What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20004950-504564.html
It'll be interesting how she treats the hearings, which she called a "vapid and hollow charade" and a "farce".

She better not duck any questions, making statements like that.

This has to be a shot at Roberts right?
"She identified a specific justice who she thought was not appropriate in responses," said Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter after he met with Kagan. "I'm not going to tell you who it was, but I'm going to take a look at that record in preparation for the questioning."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
I read that article on the train ride home tonight (somebody left the paper on the seat) which sparked my comments... not bad from DC's moderate paper.
Click to expand...
"moderate"? Uhhh, no.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
I read that article on the train ride home tonight (somebody left the paper on the seat) which sparked my comments... not bad from DC's moderate paper.
Click to expand...

For me, it's property rights that always gets my goat. I take a somewhat Lockean approach to property rights.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

jmh said:
"moderate"? Uhhh, no.
Click to expand...

what? its between of the left paper (the Post) and the right paper (the Examiner)... its the definition of moderate ;)

Remember this the next time we talk about moderates. If liberals don't play fair then neither shall I.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bakunin said:
He wasn't seriously tested, though. He only had to last through two terms of republican rule. Now if McCain had won, and Stevens had to survive another 8 years before retiring, that would have been impressive.
Click to expand...

Stevens' "test" was he should have retired around 1998. He definitely stayed on throughout Shrub's nuclear winter as a stall tactic. Justices seem to be doing that more and more. The Court is highly politicized (I know, no sh it).

The Washington Times is, as Patman knows, toilet paper. There's more intelligent political commentary in the Boston Herald or the New York Post, and that's about as low as the print bar gets. He's just playing games.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

jmh said:
Stevens was already 80 when Bush was elected! If Obama wins a second term, at the end of that term Scalia will be 80, and then he'll have to stay on the Court another eight years after that to be as old as Stevens was when he announced his retirement.
Click to expand...
80 is the new 70.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

amherstblackbear said:
You've been around these parts way too long for anyone to believe you're a relativist.

D.C. has two conservative newspapers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but its between the one on the left and the one on the right... so its moderate. If this is the working definition of the Democratic party then its mine too. You see, I have been around way too long... long enough to notice its a label and image game... whatever you can get people to believe and no less. My goal is to spin the Wash Times as the moderate paper. Sorta like how universal health care is a "moderate" ideal. All in the spin and what you want to believe.

Its not that I don't recognize moderates... moderates take positions "in the middle"... the problem with that idea is that if one stakes out an extreme plank then what you want or accept becomes moderate. So, why not work this in reverse. Lets polarize further in the direction I want... but I won't call it that. I suppose the problem here is that nobody here reflexively believes that I'm reasonable. But, if you did then I would stake out a further extreme position because I know you'll jump when a "moderate" takes the "middle" position.

That being said, thankfully the Examiner changes the game... and makes the Washington Times the moderate paper.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
My goal is to spin the Wash Times as the moderate paper.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warning.

I suppose the problem here is that nobody here reflexively believes that I'm reasonable.
Click to expand...

Of course people do. That's why the stock market tanked after health care passed...just like reasonable you said it would.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

No offense, but it sounds a little Don Quixote to me. :)

You know too much math to equate median with a quality like moderation.

Besides, both parties do this sort of thing all the time.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
That's why the stock market tanked after health care passed...just like reasonable you said it would.
Click to expand...
A government power grab on health care is the least of the stock market's concerns right now. Government defaults and the potential collapse of the Euro? Slightly bigger worries. :p
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
Yes, but its between the one on the left and the one on the right... so its moderate. If this is the working definition of the Democratic party then its mine too. You see, I have been around way too long... long enough to notice its a label and image game... whatever you can get people to believe and no less. My goal is to spin the Wash Times as the moderate paper. Sorta like how universal health care is a "moderate" ideal. All in the spin and what you want to believe.

Its not that I don't recognize moderates... moderates take positions "in the middle"... the problem with that idea is that if one stakes out an extreme plank then what you want or accept becomes moderate. So, why not work this in reverse. Lets polarize further in the direction I want... but I won't call it that. I suppose the problem here is that nobody here reflexively believes that I'm reasonable. But, if you did then I would stake out a further extreme position because I know you'll jump when a "moderate" takes the "middle" position.

That being said, thankfully the Examiner changes the game... and makes the Washington Times the moderate paper.
Click to expand...
I expect more out of a stats man like you. If there's one paper at -10 and another at +10, and somebody starts one up at +11, the +10 paper doesn't suddenly get to claim the mantle of "moderate." Completely preposterous.

Between != middle.
 
Patman said:
Its not that I don't recognize moderates... moderates take positions "in the middle"... the problem with that idea is that if one stakes out an extreme plank then what you want or accept becomes moderate. So, why not work this in reverse. Lets polarize further in the direction I want... but I won't call it that. I suppose the problem here is that nobody here reflexively believes that I'm reasonable. But, if you did then I would stake out a further extreme position because I know you'll jump when a "moderate" takes the "middle" position.
Click to expand...

Or you could stop the childish gamesmanship and simply engage in honest discourse. If your "opponent" doesn't do the same it makes no sense to lower yourself simply to try and win a superficial competition. Your attitude is why schmucks like Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann have such huge audiences, all without advancing a friggin single ounce of positive change.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

LynahFan said:
I expect more out of a stats man like you. If there's one paper at -10 and another at +10, and somebody starts one up at +11, the +10 paper doesn't suddenly get to claim the mantle of "moderate." Completely preposterous.

Between != middle.
Click to expand...

He's spinning you up on purpose? :confused:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
He's spinning you up on purpose? :confused:
Click to expand...

Lynah... i know where the truth lies (at least in the regards of these papers)... what I'm saying is that 1) the truth doesn't matter, 2) if it doesn't matter then why shouldn't it be on my terms instead of theirs?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
Lynah... i know where the truth lies (at least in the regards of these papers)... what I'm saying is that 1) the truth doesn't matter, 2) if it doesn't matter then why shouldn't it be on my terms instead of theirs?
Click to expand...

See, now that is how I feel about Faux and MSNBC...the truth doesn't matter just say something half the people will buy it! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top