fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Well, ex-Presidents aren't normally married to someone running for President. And I believe Bill was charging well-above-market rates, even for an ex-President. First link I found on Google. It was super sketchy.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
bigbottom
Footballguy
To me, hypocrisy is, by its nature, an individual trait. Meaning that just because some people on the left hand waived the Clinton speaking fees issue, and other people on the left are now making a big deal about Thomas not recusing himself doesn’t make for a compelling case of hypocrisy unless you’re talking about a specific person who has expressly taken those inconsistent positions. Put another way, generalized accusations of hypocrisy, which I see all the time here, are rarely compelling for me unless an individual poster is actually being called out for it. Again, just my two cents.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Yes, people should name whomever they're talking about instead of saying "the left" or "the right." Always.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree. However, I feel like I need to point out here that this sidebar originally involved @tommyGunZ. That specific poster is a massive hypocrite on this issue. I was more specific about that in an earlier version of (I think) the post you quoted, but took that part out because the mods have asked us not to talk about other posters. In this case, though, it's relevant because at least in my mind I was thinking of a specific individual.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'm never going to defend the Clintons in general. If the threads are still around, you'll see that I criticized HRC relentlessly. Bill is sketchy. Hillary is sketchy. Pretty much everything they've ever done has had some sort of corruption tinge to it.
I just want to careful about conflict of interest charges in general. As I noted earlier, the goal here isn't to prevent the spouses of influential people from earning a living* in what would otherwise be a normal way. If Bill was charging way beyond market rates (say, in comparison to GWB43 at the same time or Obama a couple years later), then I'd agree that, even if the buyers weren't purchasing influence (because HRC is above such things; yeah, yeah, tip your servers, I'll be here all week), it's safe to conclude that the buyers may well have thought they were purchasing influence and therefore the Clintons should have avoided such dealings just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
That's why my argument re: Ginni Thomas is similar. I really don't care what she does on her own time. I do care, however, when Clarence Thomas rules on a case that involves Ginni Thomas's financial or other interests.
* Naturally, we're ignoring the fact that this type of person is generally quite wealthy to begin with and isn't exactly scraping by to "earn a living" as we might use the phrase colloquially.
The Commish
Footballguy
Generalizations around here are a feature not a bug. We wouldn't have as many posters here as we do today if you forced us all to do this....which I welcome by the way.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
My personal belief is that sometimes public service may involve some level of personal financial sacrifice. That’s why, for example, I support a law banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
I find the notion absurd that spouses of Presidential candidates need to be giving half-million dollar speeches to corporations “make a living.” The country’s interest in diminishing corruption greatly outweighs the general interest in letting people earn as much money as they can.
I see you addressed this a little in your footnote but to me the footnote undermines everything else that you said.
the moops
Footballguy
We have learned in this forum, that the presidential pension of $219,000, is barely lower middle class in most of the country.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'd be OK with all of this, too. My only hesitation is that we would immediately run into some gray areas. Where do we draw the lines? Spouses? Children? Siblings? In-laws, cousins, unmarried partners, grandchildren, and so on?
It's a difficult balancing act, for sure. It's also important, so if you wanted to advocate for more guardrails, you'll get no serious argument from me as long as such guardrails are fairly well defined and applied to all equally.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I strongly agree, and I'll add that this is also why I think we should pay members of congress and a small number of other public officials more, so that they're financially secure and don't need a second income or whatever to make ends meet. This really only applies to a very small number of jobs, but I would be totally okay saying that presidents, vice presidents, members of congress, and supreme court justices should be held to high standards of professional ethics. If that means that their spouses have to forgo a career in political advocacy or lobbying, fine. But then we should compensate them accordingly. Small price to pay IMO.
Maggot Brain
Footballguy
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/30/the-right-wing-plan-to-rig-scotus/
We used to pretend that there was a bipartisan understanding that we would put reasonably independent people on the Supreme Court. Long after that became a obvious lie, nominees would pretend they cared about independence, and assert their neutrality. Remember the smarmy testimony of John Roberts at his confirmation hearing in 2005:
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
Those words are a sour joke now, but at the time most people at least pretended to believe them, and to believe that Roberts meant them. The questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and the anticipated vote on her confirmation make it obvious that the Republicans aren’t even pretending now. Senator Ben Sasse, R-Neb., explained why he won’t vote to confirm Judge Jackson.
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story,” Sasse said in a statement. “We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation.
“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role,” the lawmaker said.
Sasse is blowing smoke. Judge Jackson has a judicial philosophy, and she explained it in her opening statement.
'I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.'
Judge Jackson said she uses both originalism and textualism as helpful tools in making decisions, along with other tools developed over the past 230 years. But that’s not what Republicans want. They want assurances that they will win, and the code words are “originalism” and “textualism”.
Jack Balkin, a long-time law professor at Yale, wrote a short history of originalism and textualism. He explains that in the early 1970s, conservatives were looking for a judicial theory that would enable them to roll back the gains made by individuals and government in the Courts, and for ways to use courts to stall and kill government regulation of corporations and rich people. These two theories were created for the task. They are relentlessly pushed by right-wing rich people through their pet project, the Federalist Society and through support for conservative law professors.
Originalism is the idea that the Constitution should be construed in accordance with the public meaning of the words used at the time it was adopted. As a theory, it relies on the idea that SCOTUS can figure out what that public meaning was.
Textualism is the idea that statutes and the Constitution should be interpreted by reference solely to the words on the page, without regard to anything else. The goals of the legislation, the context, legislative history, none of it is relevant. Textualism relies on the idea that a legislature chooses every word in a law intentionally, that each word has only one meaning for purposes of the law, and that a judge can determine that meaning simply by reading the words maybe with the help of a dictionary.
There’s a germ of wisdom here. Some Constitutional language is capable of exactly one interpretation. Thus, the requirement that a person elected to the House have attained the age of 25 years when elected is capable of only one interpretation, as long as we agree that the election happens on the date of the election, and not the date when the vote is counted and certified under applicable state law.
No one really believes that there is a single fixed meaning to the words legislators use, or that they carefully picked every word, and no one really believes that every word of the Constitution was chosen to express some fixed idea. Let’s try some examples.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits Cruel and Unusual Punishments. SCOTUS recenetly ruled that the death penalty cannot be imposed for rape, but that was allowed for centuries. Does that mean that originalists and textualists would overturn Coker v. Georgia?
The Tenth Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There were no abortion laws in the US in 1791. Does that mean the matter is reserved to the people? Or to the states? How do you know which? Was there a Public Meaning of the words in the Tenth Amendment that would shed light on this question? Can you tell from the words?
Conservatives said that these two constructs, originalism and textualism, were neutral, and would constrain courts. That’s not what happened. In practice, textualism and originalism produced results in accordance with conservative demands in most cases. This essay lays out the evidence with links.
Lately there’s been concern among religious conservatives as to whether originalism and textualism are enough to get their way in full. Bostock v. Clayton County considered whether The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of “sex”, applied to gay and transgender people. J. Gorsuch held that it did on textualist grounds. J. Alito dissented on originalist grounds. The uproar that followed among the political Christians revealed the true focus of these two constructs: to use the courts to impose political preferences on a majority that has moved on.
Consider, as Professor Balkin does, the work of Adrian Vermuele, a Harvard professor and Catholic. Vermuele agrees with Balkin’s analysis of the history of originalism and textualism, but goes farther.
But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate.
For the right-wing it isn’t enough that a judge is fully qualified. They will only confirm nominees who will vote for conservative positions regardless of law or precedent or good sense. Republicans are the right-wing party. They want to rig SCOTUS.
We used to pretend that there was a bipartisan understanding that we would put reasonably independent people on the Supreme Court. Long after that became a obvious lie, nominees would pretend they cared about independence, and assert their neutrality. Remember the smarmy testimony of John Roberts at his confirmation hearing in 2005:
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
Those words are a sour joke now, but at the time most people at least pretended to believe them, and to believe that Roberts meant them. The questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and the anticipated vote on her confirmation make it obvious that the Republicans aren’t even pretending now. Senator Ben Sasse, R-Neb., explained why he won’t vote to confirm Judge Jackson.
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story,” Sasse said in a statement. “We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation.
“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role,” the lawmaker said.
Sasse is blowing smoke. Judge Jackson has a judicial philosophy, and she explained it in her opening statement.
'I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.'
Judge Jackson said she uses both originalism and textualism as helpful tools in making decisions, along with other tools developed over the past 230 years. But that’s not what Republicans want. They want assurances that they will win, and the code words are “originalism” and “textualism”.
Jack Balkin, a long-time law professor at Yale, wrote a short history of originalism and textualism. He explains that in the early 1970s, conservatives were looking for a judicial theory that would enable them to roll back the gains made by individuals and government in the Courts, and for ways to use courts to stall and kill government regulation of corporations and rich people. These two theories were created for the task. They are relentlessly pushed by right-wing rich people through their pet project, the Federalist Society and through support for conservative law professors.
Originalism is the idea that the Constitution should be construed in accordance with the public meaning of the words used at the time it was adopted. As a theory, it relies on the idea that SCOTUS can figure out what that public meaning was.
Textualism is the idea that statutes and the Constitution should be interpreted by reference solely to the words on the page, without regard to anything else. The goals of the legislation, the context, legislative history, none of it is relevant. Textualism relies on the idea that a legislature chooses every word in a law intentionally, that each word has only one meaning for purposes of the law, and that a judge can determine that meaning simply by reading the words maybe with the help of a dictionary.
There’s a germ of wisdom here. Some Constitutional language is capable of exactly one interpretation. Thus, the requirement that a person elected to the House have attained the age of 25 years when elected is capable of only one interpretation, as long as we agree that the election happens on the date of the election, and not the date when the vote is counted and certified under applicable state law.
No one really believes that there is a single fixed meaning to the words legislators use, or that they carefully picked every word, and no one really believes that every word of the Constitution was chosen to express some fixed idea. Let’s try some examples.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits Cruel and Unusual Punishments. SCOTUS recenetly ruled that the death penalty cannot be imposed for rape, but that was allowed for centuries. Does that mean that originalists and textualists would overturn Coker v. Georgia?
The Tenth Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There were no abortion laws in the US in 1791. Does that mean the matter is reserved to the people? Or to the states? How do you know which? Was there a Public Meaning of the words in the Tenth Amendment that would shed light on this question? Can you tell from the words?
Conservatives said that these two constructs, originalism and textualism, were neutral, and would constrain courts. That’s not what happened. In practice, textualism and originalism produced results in accordance with conservative demands in most cases. This essay lays out the evidence with links.
Lately there’s been concern among religious conservatives as to whether originalism and textualism are enough to get their way in full. Bostock v. Clayton County considered whether The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of “sex”, applied to gay and transgender people. J. Gorsuch held that it did on textualist grounds. J. Alito dissented on originalist grounds. The uproar that followed among the political Christians revealed the true focus of these two constructs: to use the courts to impose political preferences on a majority that has moved on.
Consider, as Professor Balkin does, the work of Adrian Vermuele, a Harvard professor and Catholic. Vermuele agrees with Balkin’s analysis of the history of originalism and textualism, but goes farther.
But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate.
For the right-wing it isn’t enough that a judge is fully qualified. They will only confirm nominees who will vote for conservative positions regardless of law or precedent or good sense. Republicans are the right-wing party. They want to rig SCOTUS.
I don't think that's a compelling screed.Maggot Brain said:
She says that John Roberts was only pretending to mean it when he said he'd confront every case with an open mind. I don't see any evidence that he was merely pretending, and I don't see how KBJ's similar statement should be given more credence than his. (I believe them both.)
She blasts Sasse for voting nay on KBJ because he doesn't like her judicial philosophy. How is that different from Senator Obama voting nay on Roberts for ideological reasons?
I agree with TommyGunZ that "both sidesism" is a bad habit in general. But there are some situations where both sides really do act similarly, and this seems to be one of them. Criticizing both Roberts and KBJ for saying that they're judicially open-minded would be fine (though unduly mistrustful, IMO). Criticizing both Obama and Sasse for refusing to confirm perfectly qualified candidates would be fine (and I would agree). Calling out Roberts and Sasse, but not KBJ and Obama (or vice versa), seems kind of hackish.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I won't ever support her as a potential SCOTUS nominee! That's the playbook, right?the moops said:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
BOOM!!!
Can't even count how many times I've heard that snarky remark when discussing Democrats who being questioned about conflicts of interest.
Anyways, the go to strategy as revenge for Garland and Trump's 3 picks is to now make something out of nothing and pretend it's The Biggest Deal In The World EverTM and try to get a nominee the illegitimate way. Can't say I'm surprised, though. We saw how the left acted over the Trump years so this is just par for the course.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Could easily slide this into the Jan 6th thread (and others, I'm sure).
Ginni Thomas discusses her experience with a cult. Out of the fire and into the frying pan.
https://twitter.com/CultExpert/status/1509602849763778561?t=MUHx_E2msngdDv7yvKgtjA&s=19
Ginni Thomas discusses her experience with a cult. Out of the fire and into the frying pan.
https://twitter.com/CultExpert/status/1509602849763778561?t=MUHx_E2msngdDv7yvKgtjA&s=19
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Who cares? Really? This appears to be just another smear attempt at a conservative.
dkp993
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
Huh?
Can we just try and have an honest conversation about conflicts of interest and not do whatever it is you are doing?
Do you think a spouse of any supreme court justice should be holding private one on on meetings with the president of texting his/her chief of staff on a consistent basis pushing a political agenda?
Do you think a supreme court justice should recuse him/herself when a case comes up where their spouse has a vested interest in the outcome?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You guys have an honest conversation? That's funny.
I said based on her actions I won't support her as a SCOTUS nominee if she's ever nominated.
dozer
Footballguy
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal led 22 colleagues in a bicameral letter to Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts demanding answers regarding Thomas's "potential violation of federal ethics law."
The Letter
The Letter
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
Yes, an honest conversation.
Can you answer the questions I posed? I am guessing your answer is no, but I would like to hear your reasoning why conflicts of interest seem to not matter
squistion
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1509555371580571658 (video clip at link)
REPORTER: Do you think Clarence Thomas should resign?
PELOSI: I don't think he ever should've been appointed ... [but] if your wife is an admitted and proud contributor to a coup of our country, maybe you should weigh that in your ethical standards
REPORTER: Do you think Clarence Thomas should resign?
PELOSI: I don't think he ever should've been appointed ... [but] if your wife is an admitted and proud contributor to a coup of our country, maybe you should weigh that in your ethical standards
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Note to mods - IK is all good with me.IvanKaramazov said:
I'm undoubtedly a hypocrite on some issues (aren't we all?), but not on this one. Democrats aren't putting forth SC justice nominees with credible accusations of sexual assault. Republicans ignoring Obama's Garland nomination then rushing through Amy Coney Barrett's was the height of political hackery and hypocrisy and far worse than anything Dems have done.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Note to mods - IK is all good with me.
I'm undoubtedly a hypocrite on some issues (aren't we all?), but not on this one. Democrats aren't putting forth SC justice nominees with credible accusations of sexual assault. Republicans ignoring Obama's Garland nomination then rushing through Amy Coney Barrett's was the height of political hackery and hypocrisy and far worse than anything Dems have done.
Waiit, wut?
She shed a tear and that makes it credible? No one could corroborate it at all. So If by "credible" you mean "My side makes up a story and then sheds some tears and acts really, really good and I stand by my side no matter what" then sure, "credible".
The problem is she wasn't credible and couldn't prove zilch - even those around her didn't corroborate her story and basically said, "We have no idea what the hell she's talking about".
So what that means is that your definition of "credible" is just anyone that has anything to say against conservatives.
"Massive Hypocrisy" doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing here. I bet Jim Jones wished he had followers as loyal as you are to the DNC.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was that after her 5th shot of whiskey or her 10th?
This thing is simply disgusting. Can't call it a woman because it doesn't even know the definition of 'woman'.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1510276143039057926
joffer
Footballguy
correct.Note to mods - IK is all good with me.
I'm undoubtedly a hypocrite on some issues (aren't we all?), but not on this one. Democrats aren't putting forth SC justice nominees with credible accusations of sexual assault. Republicans ignoring Obama's Garland nomination then rushing through Amy Coney Barrett's was the height of political hackery and hypocrisy and far worse than anything Dems have done.
both sides bad <> both sides equally bad
dkp993
Footballguy
The problem with this line of thinking is it’s just a matter of perspective or which team you side with. Each side has a list a mile long of poor behavior and decision making. It’s easy to see both sides as bad when you don’t have a party affiliation. Equal becomes unimportant, it’s like the difference between a #### sandwich or a #### burger, the differences are in the margin and either way you’re still eating ####.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If you don’t want to call Judge Jackson a woman, acceptable substitutes include “person,” “human” or “judge.”
”Thing” is probably not the best choice.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Back in the day I heard Glen Beck say "Someone else's bad behavior doesn't justify your own" hundreds of times. I would add that it's especially true when you try comparing apples to oranges.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Do you sometimes refer to the unborn as babies? Because I don't think fetuses are all that great at applied linguistics either.
quick-hands
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
And she did. When the left makes everything about race one can safely view their decisions and opinions through that lens. You reap what you sow.
the moops
Footballguy
I may have missed it but how exactly did Pelosi it about race? Do you think she would have a different take if Kavanaughs wife was the one at Jan 6 rally?
In case my point wasn't clear, I'll try again.
lod001: Can't call KBJ a woman because she doesn't even know the definition of 'woman'.
Me: Can't call a feline vertebrate a cat because feline vertebrates don't even know the definition of 'cat'.
Does the logic seem better in one case than the other?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Well, the assumptions here are:
- One is supposed to and expected to have a higher form of intelligence and be capable of logical thought
- These are not esoteric questions. Humans have known what a woman and man is for millions of years. There was never any question up until a few years ago when suddenly people on the left couldn't figure it out anymore.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
There have been people LGBT around for thousands of years. It's not a new phenomenon.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
If the Kavanaugh hearings didn't put the final nail in the coffin for these circus hearings, I suppose the idea that a Scotus judge should have to answer inane questions like "how do you define woman" probably won't either. The fact (from what I'm reading) that one main criticism of her is that she's a huge supporter of pedophilia and baby torture should really end these proceedings once and for all. The lunatics can flaunt their stupidity on many other platforms, but there's no reason give them an audience on the senate floor.
squistion
Footballguy
Not racist at all. Clarence Thomas was one the least qualified people we have seen on SCOTUS in decades. Thomas had just barely one year of judicial experience under his belt (on the U.S. Court of Appeals) when George H. W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1991.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Yeah, okay, such an esoteric question.
We really just don't know (even though we did for the last million years or so).
There's a reason people want to muddy the waters and pretend this is some age old question, and it's not because we don't know the answer to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
