Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DShomshak]

12 hours ago, pinecone said:

My relatives still on the Res will be happy, for how ever long it lasts...

 

The Cherokee reporter who discussed the decision on ATC was simply gobsmacked that a US court had said, "The treaty says what it says, and that makes it the law, so follow it," instead of, "Meh, the treaty has become inconvenient, so ignore it."

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

12 hours ago, pinecone said:

My relatives still on the Res will be happy, for how ever long it lasts...

 

The Cherokee reporter who discussed the decision on ATC was simply gobsmacked that a US court had said, "The treaty says what it says, and that makes it the law, so follow it," instead of, "Meh, the treaty has become inconvenient, so ignore it."

 

Dean Shomshak

[Badger]

30 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

For what it's worth, self-proclaimed SCOTUS experts I've heard say Roberts is motivated to protect the Supreme Court by keeping it out of fights between parties and branches of government. The Trump tax rulings are typical: Don't give presidents unlimited immunity from investigation, but punt the disputes back to lower levels where they won't be resolved before the election, thus seeking to avoid any perception the Court is affecting the election with its rulings.

 

From this POV, I can imagine Roberts pulling Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aside and telling them they have got to side with the four liberals on some rulings that poke Trump in the eye, even if they don't really harm him. Because there's a chance that Dems take the House, Senate and Oval Office in November, and if the Court seems to be Trump's lackey there will be extremely strong pressure for Dems to pack the Court and abandon any pretense that it is anything but a political tool. For the moment, they must at least pretend to have judicial principles, which might operate in Dems' favor.

 

Of course, I am no mind reader. It's just what Dinesh D'Souza calls "an ideological hypothesis" (fancy talk for "a story without evidence, but it explains things the way I want.")

 

Dean Shomshak

I guess it is possible. Not something I can really respect, though. Ideally, I'd like the issues to be dealt with as "is it constitutional or not, political fallout be damned".

 

I know politics is going to be creep into Scotus. They get their due to their political leanings after all.  It is one of those things where I feel better with an "honest loss" than a "corrupt win".

 

Edit: I am thankful for the alternative perspective. I may have approached it with an attitude to head on.  I just fear he may be handling things meekly and under handedly (I can't think of a truly proper term, so sorry for that). Right now, I feel the nation SOMEONE to meet our problems head on, take on the pressure, and be the responsible adult the nation needs. To be fair, I am fallible, and not nuanced, and probably think a bit on 2 dimensional terms on this type of matter)

 

[Lord Liaden]

32 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

For what it's worth, self-proclaimed SCOTUS experts I've heard say Roberts is motivated to protect the Supreme Court by keeping it out of fights between parties and branches of government. The Trump tax rulings are typical: Don't give presidents unlimited immunity from investigation, but punt the disputes back to lower levels where they won't be resolved before the election, thus seeking to avoid any perception the Court is affecting the election with its rulings.

 

From this POV, I can imagine Roberts pulling Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aside and telling them they have got to side with the four liberals on some rulings that poke Trump in the eye, even if they don't really harm him. Because there's a chance that Dems take the House, Senate and Oval Office in November, and if the Court seems to be Trump's lackey there will be extremely strong pressure for Dems to pack the Court and abandon any pretense that it is anything but a political tool. For the moment, they must at least pretend to have judicial principles, which might operate in Dems' favor.

 

Of course, I am no mind reader. It's just what Dinesh D'Souza calls "an ideological hypothesis" (fancy talk for "a story without evidence, but it explains things the way I want.")

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I don't think the members of the court needed Roberts to remind them of this reality. The SCOTUS has always been subject to accusations of overreaching its authority from decisions with political implications, and they all have to be aware of the sensitivity of the timing of this decision. This ruling establishes the principle they wish clarified without dropping like a brick into the middle of the presidential campaign. None of us can function in the real world by ideals alone, and I actually admire how expertly the SCOTUS danced with both principle and pragmatism.

[DShomshak]

Re: Badger: I must add that this is merely a suggestion I have heard, and an implication I find plausible. I neither endorse nor condemn the interpretation.

 

DS

[DShomshak]

Re: Badger: I must add that this is merely a suggestion I have heard, and an implication I find plausible. I neither endorse nor condemn the interpretation.

 

DS

[DShomshak]

Re: Badger: I must add that this is merely a suggestion I have heard, and an implication I find plausible. I neither endorse nor condemn the interpretation.

 

DS

[Badger]

Well, I dont mean to say ideals. Just for me, they are their primarily to rule on constitutionalities and legalities. And dont so much political theater. We get more than enough of that from the other 2 branches.

 

Obviously it is complicated as unless the event of a 9-0 rout. The justices come different decisions from different angles. And I dont claim to have any idea where the proper boundary should be. I do have to go by instinct, which isn't a 100 percent thing. I have to go on best interpretation of what I am seeing from out of there.

[Badger]

4 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Re: Badger: I must add that this is merely a suggestion I have heard, and an implication I find plausible. I neither endorse nor condemn the interpretation.

 

DS

Dont worry, I already understood. But I do welcome as much info as possible

[Ranxerox]

On 7/9/2020 at 10:58 PM, ScottishFox said:

And, in the 2020 is Year of Endless Chaos category, The Supreme Court just gave half of Oklahoma back to the Muskogee nation.  That includes Tulsa and a very large part of Oklahoma.  Nearly two thousand convicted criminals will potentially be released as they were illegally (now) convicted by the State of Oklahoma on land they did not have jurisdiction on.

 

Everything in Orange goes bye-bye and is no longer Oklahoma because the treaty wasn't terminated properly.  Gorsuch was in favor of the 5-4 ruling.  Another proof he's going by  what he believes the law says and not what Trump wants.

 

Supreme Court Oklahoma Decision Explained

[ScottishFox]

13 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Supreme Court Oklahoma Decision Explained

 

Great article - thanks.  We'll see how it pans out in the long run.  I suspect both sides of the aisle will be hyperbolic until we see how it all shakes out.  One side wails, "Disaster and ruin!"  The other says, "No big deal at all." and the truth will probably end up somewhere in the middle.

 

It's possible that Oklahoma just lost about 1/2 of it's state and local tax base with this decision.  As a potential precedent this could be very messy for whichever party wins the 2020 elections.

 

How many other states failed to properly terminate their many poorly worded treaties (which both sides violated on a regular basis).

 

One book I cannot recommend enough for a (in my opinion) really well balanced and historically contextualized look at the struggles between Native Americans and the growing country of America is Empire of the Summer Moon.

 

They cover the treaties in pretty good detail here and there and my takeaway was that both sides violated the treaties whenever they felt like it.  Often the treaties were agreed to by chieftains that didn't even have authority over the groups they were representing while signing the treaties.

 

The cultural differences and incompatible value systems are really something in that book.  Both sides have their heroes and their villains.  And I've just talked myself into a second listening. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-of-Summer-Moon-audiobook/dp/B01KBD4IOE/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=summer+of+the+autumn+moon&qid=1594559593&sr=8-1

 

 

[Pariah]

If violated treaties become the issue of the day, I have a feeling that Guadalupe Hidalgo would become particularly problematic.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

One book I cannot recommend enough for a (in my opinion) really well balanced and historically contextualized look at the struggles between Native Americans and the growing country of America is Empire of the Summer Moon.

 

They cover the treaties in pretty good detail here and there and my takeaway was that both sides violated the treaties whenever they felt like it.  Often the treaties were agreed to by chieftains that didn't even have authority over the groups they were representing while signing the treaties.

 

The cultural differences and incompatible value systems are really something in that book.  Both sides have their heroes and their villains.  And I've just talked myself into a second listening. 

 

One thing I really like about this SCOTUS decision is that it applies no modifiers based on who violated the treaties, whether the Native American parties had authority to consent, or if the American government ever actually intended to honor them. It simply asserts that these treaties were lawfully negotiated and signed by the American government, and therefore their terms have the force of law.

[Ranxerox]

10 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

It's possible that Oklahoma just lost about 1/2 of it's state and local tax base with this decision.  As a potential precedent this could be very messy for whichever party wins the 2020 elections.

 

 

Well, no. Only Native Americans living on Native land get the tax break, and as of last count only about 9% of Oklahoma residents are Native American.  Some of that 9% doubtlessly live in the western part of the state and thus would go on paying Oklahoma state income tax.  Also, Native Americans as a group are economically disadvantaged and thus don't have all that much income to tax.  So, I would be very surprised if Oklahoma lost even 5% of it's tax base. 

[ScottishFox]

12 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Well, no. Only Native Americans living on Native land get the tax break, and as of last count only about 9% of Oklahoma residents are Native American.  Some of that 9% doubtlessly live in the western part of the state and thus would go on paying Oklahoma state income tax.  Also, Native Americans as a group are economically disadvantaged and thus don't have all that much income to tax.  So, I would be very surprised if Oklahoma lost even 5% of it's tax base. 

 

Well, that would make a pretty big difference.  According to the NY times article I read the lawyers were still working through the possible ramifications to taxation, environmental rules and adoptions.

 

If the only impact is prosecution of Native Americans then it's going to be relatively small overall.  If it ends up interfering with taxation, House of Representatives seats, etc. then it's going to be a much bigger deal.

[Matt the Bruins]

Taxation changes applying only to an already economically disadvantaged minority insulates the state at large from too much upheaval. And wouldn't Native American residents still be represented by the same Congressional districts, what with that being an aspect of the federal government rather than Oklahoma's? They'd still be US citizens just like residents of the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.

[Pariah]

Circle January 20th, 2021 on your calendars, boys and girls. It'll be the last thing he does before Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

 

Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself

[dmjalund]

21 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Circle January 20th, 2021 on your calendars, boys and girls. It'll be the last thing he does before Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

 

Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself

he' would still be susceptible to state law tho

[Starlord]

46 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Circle January 20th, 2021 on your calendars, boys and girls. It'll be the last thing he does before Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

 

Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself

 

If that's the last thing he does and lets Biden peacefully take office, then I'm ok with that....

[Pariah]

1 minute ago, Starlord said:

If that's the last thing he does and lets Biden peacefully take office, then I'm ok with that....

 

Agreed. Although I would consider that a pretty substantial "If".

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

Circle January 20th, 2021 on your calendars, boys and girls. It'll be the last thing he does before Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

 

Press: Trump's final presidential pardon: himself

 

Which Brett Kavanaugh is on record as believing the POTUS has a legal right to do. IMHO the biggest reason he got Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Which Brett Kavanaugh is on record as believing the POTUS has a legal right to do. IMHO the biggest reason he got Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court.

 

Of course, there's a fair chance that Kavanaugh would actually rule the opposite way if the case came up. I'm pretty sure he was just saying whatever he thought he needed to say to get the seat.

[Sociotard]

It'd be nice if Trump pardoned himself.

1) That requires Trump to admit guilt, unlike a commutation. I'd feel nice if he admitted a few things.

2) I don't want Democrats to keep pursuing him after he leaves office. If we don't, the lock-her-uppers win. Republicans will never stop pursuing charges against Democrats, even after they leave office.

Here, poke through this reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/comments/hp0kmr/how_do_you_feel_about_trump_commuting_roger/

Quote

Quote

Quote

They’re just going after these people because they’re trumps friends. Pardon Manafort next.

Do you think these people have done anything wrong?

Yes. I also don't care. For the most part their crimes are very minimal but even if they weren't I still wouldn't care. This is the political reality the left has brought us to. Why should I care when the Left flouts the rule of law on a daily basis? The law isn't meant to go one way and there is no way I am going to respect law when it does.

 

Remember, Democracy is a highly restrained war. We topple governments and foment revolutions with wars and votes because we trust the other side will restrict themselves to that standard. If they THINK Democrats are flouting the law, they will feel no shame in following suit. If they can be persuaded that there is a détente, in which bad faith persecution of politicians will stop when the politician leaves office, then they MAY not break that détente. They MAY not escalate.

 

If they PERCIEVE Democrats as breaking the détente, they will never slow.

 

As it stands, Republicans believe they are owed some lawbreaking because of  "Hillary's Emails". The fact that she was never punished means only that

• Hillary was just that good a crook
• the investigative agencies are complicit (deep state)
• Republicans were simply too merciful. If Democrats are not so merciful, well... 

Seriously, spend a little time on every news item to look at Conservative reporting, opinion pieces, and internet forums. Find out how they perceive the issues, and especially how they perceive the conflict. Remember that there can't ever be an end to the conflict; conflict is what democracy IS. All that remains to Liberals is to manage how Liberal actions are perceived.

[Lord Liaden]

51 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

... conflict is what democracy IS.

 

It saddens me to think that may be a widespread belief.

[Sociotard]

If there were no conflict, there would be no parties. But, if one man is certain of one solution to a problem, and his neighbor is certain of a different solution (or even disagrees that there is a problem requiring a solution), there is conflict. We have voting and public deliberation so that conflict will stay in that arena. Parties exist because there are enough people in favor of differing solutions.