Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
And...
And...
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 VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
I don't know what you're looking for. As JFK wrote that you have to understand the "time and the place" to understand the actions happening. 100 years ago everything was different than it is today. The Red Sox were good, the Yankees (Highlanders) stunk, Indians were not citizens, women could not vote, and we had very restrictive immigration laws.
Oh, and we invaded Mexico to keep Pancho Villa out.
I don't know what you're looking for. As JFK wrote that you have to understand the "time and the place" to understand the actions happening. 100 years ago everything was different than it is today. The Red Sox were good, the Yankees (Highlanders) stunk, Indians were not citizens, women could not vote, and we had very restrictive immigration laws.
Oh, and we invaded Mexico to keep Pancho Villa out.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Your timeline is a bit off, no?
Yellowstone became a national park in 1872. John Muir founded The Sierra Club in 1892, an early conservation/environmental organization from 123 years ago.
Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906 (109 years ago) and the outrage was so great that it led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Your timeline is a bit off, no?
Yellowstone became a national park in 1872. John Muir founded The Sierra Club in 1892, an early conservation/environmental organization from 123 years ago.
Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906 (109 years ago) and the outrage was so great that it led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
That's fair. Make it 150.
The "enlightened" crack shows you missed the whole point, though.
That's fair. Make it 150.
The "enlightened" crack shows you missed the whole point, though.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
This is obviously something that can't be easily quantified. I tend to think folks in the past were more willing to take stands and risks more than people now. If for no other reason that folks today are materially much better off and if nothing tend to be complacent as long as their material well being is not impinged upon significantly.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Another conversation with yourself.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
So, principle's just another word for nothin' left to lose?
It's funny, but I was actually planning to make that very point when I was writing the original response. The stakes are not as high for most people any more, primarily because of all the social justice battles that have been won in the past. Now we argue about whether people can marry, 50 years ago the stakes were higher, it was whether they could vote. 150 years ago it was whether somebody could own them. The stakes are getting progressively lower for everyone but the poor. (Even the current egregious life or death battle, cops killing people just for being black and thus "threatening," is really just a stand-in for the guilt by association of blacks with being poor and thus "threatening.")
So, principle's just another word for nothin' left to lose?
It's funny, but I was actually planning to make that very point when I was writing the original response. The stakes are not as high for most people any more, primarily because of all the social justice battles that have been won in the past. Now we argue about whether people can marry, 50 years ago the stakes were higher, it was whether they could vote. 150 years ago it was whether somebody could own them. The stakes are getting progressively lower for everyone but the poor. (Even the current egregious life or death battle, cops killing people just for being black and thus "threatening," is really just a stand-in for the guilt by association of blacks with being poor and thus "threatening.")
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
I thought the whole point of every one of your posts was to remind us how much more you know than anyone else??
I thought the whole point of every one of your posts was to remind us how much more you know than anyone else?? 
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
And what is the point of yours...to remind us all that you know very little about most topics and nothing at all about the rest?
And what is the point of yours...to remind us all that you know very little about most topics and nothing at all about the rest?
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
To be fair, he does that rather well.
To be fair, he does that rather well.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Written almost 20 years ago.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/...democracy-the-judicial-usurpation-of-politics
Written almost 20 years ago.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/...democracy-the-judicial-usurpation-of-politics
And still nonsense.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
More likely, I "got" it and disagreed with it.
You seem to overlook the fact that fish are not aware they are swimming in water.
You'd seemingly classify all slaveowners as morally deficient somehow merely through the act of owning slaves, no matter how well they treated them or how the ownership situation came to be in the first place.
Similar potential disagreement: Washington, in his will, freed his slaves after Martha's death. Was that an act of enlightenment? or was it really closet selfishness? after all, with the slaves freed, Washington's heirs would no longer be responsible for taking care of them either. Would the removal of that responsibility actually increase the value of the land holdings, by giving the heirs more flexibility to divide up the land into smaller farms and sell them off piecemeal at a higher profit per unit than if the land holdings had to be kept together to provide enough food to feed the slaves?
and what about the slaves? what good would their freedom do them, if they were just dumped into a job market for which there was no demand? (who would pay former slaves to do what they had been doing all their lives, if the rest of the potential employers still had slaves on hand?)
These questions always contain more nuance than a simplistic "slave ownership always all bad no matter what; no slave ownerhship always better no matter what" viewpoint would have you believe. Circa 1845, say, would a benevolent slaveowner be a better "employer" than a malevolent factory owner? Slaveowners had responsibilities toward the health and well being of their slaves that factory owners never did until the early 1900s.
Do you judge people by the standards of their time, or do you expect them to conform to standards that were not agreed upon until decades if not centuries into the future?
More likely, I "got" it and disagreed with it.
You seem to overlook the fact that fish are not aware they are swimming in water.
You'd seemingly classify all slaveowners as morally deficient somehow merely through the act of owning slaves, no matter how well they treated them or how the ownership situation came to be in the first place.
Similar potential disagreement: Washington, in his will, freed his slaves after Martha's death. Was that an act of enlightenment? or was it really closet selfishness? after all, with the slaves freed, Washington's heirs would no longer be responsible for taking care of them either. Would the removal of that responsibility actually increase the value of the land holdings, by giving the heirs more flexibility to divide up the land into smaller farms and sell them off piecemeal at a higher profit per unit than if the land holdings had to be kept together to provide enough food to feed the slaves?
and what about the slaves? what good would their freedom do them, if they were just dumped into a job market for which there was no demand? (who would pay former slaves to do what they had been doing all their lives, if the rest of the potential employers still had slaves on hand?)
These questions always contain more nuance than a simplistic "slave ownership always all bad no matter what; no slave ownerhship always better no matter what" viewpoint would have you believe. Circa 1845, say, would a benevolent slaveowner be a better "employer" than a malevolent factory owner? Slaveowners had responsibilities toward the health and well being of their slaves that factory owners never did until the early 1900s.
Do you judge people by the standards of their time, or do you expect them to conform to standards that were not agreed upon until decades if not centuries into the future?
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
An interesting development in one of those court cases that everyone on the left initially dismisses as fluff and nonsense that somehow becomes more significant as it progresses through the courts and gets taken seriously after all. This case has the potential to be one of the most significant and far-reaching Constitutional questions ever decided.
The Constitution says that the authorization of all federal government spending* resides in the House of Representatives. Does it really mean that?
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." [emphasis added]
On the surface, seems pretty cut and dried, no?
* the sole exception being payment of federal government debt which is required under a different clause.
An interesting development in one of those court cases that everyone on the left initially dismisses as fluff and nonsense that somehow becomes more significant as it progresses through the courts and gets taken seriously after all. This case has the potential to be one of the most significant and far-reaching Constitutional questions ever decided.
The Constitution says that the authorization of all federal government spending* resides in the House of Representatives. Does it really mean that?
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." [emphasis added]
On the surface, seems pretty cut and dried, no?
* the sole exception being payment of federal government debt which is required under a different clause.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Good article on RBG.
Good article on RBG.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
I see RBG listed, and each and every time I wonder what's going on with changing the color used in broadcasting color onto various screen displays.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Fishy enjoys being astroglided by John Roberts! Maybe he didn't at first, but now like an addict he keeps going back for more.
No matter how much you try, you just cant help it...you enjoy being wrong and proven so on multiple occasions. Well we all need a hobby
Fishy enjoys being astroglided by John Roberts! Maybe he didn't at first, but now like an addict he keeps going back for more.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin
Serious question....
Why is totalitarianism now so popular with certain factions the left? if their message is as compelling as they claim it is, why are they having so much trouble persuading others to adopt it? and is the lack of popular support sufficient reason to enforce programs that the majority of people oppose?*
Every clause of the First Amendment is under attack these days, and not from the fringes, but from the left's mainstream:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
John Oliver proposes in all seriousness that the government should license which religions are "real" religions and which are phony. The New York Times proposes that the government license which organizations are bona fide representatives of "the press" and which organizations do not warrant First Amendment protections. The entire left is united in its desire to deny certain groups the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Trigger warnings" make a mockery of the concept of freedom of speech.
So what's going on? People get frustrated and want to give the government powers of censorship? Do they really seriously believe that, once the government has those powers, it won't use them to protect its own interests first at the expense of all the people? or have they just not thought it all the way through?
I do realize that certain elitists on the left have the daydream that the totalitarian government they espouse will always be on "their" side....even though it's never worked out that way in practice, ever....but still, we know that elites are capable of incredible acts of willful blindness. The movement on the left today to espouse totalitarian solutions seems stronger these days than I can recall during my adult lifetime.
* I'm not talking about "minority rights" in this context; protecting minority rights is an essential function of the First Amendment. It's more as if people are so intolerant of anyone else merely having a different opinion than they do that they want to force those others just to shut up entirely and stop talking.
Serious question....
Why is totalitarianism now so popular with certain factions the left? if their message is as compelling as they claim it is, why are they having so much trouble persuading others to adopt it? and is the lack of popular support sufficient reason to enforce programs that the majority of people oppose?*
Every clause of the First Amendment is under attack these days, and not from the fringes, but from the left's mainstream:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
John Oliver proposes in all seriousness that the government should license which religions are "real" religions and which are phony. The New York Times proposes that the government license which organizations are bona fide representatives of "the press" and which organizations do not warrant First Amendment protections. The entire left is united in its desire to deny certain groups the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Trigger warnings" make a mockery of the concept of freedom of speech.
So what's going on? People get frustrated and want to give the government powers of censorship? Do they really seriously believe that, once the government has those powers, it won't use them to protect its own interests first at the expense of all the people? or have they just not thought it all the way through?
I do realize that certain elitists on the left have the daydream that the totalitarian government they espouse will always be on "their" side....even though it's never worked out that way in practice, ever....but still, we know that elites are capable of incredible acts of willful blindness. The movement on the left today to espouse totalitarian solutions seems stronger these days than I can recall during my adult lifetime.
* I'm not talking about "minority rights" in this context; protecting minority rights is an essential function of the First Amendment. It's more as if people are so intolerant of anyone else merely having a different opinion than they do that they want to force those others just to shut up entirely and stop talking.
Last edited:
- Status