As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

So does anyone support Palin?

1468910

Posts

  • MandaManda Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    extreme feminists might support her.

    i mean so extreme that they dont care so long as a woman is in power.

    i have never met anyone who i would call an extreme feminist so they may not exist but logic tells me they probably do.

    Even feminists hate Sarah Palin: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/185694/september-25-2008/now-s-presidential-endorsement---kim-gandy

    I had lunch with a few friends this weekend and one of them mentioned that she doesn't understand why people hate Palin. I think it's a combination of wanting to see more women in power and having strong conservative/Christian values (before the Palin comment my friend was talking about experiencing the Holy Spirit in church by talking in tongues, etc). Personally, I and every woman in my family find her appalling and I want her the hell out of my gender.

    Manda on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    What do you mean, 'even', her nomination is a direct slap to the face of anyone who's even slightly feminist. This isn't an interpretation of the campaign's thinking, either.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Overexpansion of the Commerce Clause, Raich for a recent example.

    Scalia and Thomas abuse the Commerce Clause when it suits their politics. That isn't about to change.

    Thomas was in the dissent on Raich, could you point out a case of him 'abusing' the Commerce Clause? Perhaps one where he wrote the majority opinion rather than simply joined it?
    An opinion is an opinion, whether he was in the majority or not. Thomas doesn't need to win to provide evidence of his beliefs.

    He's staunchly against the dormant commerce clause these days. If you're not familiar with what that is, it's a logical corollary to the plain language of the commerce clause. It basically says that, since Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce, it also has the power to prevent states from enacting legislation that interferes with interstate commerce. Namely laws that deal with protectionism for local industry. See Thomas' dissent in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

    Of course, this is after he voted in favor of the dormant commerce clause in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994), where it was used to strike down a New York ordinance that required certain types of waste to be processed at a certain company's facilities.

    Since then, Thomas has changed his mind, apparently.

    I'll have to dig up more on the commerce clause itself; I'm a bit busy prepping some cases for class tonight at the moment. But my recollection of Thomas' opinions in criminal procedure seem to indicate someone who was quite willing to part with his judicial approach for the sake of promoting his politics. Maybe not as flagrantly and borderline-fraudulently as Scalia, but still...

    s3rial one on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/the-gops-bizarre-purchase_n_138219.html
    In early October, as the presidential campaign was hitting its emotional peak, the Republican National Committee mailed off a check for $6,000 to an art restoration company in Kensington, Maryland. What political purpose such an expenditure played is difficult to ascertain. An employee at Wimsatt & Associates declined to discuss the services it provided for its client, only confirming that the company deals in repairing damaged artwork, not in selling pieces. The RNC, meanwhile, did not return requests for comment. But it is hard to imagine, in the context of the current election, that $6,000 for art restoration helped the Republican Party's electoral standing.

    For instance, the McCain Victory 2008 committee spent nearly $9,000 on "event site rental" from a yacht company in San Diego, while the John McCain 2008 committee bought $336 worth of "event tickets" for an Arizona Diamondbacks baseball game.

    Hoping to lavish big time donors with gifts of appreciation during the GOP convention in Minnesota, McCain Victory 2008 purchased 250 wine glasses adorned with elephant designs, at a cost of nearly $7,000, from a shop in Georgia. It was considered a deal.

    "I gave them a 20 percent discount," said an employee of Kevin's of Thomasville. "We are all Republicans here."

    That same committee also purchased $3,589 worth of elephant shaped chocolates from a sweet shop in Dallas, Texas. "They bought about 1,000 pieces," said the storeowner. "About eleven ounces a piece in all three types of chocolate: milk, dark and light."

    In addition to these items, the McCain campaign spent nearly $9,000 at a jewelry and political paraphernalia shop in Washington D.C., and $4,249.07 at the outdoor/clothing store, Lands End. The RNC, meanwhile, paid the Minnesota-based Tropical Plants Unlimited nearly $500 for an elephant-shaped topiary shrub.

    These may seem like minor expenditures. And certainly, the Obama campaign and the DNC have also made their share of questionable purchases. But, all told the McCain campaign put down nearly $20,000 simply on items classified as "event-donor gifts."

    The campaign also bought items that cut against the Republican candidate's own political message. These included checks totaling more than $9,400 for an event at the Beverly Hills Hilton, roughly at the same time that McCain was criticizing Obama for going to Hollywood while the economic crisis stirred. John McCain 2008 also paid $107.20 in subscription fees to the New York Times, the same paper that aides to McCain have called a non-journalistic institution and have trashed on a semi-regular basis.

    The Republican National Committee had its share of curious purchases as well. The party paid $1,000 for a gift certificate to South Coast Growers Inc., "a plant grower, broker, & distributor dedicated to both the buying and selling of quality plant material and specimens for the wholesale market." It covered more than $600 combined in Starbucks purchases made by its workers; and $77.41 in meal tabs reported by former Bush strategist Karl Rove. And from September through last week, the committee spent $955 on golf carts and $38 on two separate car washes.

    In the end, these budget items add up to a small amount of the many millions of dollars that the RNC and the McCain campaign have plowed through during the course of the campaign. But with an election that seems close to slipping away, and with multiple states considered battleground turf, every penny surely would help. And six-thousand-dollars on art restoration won't, it appears, win any votes.
    I want an elephant shaped shrub.

    Couscous on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Well, with Stevens getting his tubes tied (thanks, Fark!), this isn't going to help Palin at home. I doubt AK wants a rep as "Frozen and Corrupt", so I have a feeling that she's going to face some pretty significant heat if she loses the election.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • edited October 2008
    You know what scares the shit out of me?

    The fact that she could run for president in 4-8 years. I've heard it brought up, and it seems ridiculous. But I don't believe people would be smart enough not to vote for her, and more than that I don't believe she's smart enough to return to Alaska and box polar bears for the rest of her life. No I think she thinks she's queen of america and would seek a return bout, and her whole speech would be about what she learned during this election cycle and how much she's changed in 4 years and people would buy into her shit.

    "She's so plucky" They'd say
    "After that elitist Barrack I want someone I can have a beer with" the Union workers would say

    And then she'd win.

    And 100 days later, Rome will fall, and I will be the Scorpion King.

    The End.

    BlackbeardonGuitar on
    n13908669_48529144_9322.jpg
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You know what's baffling?

    When it comes to fighting our wars, we want the most elite, well-equipped soldiers on the planet fighting for us.

    When it comes to doctors, we want them held to the highest standards, and we want the best doctors anywhere to be treating us.

    When it comes to sports, we want the best athletes in the world performing for us.

    When it comes to electing the leader of the most powerful country on Earth - or in this case, his backup - we suddenly shun elitism, education, knowledge, and wisdom, and want the guy who reminds us of and maintains a level of discourse and grasp of important issues on par with the community college drop-out who spends every night at the bar down the street.

    Utterly. Fucking. Mystifying.

    s3rial one on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You know what scares the shit out of me?

    The fact that she could run for president in 4-8 years. I've heard it brought up, and it seems ridiculous. But I don't believe people would be smart enough not to vote for her, and more than that I don't believe she's smart enough to return to Alaska and box polar bears for the rest of her life. No I think she thinks she's queen of america and would seek a return bout, and her whole speech would be about what she learned during this election cycle and how much she's changed in 4 years and people would buy into her shit.

    "She's so plucky" They'd say
    "After that elitist Barrack I want someone I can have a beer with" the Union workers would say

    And then she'd win.

    And 100 days later, Rome will fall, and I will be the Scorpion King.

    The End.
    She's definitely got ambition. That last joint interview where she interrupted McCain so she could go on talking showed that.

    Except, look how inept she's been when kept on a tight leash. Give her her own campaign where she calls the shots, and it's going to go flying off the rails so fast it's not even funny. She'll sway the extremists and the outliers, but will be too busy shoving her foot down her throat and swallowing, and alienating all the more moderate voters who aren't comfortable with who her definition of 'unamerican' includes. Just to carry the pitbull analogy, she's all bark and no bite. Give her a script and she can deliver a performance, but without adequate prepping she can't even remember what she reads to keep informed (and part of her persona seems to be that keeping informed is something she doesn't have time for).

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • edited October 2008
    Except, look how inept she's been when kept on a tight leash. Give her her own campaign where she calls the shots, and it's going to go flying off the rails so fast it's not even funny. She'll sway the extremists and the outliers, but will be too busy shoving her foot down her throat and swallowing, and alienating all the more moderate voters who aren't comfortable with who her definition of 'unamerican' includes. Just to carry the pitbull analogy, she's all bark and no bite. Give her a script and she can deliver a performance, but without adequate prepping she can't even remember what she reads to keep informed (and part of her persona seems to be that keeping informed is something she doesn't have time for).

    In alot of ways that sounds exactly like G Dub.

    BlackbeardonGuitar on
    n13908669_48529144_9322.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Promoting divided government and conflicting beliefs to ensure that what survives the crucible is what's best was the ideal of conservatism. Competency, pragmatism, and good governance over strict ideological tenets.

    Interesting, what's the ideal of liberalism then?

    Competency, good governance, and idealism. Shedding what hasn't or isn't working in order to try a different or better approach at dealing with the various problems that exist in society. Taking collective wisdom of past history and then projecting it outward or taking an extra step to go that much further.

    moniker on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Don't blame me, I voted for Raistlin.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • saberlinsaberlin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    So, I'm an Alaskan born and raised. I love my state and support a good many things that represent Alaska. I do not however, support Sara Palin on this ridiculous notion she has of being VP. Yes, she has done some very good things for the state of Alaska, as well as some thing that I do not agree with *stupid Aerial Wolf Hunting.... grumbles about putting politicians out in the wild and wolves in planes with guns.....* Over all though, I just don't feel like she's ready for the "Big Time" She is a knowledgeable enough lady but only when it comes to small state issues. I mean lets face it, Alaska might be the biggest state land wise, but our population is still dwindling compared to any other state *except for maybe Rhode Island.* I also don't think she has enough real life experience on the large scale to deal with the woe's of a country, none the less that of other counties..... I hope Obama Wins for if NO other reason than Palin will go back to AK where she belongs.

    Oh.... Might I add that Sara Palin is so against Abortion that she would force women who were raped to carry the child to term? Really? I mean for christ sakes I don't think Abortion should be used like Birth Control, but to force a woman to carry an ever present memory of such a traumatic event is just plain mean. Besides, if Abortion gets outlawed then were just back to hangers and scissors and more women will die because of the lack of proper medical procedures. So I ask any girl out there. Would you rather have a pill/surgery or a coat hanger?

    saberlin on
    Moose R Big....yussms
  • StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    s3rial one wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Overexpansion of the Commerce Clause, Raich for a recent example.

    Scalia and Thomas abuse the Commerce Clause when it suits their politics. That isn't about to change.

    Thomas was in the dissent on Raich, could you point out a case of him 'abusing' the Commerce Clause? Perhaps one where he wrote the majority opinion rather than simply joined it?
    An opinion is an opinion, whether he was in the majority or not. Thomas doesn't need to win to provide evidence of his beliefs.

    He's staunchly against the dormant commerce clause these days. If you're not familiar with what that is, it's a logical corollary to the plain language of the commerce clause. It basically says that, since Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce, it also has the power to prevent states from enacting legislation that interferes with interstate commerce. Namely laws that deal with protectionism for local industry. See Thomas' dissent in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

    Of course, this is after he voted in favor of the dormant commerce clause in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994), where it was used to strike down a New York ordinance that required certain types of waste to be processed at a certain company's facilities.

    Since then, Thomas has changed his mind, apparently.

    I'll have to dig up more on the commerce clause itself; I'm a bit busy prepping some cases for class tonight at the moment. But my recollection of Thomas' opinions in criminal procedure seem to indicate someone who was quite willing to part with his judicial approach for the sake of promoting his politics. Maybe not as flagrantly and borderline-fraudulently as Scalia, but still...

    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.

    StormyWaters on
  • StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Promoting divided government and conflicting beliefs to ensure that what survives the crucible is what's best was the ideal of conservatism. Competency, pragmatism, and good governance over strict ideological tenets.

    Interesting, what's the ideal of liberalism then?

    Competency, good governance, and idealism. Shedding what hasn't or isn't working in order to try a different or better approach at dealing with the various problems that exist in society. Taking collective wisdom of past history and then projecting it outward or taking an extra step to go that much further.

    So liberalism and conservatism share 2 of the 3 main principles, with idealism vs pragmatism being the difference?

    StormyWaters on
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    s3rial one on
  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    s3rial one wrote: »
    You know what's baffling?

    When it comes to fighting our wars, we want the most elite, well-equipped soldiers on the planet fighting for us.

    When it comes to doctors, we want them held to the highest standards, and we want the best doctors anywhere to be treating us.

    When it comes to sports, we want the best athletes in the world performing for us.

    When it comes to electing the leader of the most powerful country on Earth - or in this case, his backup - we suddenly shun elitism, education, knowledge, and wisdom, and want the guy who reminds us of and maintains a level of discourse and grasp of important issues on par with the community college drop-out who spends every night at the bar down the street.

    Utterly. Fucking. Mystifying.

    Elitism means something else.

    We want elite soldiers, but we don't want elitist soldiers who think they're vastly superior to the general population-- if they don't care about us, why should we expect them to protect our interests?

    We don't want elitist doctors, their disdain for the unwashed masses might lead to sub-par care.

    Etc etc etc. It's not quality in and of itself that people are afraid of, it's lack of compassion, it's the perception that someone is from a completely different world and is incapable of empathizing with you.
    moniker wrote: »
    Promoting divided government and conflicting beliefs to ensure that what survives the crucible is what's best was the ideal of conservatism. Competency, pragmatism, and good governance over strict ideological tenets.

    Interesting, what's the ideal of liberalism then?

    Competency, good governance, and idealism. Shedding what hasn't or isn't working in order to try a different or better approach at dealing with the various problems that exist in society. Taking collective wisdom of past history and then projecting it outward or taking an extra step to go that much further.

    So liberalism and conservatism share 2 of the 3 main principles, with idealism vs pragmatism being the difference?

    Liberalism holds that the world can and should be improved, conservatism holds that it's arrogant to think that world can be improved and it's destabilizing to try. Both can be pragmatic, I would replace "pragmatism" with "prejudice." Prejudice is such a loaded word, but I mean that conservatism holds that people think what they already think for a good reason, and efforts to mess with peoples' preconceived notions are unnecessary and harmful to society. Preserve prejudice where possible, rather than intrude with disruptive ideas.

    matisyahu on
    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    s3rial one wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging. I do enjoy Thomas's view that stare decisis should be largely ignored, and I'm not sure I follow you when you say 'except in this case' when referring to Roe, as that's one of the many examples of something he'd like to overturn, along with Casey.

    While there are definitely aspects of the constitution which Scalia and Thomas, along with Alito and Roberts, support that I don't, I do agree with them a lot more than I do with Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, or Stevens (or Kennedy, but I don't think it's fair to lump him in as much). Kelo's another of the major cases recently that showed this serious split, although that was prior to Alito and Roberts being on the court, but I believe those two would've joined the dissent.

    Regardless, this is a pretty big tangent, but Supreme Court nominations are very serious, and I simply don't see any nominee by Obama or Biden that I'd prefer to Palin, unless she was idiotic enough to make one like Harriet Meirs.

    StormyWaters on
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    matisyahu wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    You know what's baffling?

    When it comes to fighting our wars, we want the most elite, well-equipped soldiers on the planet fighting for us.

    When it comes to doctors, we want them held to the highest standards, and we want the best doctors anywhere to be treating us.

    When it comes to sports, we want the best athletes in the world performing for us.

    When it comes to electing the leader of the most powerful country on Earth - or in this case, his backup - we suddenly shun elitism, education, knowledge, and wisdom, and want the guy who reminds us of and maintains a level of discourse and grasp of important issues on par with the community college drop-out who spends every night at the bar down the street.

    Utterly. Fucking. Mystifying.

    Elitism means something else.

    We want elite soldiers, but we don't want elitist soldiers who think they're vastly superior to the general population-- if they don't care about us, why should we expect them to protect our interests?

    We don't want elitist doctors, their disdain for the unwashed masses might lead to sub-par care.

    Etc etc etc. It's not quality in and of itself that people are afraid of, it's lack of compassion, it's the perception that someone is from a completely different world and is incapable of empathizing with you.
    moniker wrote: »
    Promoting divided government and conflicting beliefs to ensure that what survives the crucible is what's best was the ideal of conservatism. Competency, pragmatism, and good governance over strict ideological tenets.

    Interesting, what's the ideal of liberalism then?

    Competency, good governance, and idealism. Shedding what hasn't or isn't working in order to try a different or better approach at dealing with the various problems that exist in society. Taking collective wisdom of past history and then projecting it outward or taking an extra step to go that much further.

    So liberalism and conservatism share 2 of the 3 main principles, with idealism vs pragmatism being the difference?

    Liberalism holds that the world can and should be improved, conservatism holds that it's arrogant to think that world can be improved and it's destabilizing to try. Both can be pragmatic, I would replace "pragmatism" with "prejudice." Prejudice is such a loaded word, but I mean that conservatism holds that people think what they already think for a good reason, and efforts to mess with peoples' preconceived notions are unnecessary and harmful to society. Preserve prejudice where possible, rather than intrude with disruptive ideas.

    I think they prefer the word "tradition".

    Brolo on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I find it incredibly cynical of people when they think Palin has some big shiny career in the opposition come 11/5.
    It's a cynical thing to believe this woman even has much of a shot, she's going to be an easy target in the state primaries. I could picture people believing that Palin as President website coming true based on the wrecking ball of a career W has had. But W's career was never dry Oil drilling, or baseball or politics; it was capitalizing on his family name. No one has ever gotten that much out of a connection, no one has ever mined it so spectacularly.

    Palin has no real connections, nothing like the Bush clan anyway. It's just your regular 15 minutes of fame, Ferraro, Edwards and Dole had theirs, and they are far more qualified than Sarah. Where does that put her?

    Sam on
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Lehi, UTRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I get what you're saying...

    I just don't think Cynical is the word you're looking for; it doesn't describe at all what you mean.

    Anyway, the only reason I can see for any attention for her in '12 currently is that the neo-cons hope that the potential for it will buff up her credibility now. Either way I really don't think anyone who knows the first thing about politics believes she has even the slightest chance in hell at a '12 run. Sure, maybe she'll try it but she won't make it out the front door.

    You have to hand it to her though. It's fairly rare that a losing VP candidate stays in memory more than a handful of election cycles down the road. Palin, on the other hand, people won't forget. NEVAR FORGET!!!!!

    At least for the love of all people don't forget. This is what happens when you sell your soul for power and choose a running mate for no other reason than to grab headlines.

    The Dude With Herpes on
    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    s3rial one wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging. I do enjoy Thomas's view that stare decisis should be largely ignored, and I'm not sure I follow you when you say 'except in this case' when referring to Roe, as that's one of the many examples of something he'd like to overturn, along with Casey.

    I'm curious. Let's say Obama gets elected and the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats that, along with Susan Collins and perhaps a couple other moderate Republicans, they can get just about any nominee through the Senate. Then, unexpectedly, Justice Scalia has a heart attack and dies. Obama nominates some relatively unknown judge from the Ninth Circuit, who turns out to be further to the left than even Stevens. The very next term, the Court takes up another gun rights case and overturns Heller, eliminating the personal right to bear or own firearms in favor of a state's right to organize and arm militias. Would you support this?

    Matrijs on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Do neocons even make up that much of her base? The reason the Republican party sounds downright schizophrenic at this point is because it only has the martyrs left, who never did and never will see things differently.
    This is really pretentious but I can't resist;
    Yeats wrote:
    The best lack all conviction
    While the worst are full of passionate intensity

    Kind of reminds me of John and the wing he once represented, now largely silent or walking the plank, and Sarah with her looney tunes chorus. ("n*****!")

    Sam on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging. I do enjoy Thomas's view that stare decisis should be largely ignored, and I'm not sure I follow you when you say 'except in this case' when referring to Roe, as that's one of the many examples of something he'd like to overturn, along with Casey.

    I'm curious. Let's say Obama gets elected and the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats that, along with Susan Collins and perhaps a couple other moderate Republicans, they can get just about any nominee through the Senate. Then, unexpectedly, Justice Scalia has a heart attack and dies. Obama nominates some relatively unknown judge from the Ninth Circuit, who turns out to be further to the left than even Stevens. The very next term, the Court takes up another gun rights case and overturns Heller, eliminating the personal right to bear or own firearms in favor of a state's right to organize and arm militias. Would you support this?

    No one's getting their guns taken away, republicans and gang members will always ruin your country.

    Sam on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Sam wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging. I do enjoy Thomas's view that stare decisis should be largely ignored, and I'm not sure I follow you when you say 'except in this case' when referring to Roe, as that's one of the many examples of something he'd like to overturn, along with Casey.

    I'm curious. Let's say Obama gets elected and the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats that, along with Susan Collins and perhaps a couple other moderate Republicans, they can get just about any nominee through the Senate. Then, unexpectedly, Justice Scalia has a heart attack and dies. Obama nominates some relatively unknown judge from the Ninth Circuit, who turns out to be further to the left than even Stevens. The very next term, the Court takes up another gun rights case and overturns Heller, eliminating the personal right to bear or own firearms in favor of a state's right to organize and arm militias. Would you support this?

    No one's getting their guns taken away, republicans and gang members will always ruin your country.

    The larger point is about stare decisis. The question I'm trying to elucidate is whether Stormywaters endorses a broad theory of political reversal in the Court's decision-making process, or whether his opposition towards stare decisis is the result of mere happenstance - the fact that the Court happens, at the moment, to be a conservative Court dealing with a recent history of liberal opinions.

    Matrijs on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I think some people need to ease up on their criticisms of elitists.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Elitistb wrote: »
    I think some people need to ease up on their criticisms of elitists.

    people who think they are better than most other people are often wrong.

    thats elitist

    people who believe they are better at doing something than most people are often right.

    thats talented

    people who think they are the best person or the best at doing something are wrong.

    thats stupid

    Dunadan019 on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    People who have education, training, technical background in a subject being more qualified to comment on a subject than someone who is not - this is also elitist. And you know what? Someone who actually has learned shit about a subject should be considered a better source of information than someone who is not.

    DarkPrimus on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Oh, and in case no one's done this yet....
    So does anyone support Palin?

    I support her right to choose.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    People who have education, training, technical background in a subject being more qualified to comment on a subject than someone who is not - this is also elitist. And you know what? Someone who actually has learned shit about a subject should be considered a better source of information than someone who is not.

    thats not elitism. thats an expert. elitism has to do with how you treat people.

    i think the confusion comes when people accuse someone of being elitists because they are trained better. this is effective when you realize that in order to respond to it someone has to be humble and admit there are better qualified people or fulfill the expectation that he is 'elitist'. and when you are humble you are often selling yourself short which is the wrong thing to do in an election. so, the best response is generally ignore the comment and continue to say that you are the best choice but that you do relate to the people (who you want to get votes from).

    its a political attack.

    Dunadan019 on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Well that's the dictionary definition. Politically "elitist" has become part of the Republican parties anti-intellectual streak. It implies that education and intelligence are something to be ashamed of.

    nexuscrawler on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    People who have education, training, technical background in a subject being more qualified to comment on a subject than someone who is not - this is also elitist. And you know what? Someone who actually has learned shit about a subject should be considered a better source of information than someone who is not.

    thats not elitism. thats an expert. elitism has to do with how you treat people.

    If someone pretends to be an expert on a subject they know nothing about, you shouldn't treat them with respect, you should point out that not only is their position flawed, but they shouldn't be talking about it in the first place.

    DarkPrimus on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The problem with the "elitism" attack is that it's paired with the "we're common folk, just like you" message. It's pandering to mediocrity.

    GungHo on
  • Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    its an ad-hominem attack.
    fixed :/

    Panda4You on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    The problem with the "elitism" attack is that it's paired with the "we're common folk, just like you" message. It's pandering to mediocrity.

    Well unfortunately we need better than mediocre in charge.

    DarkPrimus on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Someone who is of the elite is someone who is of the highest class of any particular group.

    Elitism is the belief in rule by the elite.

    I have to say, being ruled by the smartest, most educated people doesn't seem to be all that bad a concept. Elitism in and of itself is not a bad thing, so long as you make sure to not take any other screwed up beliefs and try to tie them to elitism (such as attempting to use race, religion, or culture in an attempt to determine who is "elite" as opposed to merit and capability).

    Nothing in any way says that an Elitist has to be bad or dis-likable. Now, if an Elitist is also a bastard, that makes him an Elitist Bastard. And really it isn't the elitist part that people find detrimental, but the bastard part.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The main thing about elitism is that huge numbers of people only think they are elite, and huge numbers of elite people think that they are elite in all things.

    Incenjucar on
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging.

    While there are definitely aspects of the constitution which Scalia and Thomas, along with Alito and Roberts, support that I don't, I do agree with them a lot more than I do with Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, or Stevens (or Kennedy, but I don't think it's fair to lump him in as much). Kelo's another of the major cases recently that showed this serious split, although that was prior to Alito and Roberts being on the court, but I believe those two would've joined the dissent.

    Regardless, this is a pretty big tangent, but Supreme Court nominations are very serious, and I simply don't see any nominee by Obama or Biden that I'd prefer to Palin, unless she was idiotic enough to make one like Harriet Meirs.

    I agree with Thomas on that; once you get to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, stare decisis might as well not exist. That's one point I wholeheartedly agree with him on. Deference to tradition never creates good policy, unless it's via luck or circumstance.

    Take one of my personal little crusades, for instance: Grace v. Macarthur, 170 F.Supp. 442 (1959). Which I'm going to spoiler, as it's a tangent and it might be a bit long.
    It was a case, basically, over personal jurisdiction. Guy gets on a plane in Tennessee bound for Texas. While he's flying over Arkansas, he's served with process, and the court holds it valid, saying Arkansas now has personal jurisdiction over him because he was served while in Arkansas' airspace.

    Now, think back to civil procedure. The test for personal jurisdiction (which allows for a state to exercise valid PJ when you're served inside a state's borders) dates way the hell back to Pennoyer v. Neff, which was decided in 1877. Before airplanes. Before cars. Before paved roads.

    Back then, if you were traveling through a state, you were really in a state. It wasn't just passing through on a highway. You weren't flying over. You were slowly making your way across that state in a covered wagon pulled by animals. You were chopping down that state's trees for timber and fuel, hunting their animals for food and pelts, and likely trading in their trading outposts. You weren't in that state for minutes or hours. You were there for days or weeks. Back then, there really was something to the theory that you consented to that state's jurisdiction by being in that state. This is to say nothing of the practical limitations of travel in that day that made service of process on someone in that state who was traveling through the wilderness nearly impossible.

    What pisses me off about Grace v. Macarthur is that the majority opinion was couched entirely in deference to tradition. The Supreme Court is essentially crafting policy with this decision, whether they want to or not, and instead of doing some sort of legitimate analysis, and saying "hey, wait, this is dragging the bounds of personal jurisdiction way beyond their original intent, or beyond the bounds of any sane policy decision," they say "well, that's always been the rule - abuse be damned - and we should keep it!"

    If I've lost anyone by now, imagine this:

    You live in New York. You have family in California. You rarely travel out of state, and when you do, it's either to California, to see family, or in states bordering New York.

    So you get on a plane to go see your family for the holidays, and while you're on the plane, flying over Nevada, someone serves you with a complaint. Congratulations! Now Nevada can exercise personal jurisdiction over you, and you have to defend yourself in Nevada's courts! It doesn't matter that you've never set foot in the state!

    Of course, the actual jurisdictional analysis is a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea.

    This is the sort of thing I'd like to see Thomas take a look at, say "screw stare decisis," and then proceed to eviscerate the current precedent.

    As for "except in this case," it's that there's scarcely any legitimacy in overturning Roe v. Wade. Oh, sure, if you sidestep all those pesky questions of sentience, humanity, boundaries of personhood, privacy, and potentiality, there might be some argument that the Court would be acting under color of the Constitution in overturning the case. But without addressing those issues, the decision may as well be couched in voodoo and black magic.

    Take a look at Renhquist's opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. (1989).
    The rigid Roe framework is hardly consistent with the notion of a Consideration cast in general terms....The key elements of the Roe framework - trimesters and viability - are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle.

    ...

    We do not see why the State's interest in protecting POTENTIAL human life should come ino existence only at the point of viability, and that there should therefore be a rigid line allowing the state regulation after viability, but prohibiting it before viability....The State's interest, if compelling after viability, is equally compelling before viability."

    (emphasis mine)
    If we allow the state an interest in protecting potential lives, where does it end? Outlawing masturbation? Outlawing protected sex? What about protected sex when the protection breaks? Should I be able to sue the manufacturer (i.e. one of the so-called wrongful life suits) in that case? How about birth defects? Are those okay to abort? If not, shouldn't the state be required to pay for some of it, if they're forcing the woman to have it? And what about adoption? Why are our drastically overcrowded and under-funded adoption and foster care systems always touted as a viable? They quite clearly are not!

    Let's be honest, and terribly, terribly blunt: what abortion issues really come down to is that some people can't stomach the idea of killing something that's less sentient than the animal that's now their dinner plate, because it might be like them.

    The state has no legitimate interest in protecting "potential" life. Abortion has a negligible impact on the lives of people who aren't directly involved in it. There aren't support systems in place to help the mothers who are forced to carry a child to term. And post-term, our child care systems are woefully inadequate.

    The core of the issue is the state's interest, and why the state has an interest in protecting lives. Is it because they're lives, and that's it? Or is it because they're sentient, and collectively demand it, in part of a social contract?

    If the Court could deal with some of these issues, I could be inclined to change my mind. But they don't. They dodge them. And frankly, the whole thing smacks of this sort of mentality:
    1z6z7kn.jpg

    And now, bringing it back on topic: does anyone here honestly think Palin has a grasp on any of those issues? Or if she'd even be capable of identifying a judge who does?

    s3rial one on
  • OmegasquashOmegasquash Boston, MARegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    My father-in-law, because he's a Republican. When prodded as to why, he responded that she has more "administrative experience" than Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain combined.

    After hearing that, I just went to his fridge, pounded 2 beers, and took a very deep breath. It never pays to bring politics into the family, especially one that you've married into.

    Omegasquash on
  • reminderGTOreminderGTO Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    agoaj wrote: »
    My neighbors.

    This. Every damn one of them has a McCain-Palin sign. My dad is pro-science/intellectual and just laughs at her every time she shows up on national television.

    He also goes out at night and steals McCain-Palin signs. I hope he doesn't get arrested.

    reminderGTO on
    28qsde.gifZOGBY projects McCain win with 400+ EVs28qsde.gif
  • StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of what the dormant commerce clause is, no need to be condescending. I don't know enough about the entirety of Thomas's decisions, but I could come up with several explanations off the top of my head (likely all wrong) to explain this disparity. Regardless, he's one of the few who even attempts to limit the commerce clause's applications.
    There wasn't any intention of condescension. I was simply explaining a concept that I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people don't understand.

    As for Thomas's reasoning, he really did just change his mind.

    From United Haulers v. Oenida-Herkimer, 127 S.ct. 1786 (2007):
    I concur in the judgment. Although I joined C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994), I no longer believe it was correctly decided. The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the COnstitution and has proved unworkable in practice. As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Thomas didn't write a concurring opinion in C & A Carbone, so I'm not sure what, exactly, changed.

    Where I've always found Thomas lacking - along with Scalia - is in the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. The failure of two supposed originalists to construe the Constitution as a limiting document is a bit nauseating.

    He makes similar concessions to his judicial approach regarding abortion, where he rarely even attempts to tie his decisions to any sort of originalism. He just doesn't like Roe v. Wade and thinks it ought to be reversed. Not because there's any particular basis for authority, but because of American tradition, or some such nonsense. This is a guy who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that if there's unconsitutional precedent, it should be fixed, stare decisis be damned. Except in this case, I guess.

    And his view that executive privilege has almost no limit is, frankly, terrifying.

    I'd love to spend some time digging up some more cases to illustrate my points, and I really should for veracity, anyway. But it's past midnight, I've been at school since 7am, and I've got class in the morning. I need to get to sleep.

    I'm wondering if his change of mind was simply because he wasn't as self-confident in 1994 as he has grown in his later decisions, although I'm sure there's lots of analysis on it if I went digging. I do enjoy Thomas's view that stare decisis should be largely ignored, and I'm not sure I follow you when you say 'except in this case' when referring to Roe, as that's one of the many examples of something he'd like to overturn, along with Casey.

    I'm curious. Let's say Obama gets elected and the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats that, along with Susan Collins and perhaps a couple other moderate Republicans, they can get just about any nominee through the Senate. Then, unexpectedly, Justice Scalia has a heart attack and dies. Obama nominates some relatively unknown judge from the Ninth Circuit, who turns out to be further to the left than even Stevens. The very next term, the Court takes up another gun rights case and overturns Heller, eliminating the personal right to bear or own firearms in favor of a state's right to organize and arm militias. Would you support this?

    No, because I believe Heller was correctly decided. Prior cases can and should be overturned, and while deference makes sense in the interest of promoting stability of the law, cases do need to be decided on the merits. Otherwise we'd still have Plessy as law, rather than Brown v. Board.

    StormyWaters on
This discussion has been closed.