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

[Bob Gray]

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

From another article from the same paper. What with this and the Creationist nonsense, Iowa sounds like one ****ed-up place.

Nice try at connecting something about preschool and creation. Very smooth.

 

[joecct]

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

So the out-of-state interest groups keep the heat on in Iowa, filing a Federal Suit saying the merit-based selection process violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and asking for a restraining order to slow the process of filling the 3 empty seats on the state Supreme Court.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101210/NEWS/12100348/Lawsuit-filed-over-justice-selection

The 4 Plaintiffs are nominally local, but the chief attorneys are from Terra Haute, Ind. They are the chief counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech (I've got no clue how this has anything to do with Free Speech).

The attorneys previously filed identical lawsuits in Alaska (shot down on motion to dismiss, and hammered by the 9th Circuit on appeal) and Kansas (again shot down on a motion to dismiss after the judge basically adopted the 9th Circuit's ruling).

Talk about forum shopping. They've lost in the 9th Circuit and are well on the path to losing in the 10th Circuit(Kansas) too, so now they're trying again in the 8th Circuit (Iowa).

It's also ironic that they'd rather use the Courts than amend the state constitutions. Surely they wouldn't be trying to find a proverbial "activist judge," would they?

Is a liberal losing in the 9th circuit like the Yankees losing a 5 run lead to the Pirates at home in the 9th with Mo on the mound?

 

[Kepler]

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

Nice try at connecting something about preschool and creation. Very smooth.

It's the same idiots. I didn't make their menu, they did.

 

[unofan]

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

I don't remember creationist stuff from Iowa. Kansas, sure.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

It's the same idiots. I didn't make their menu, they did.

I didn't realize that creationists were running recall election activities in Iowa after a controversial gay marriage decision there by certain judges. Me thinks you are mixing up your right-wing boogeymen a bit. Having them as boogeymen is more effective if you don't mix them up.

 

[Kepler]

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

I didn't realize that creationists were running recall election activities in Iowa after a controversial gay marriage decision there by certain judges. Me thinks you are mixing up your right-wing boogeymen a bit. Having them as boogeymen is more effective if you don't mix them up.

I hear Bill Ayers made out with Michael Moore.

I am very confident in asserting the hypothesis that there's a significant overlap between the people who believe "early childhood education doesn't matter" and people who believe "God created man in his present form." Those two ideas are peas in a pod. See also: "global warming isn't real," "black people caused the mortgage crisis," and "gays should not be allowed to marry."

Charming company.

 

[Kepler]

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

I don't remember creationist stuff from Iowa. Kansas, sure.

Kansas is the poster child, but Iowa has dumbasses too.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

I hear Bill Ayers made out with Michael Moore.

I am very confident in asserting the hypothesis that there's a significant overlap between the people who believe "early childhood education doesn't matter" and people who believe "God created man in his present form." Those two ideas are peas in a pod. See also: "global warming isn't real," "black people caused the mortgage crisis," and "gays should not be allowed to marry."

Charming company.

Of course, you're working off a fundamentally flawed reading of that article you link to. The article doesn't say there isn't value in early childhood education. It's about a debate as to whether, in fiscally challenging times, the government gets enough benefit to spend limited available dollars on early childhood education, rather than a lot of other stuff that may be on the chopping block. So, to put it succinctly, you're linking people who want to spend limited government dollars the best way possible with creationism. I'd suggest understanding an article before linking to it and making it a centerpiece of trying to say that people with conservative social values are wackos.

 

[Kepler]

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

Of course, you're working off a fundamentally flawed reading of that article you link to. The article doesn't say there isn't value in early childhood education. It's about a debate as to whether, in fiscally challenging times, the government gets enough benefit to spend limited available dollars on early childhood education, rather than a lot of other stuff that may be on the chopping block.

This would be great if the same people don't also argue against Head Start.

Again, if you believe in this stuff, stand by it. Crackpotism is a fine American tradition. It's the disingenuousness of the people who hold these positions that is, to use a favorite word of GOP Congressmen, troubling. If they lack the courage of their convictions*, why should any of us be convinced?

* same argument in spades for liberals, naturally. When I hear our fine Democratic elected officials say in one breath that extending tax cuts on the rich increases the deficit and in the next that extending tax cuts on the middle class somehow decreases it, they are guilty of the same thing and should be garroted with their own law degrees.

"There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity!" -- Big Daddy, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

 

[Bob Gray]

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

This would be great if the same people don't also argue against Head Start.

Again, if you believe in this stuff, stand by it. Crackpotism is a fine American tradition. It's the disingenuousness of the people who hold these positions that is, to use a favorite word of GOP Congressmen, troubling. If they lack the courage of their convictions*, why should any of us be convinced?

* same argument in spades for liberals, naturally. When I hear our fine Democratic elected officials say in one breath that extending tax cuts on the rich increases the deficit and in the next that extending tax cuts on the middle class somehow decreases it, they are guilty of the same thing and should be garroted with their own law degrees.

"There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity!" -- Big Daddy, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

So, you admit that you misread the article? I didn't really connect this response with the previous discussion.

Really, that article you linked to was pretty humdrum and the comments made by various legislators sounded pretty noncontroversial unless you're a rabid childhood spending advocate who doesn't care about anything else being funded.

 

[Kepler]

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

So, you admit that you misread the article? I didn't really connect this response with the previous discussion.

Admit is always a loaded word around here. I will admit I should have chose a better knife. I did not, for the record, misread or misconstrue the article.

unless you're a rabid childhood spending advocate

There has to be a perfect image to go with this, but this is all I could come up with:

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Admit is always a loaded word around here. I will admit I should have chose a better knife. I did not, for the record, misread or misconstrue the article.

The record speaks for itself, which is that the article is about dealing with difficult budget times, when many programs are being cut and evaluated as to their effectiveness.

As for that image, why don't you go tell the health care folks they should have their budget slashed so education isn't touched. Didn't realize you were anti-health care. After all, those are typically the two biggest ticket items for state governments. And if major cuts are needed, one or the other or both are going to have to take hits. Unlike the feds, states are generally required to only spend what they have. It's just comes down to the math.

 

[Kepler]

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

The record speaks for itself, which is that the article is about dealing with difficult budget times, when many programs are being cut and evaluated as to their effectiveness.

As for that image, why don't you go tell the health care folks they should have their budget slashed so education isn't touched. Didn't realize you were anti-health care. After all, those are typically the two biggest ticket items for state governments. And if major cuts are needed, one or the other or both are going to have to take hits. Unlike the feds, states are generally required to only spend what they have. It's just comes down to the math.

All of this could be true but the reason why these cuts are being proposed by these folks isn't fiscal, it's ideological preference, and I think you know that as well as I.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

All of this could be true but the reason why these cuts are being proposed by these folks isn't fiscal, it's ideological preference, and I think you know that as well as I.

So, if the Iowa government wash flush with money, not experiencing fiscal difficulties, you argue they would be proposing these same possible cuts? You and I both know that's not true.

 

[Kepler]

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

So, if the Iowa government wash flush with money, not experiencing fiscal difficulties, you argue they would be proposing these same possible cuts? You and I both know that's not true.

No, I don't know that at all, and I think it's odd you believe it, because you are calling these guys liars. Their whole point is that we shouldn't fund what "doesn't work." Why we would fund something that doesn't work even if we had the money?

These folks have a game. They cherry pick one study, or one experiment in one study, or if they can't find even one, commission a friendly organization to do one and find the "right" answer. Then they trumpet the result to muddy the waters, repeating it endlessly throughout the echo chamber, so that it looks like there are hundreds or thousands of citations, when really there's just one being echoed again and again, and probably being simplified and exaggerated as it is passed along, like a chain letter. Then they tearfully say "with all these other priorities -- god, won't someone think of the children!?!? -- we can't fund something that doesn't work." And then they list a lot of popular competing priorities, some of which they're also working on cutting, so including them is doubly disingenuous.

That's how they roll. It's called playing both sides against the middle and it's been going on since ancient Athens.

And before you add the obvious, yes, I'm sure some on the other side employ the same tactics, and when they do they should be booed off the floor, too.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

No, I don't know that at all, and I think it's odd you believe it, because you are calling these guys liars. Their whole point is that we shouldn't fund what "doesn't work." Why we would fund something that doesn't work even if we had the money?

These folks have a game. They cherry pick one study, or one experiment in one study, or if they can't find even one, commission a friendly organization to do one and find the "right" answer. Then they trumpet the result to muddy the waters, repeating it endlessly throughout the echo chamber, so that it looks like there are hundreds or thousands of citations, when really there's just one being echoed again and again, and probably being simplified and exaggerated as it is passed along, like a chain letter. Then they tearfully say "with all these other priorities -- god, won't someone think of the children!?!? -- we can't fund something that doesn't work." And then they list a lot of popular competing priorities, some of which they're also working on cutting, so including them is doubly disingenuous.

That's how they roll. It's called playing both sides against the middle and it's been going on since ancient Athens.

And before you add the obvious, yes, I'm sure some on the other side employ the same tactics, and when they do they should be booed off the floor, too.

When I ask you a question whether you believe something, that doesn't indicate whether I believe it or not. That's why it's a question to you.

ok. This is getting old. You really need to stop and read the article you keep citing. What do phrases like "scarce tax money" and "shortfall in the budget for state troopers and a waiting list for mental health services" mean to you, other than that there is a fiscal shortfall? And if there is a fiscal shortfall, you have to spend less (unless you're the feds, in which case you spend even more, but that's another subject), meaning one or more programs and projects get less money. And if Iowa is like most other states, the shortfall is substantial, and the easy cuts took place or year or two or three ago. Health care and education are massive ticket items for state government. The math is the math. Frankly they'd be irresponsible if they didn't put everything on the table to consider for cuts.

 

[Kepler]

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

When I ask you a question whether you believe something, that doesn't indicate whether I believe it or not. That's why it's a question to you.

ok. This is getting old. You really need to stop and read the article you keep citing. What do phrases like "scarce tax money" and "shortfall in the budget for state troopers and a waiting list for mental health services" mean to you, other than that there is a fiscal shortfall? And if there is a fiscal shortfall, you have to spend less (unless you're the feds, in which case you spend even more, but that's another subject), meaning one or more programs and projects get less money. And if Iowa is like most other states, the shortfall is substantial, and the easy cuts took place or year or two or three ago. Health care and education are massive ticket items for state government. The math is the math. Frankly they'd be irresponsible if they didn't put everything on the table to consider for cuts.

I agree it's getting old. I don't know how many ways I can say "they are using fiscal concerns as a pretext to cut the stuff they want to cut" when you keep repeating, "But look! They're citing fiscal concerns!" as if that somehow is a refutation? Or maybe you're agreeing with me. I'll agree to let you agree with me in the spirit of bipartisanship.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

I agree it's getting old. I don't know how many ways I can say "they are using fiscal concerns as a pretext to cut the stuff they want to cut" when you keep repeating, "But look! They're citing fiscal concerns!" as if that somehow is a refutation? Or maybe you're agreeing with me. I'll agree to let you agree with me in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Certainly when there is, of necessity, the need to cut spending, everyone looks to cut things they find less valuable. Republicans do that, Democrats do that, and everyone in between. And that article shows Republicans questioning a program that they may find less valuable. But I just don't see what the issue is with that. Do you want them to cut things that they think are most important, such as defunding all law enforcement? If you disagree with them on what is important, then fair enough, but recognize that things have to be cut when you don't have enough revenue to pay for past years' level of services, and people can reasonably disagree on what should be cut.

 

[walrus]

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

"they are using fiscal concerns as a pretext to cut the stuff they want to cut" .

Elections have consequences

 

[Kepler]

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

Elections have consequences

Of course, but I'd prefer a measure of honesty. On the campaign trail: "vote for us and we'll defund early education." In power: "Well, you voted for us so now we're going to defund early education." Just be up front about everything.

In a two party system it might even be possible to be up front about everything, because, not to be brutal about it, where else are people gonna go? If both sides were honest, each side would be able to enact its policies 50% of the time. The problem of course is the side that's going to lose any given time is driven to become dishonest, so the other side becomes dishonest to stay ahead, so everybody loses and we're stuck with governments we despise because they lie to get elected. This must be some kind of Prisoner's Dilemma.