack Obama claims to have learned about this from 'news reports'. Congress was not informed of Cheryl Mills' reception of immunity until last week, a full year after it was granted.
- When Congress requested the relevant e-mail documents, they were told to 'get a FOIA' - a Freedom of Information Act request for private citizens - which does not apply to the Congress of the United States.
- Third-world hackers and foreign governments are now dumping Hillary's e-mails, which we were previously told there was 'no evidence were taken/hacked'.
- FBI investigators, in spite of their bosses giving blanket immunity in exchange for zero testimony to every single potential witness, still found masses of evidence of blatant disregard for national security.
The notion that this could happen within the FBI, which prosecuted Richard Nixon, which has for decades resisted external political influence, is devastating. That our government could become so corrupt as to no longer be able to regulate powerful persons within it is far more disconcerting than any bad choice between political candidates I strongly disagree with and dislike (which both Trump and Clinton are, independent of this investigation).
It takes generations to build trust with the public of the sort the FBI had.
And that's the saddest thing of all.
You're making a gamble on the behalf of all us, and we'll all loose. You might as well be saying that you're voting for WW-III, because you'd rather have that, than a progressive Supreme Judge lineup. And same goes for anyone who is voting for Trump for the same reason. I'm sorry for saying this, but I am sick and tired of how well Trump is doing, even though by all logic, he should be doing worse than the third party candidates who are more qualified than him! And I'm sorry that I'm being tough on you.
But I am convinced that Trump will start WW-III, and the only thing stopping him are perhaps extraterrestrial craft shutting down the nukes like during the Cold War, but this time en mass. That is not a gamble I want to make.
Oh, he'll change America all right. He'll complete the change into a crony-capitalist state that the super wealthy have wanted for decades at least, where progressive activism is crushed, and our planet is slowly dying. And that is assuming he doesn't start a nuclear holocaust.
- Status