Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Alabama Voters reject Roy Moore and send Doug Jones to the Senate instead!

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I suspect a lot of Alabama voters are like our conservative friend Sand here. Sand has spent the last month ripping Moore as an unacceptable idiot. But when I have asked Sand if he will vote for the Democrat in the general election...silence. Apparently Sand cannot bring himself to vote for a Democrat even when the guy representing his party is a complete embarrassment.

It's a choice between a man who worked in a steel mill and then went to law school and prosecuted civil rights cases as a State prosecutor and as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a man who was removed from the State Supreme Court for refusing to follow a civil rights ruling by the US Supreme Court. The second time he was removed from the bench. 

I think we know which way Alabama will go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

It's a choice between a man who worked in a steel mill and then went to law school and prosecuted civil rights cases as a State prosecutor and as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a man who was removed from the State Supreme Court for refusing to follow a civil rights ruling by the US Supreme Court. The second time he was removed from the bench. 

I think we know which way Alabama will go. 

Not just any civil rights case, either- he prosecuted the 16th Street Church bombings 30 years after they took place. That was one of the most pivotal incidents in the Civil Rights movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In Sand's defense, I would really struggle with the decision if the situation were reversed.  It's not just Moore v. Jones, you're also possibly deciding which party will control the Senate in 2018.  I think if there was a Maryland Senate race between a kooky embarrassing Dem and a seemingly competent Republican, I probably still vote Dem. 

Who is the Left equivliant to Moore?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In Sand's defense, I would really struggle with the decision if the situation were reversed.  It's not just Moore v. Jones, you're also possibly deciding which party will control the Senate in 2018.  I think if there was a Maryland Senate race between a kooky embarrassing Dem and a seemingly competent Republican, I probably still vote Dem. 

If there were a Democrat version of Roy Moore (and I don't even know what that would look like) and you were voting for him for any reason, you should be ridiculed for it in perpetuity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Barack Obama were actually what the loony right has claimed he is for a decade - a Kenyan Muslim who wants to somehow both make us a Communist nation and institute Sharia Law (yes, I know, but suspend disbelief for a moment) then he'd be roughly the equivalent of Roy Moore. And anyone who voted for him should have that vote brought up in every conversation for the rest of his life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

So Sand, you never responded to my earlier question. Are you going to vote for Moore or the Democrat? 

Well I won't vote for Moore, that's a given.  I don't know much about the Democrat.  If he's awful, as well, I may abstain.

And, for the record, I wasn't avoiding this.  When you're working 60-70hrs a week a lots falls by the wayside.  I have dropped lots of balls all over the place.  :P

 

45 minutes ago, culdeus said:

I'm so lost.  Georgia managed to elect the more racist candidate than whomever Trump was backing?  

Louisiana still wins for voting David Duke to the state Senate.  And places like DC and Detroit get permanent high spots for consistently electing idiots/criminals.  But, sadly, AL is gaining a bit here.

 

Edited by Sand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand said:

Well I won't vote for Moore, that's a given.  I don't know much about the Democrat.  If he's awful, as well, I may abstain.

He worked in the same steel mill his dad did until he went to law school.  Then he became a prosecutor and went after racists who bombed black churches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If there were a Democrat version of Roy Moore (and I don't even know what that would look like) and you were voting for him for any reason, you should be ridiculed for it in perpetuity. 

There have been plenty of versions of Roy Moore on the left, except they resided on the Supreme Court. Douglas wanted to give standing to trees.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If Barack Obama were actually what the loony right has claimed he is for a decade - a Kenyan Muslim who wants to somehow both make us a Communist nation and institute Sharia Law (yes, I know, but suspend disbelief for a moment) then he'd be roughly the equivalent of Roy Moore. And anyone who voted for him should have that vote brought up in every conversation for the rest of his life. 

One possibility would be someone who is so over-the-top on gun control that they want to criminalize all weapons possession in clear violation of the Second Amendment as interpreted and who tells their left-leaning state to disregard any federal court rulings that struck down such laws.  That gets you halfway there.  Still gotta spend decades as a lunatic conspiracy theorist and bigot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

One possibility would be someone who is so over-the-top on gun control that they want to criminalize all weapons possession in clear violation of the Second Amendment as interpreted and who tells their left-leaning state to disregard any federal court rulings that struck down such laws.  That gets you halfway there.  Still gotta spend decades as a lunatic conspiracy theorist and bigot.

 

Or give standing to trees.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

There have been plenty of versions of Roy Moore on the left, except they resided on the Supreme Court. Douglas wanted to give standing to trees.  

Wait- did you really just compare Supreme Court Justice Douglas, one of the most brilliant minds ever on the Supreme Court, to Roy Moore? Did you seriously just do that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

He worked in the same steel mill his dad did until he went to law school.  Then he became a prosecutor and went after racists who bombed black churches. 

Yeah, haven't even had a chance to look.  I'll get a chance before the general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those guys don't get to be Alabama judges, they get to be federal ones. At the highest level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Wait- did you really just compare Supreme Court Justice Douglas, one of the most brilliant minds ever on the Supreme Court, to Roy Moore? Did you seriously just do that? 

The one who was almost impeached and put in a mental institution, IIRC? Yes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can find commandments on the wall and penumbras emanating in my office. Doesn't matter where, they're both crazy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Wait- did you really just compare Supreme Court Justice Douglas, one of the most brilliant minds ever on the Supreme Court, to Roy Moore? Did you seriously just do that? 

Tim, it's in print.  I think he did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Richard A. Posner, who was a law clerk at the Court during the latter part of Douglas's tenure, characterized him as "a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible" Supreme Court justice, as well as "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed" and so abusive in "treatment of his staff to the point where his law clerks—whom he described as 'the lowest form of human life'—took to calling him "####head" behind his back." Posner asserts also that "Douglas's judicial oeuvre is slipshod and slapdash"

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, legal scholars have noted that Douglas's judicial style was unusual in that he did not attempt to elaborate justifications for his judicial positions on the basis of text, history, or precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Or give standing to trees.  

That's not remotely close. I don't want to get into the issue of standing with you, but thankfully I don't have to because Douglas didn't tell the Sierra Club to reject the majority ruling and the rule of law and burn the ski resort to the ground or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Trees have standing"[edit]

In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.[27]

He continued:

Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole—a creature of ecclesiastical law—is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases .... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.[27]

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Judge Richard A. Posner, who was a law clerk at the Court during the latter part of Douglas's tenure, characterized him as "a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible" Supreme Court justice, as well as "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed" and so abusive in "treatment of his staff to the point where his law clerks—whom he described as 'the lowest form of human life'—took to calling him "####head" behind his back." Posner asserts also that "Douglas's judicial oeuvre is slipshod and slapdash", but yet, Douglas's "intelligence, his energy, his academic and government experience, his flair for writing, the leadership skills that he had displayed at the SEC, and his ability to charm when he bothered to try" could have let him "become the greatest justice in history."[6]

Took that one quote out of Wikipedia? Why didn't you include the part where he was called the greatest civil libertarian in American history? 

Douglas is the man who wrote the Griswold decision, plenty of others, and many famous dissents. He is studied by law students all over this country and the world, and would have to be up there for consideration as one of the most eminent jurors in world history. To even put him in the same sentence as Roy Moore is shocking and ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Took that one quote out of Wikipedia? Why didn't you include the part where he was called the greatest civil libertarian in American history? 

Douglas is the man who wrote the Griswold decision, plenty of others, and many famous dissents. He is studied by law students all over this country and the world, and would have to be up there for consideration as one of the most eminent jurors in world history. To even put him in the same sentence as Roy Moore is shocking and ludicrous. 

No difference. I already addressed his judicial philosophy. Yes, his famous dissent where he tried to give legal personhood to trees, or more colloquially, "standing." That was famous.

You can argue all you want. You and Tobias are already wrong. I'm going back to listen to Aesop Rock's "Cycles To Gehenna" and let you guys hash that out while HF comes in and argues some fine point about standing and personhood when everybody in the world calls it "standing." 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

OK it's settled I'm not voting for Justice Douglas.

Heh. No, I get it. It's that the point was that there has been nobody on the left comparable to Moore in recent history. He's sort of a glaring example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Moore can go...well, he can do a lot to himself as far as I'm concerned.  

But back to Aesop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No difference. I already addressed his judicial philosophy. Yes, his famous dissent where he tried to give legal personhood to trees, or more colloquially, "standing." That was famous.

You can argue all you want. You and Tobias are already wrong. I'm going back to listen to Aesop Rock's "Cycles To Gehenna" and let you guys hash that out while HF comes in and argues some fine point about standing and personhood when everybody in the world calls it "standing." 

Nobody has to argue about standing.  Even if we concede that Douglas was totally off his rocker on standing or even generally, he never rejected the rule of law through his actions. He also didn't promulgate any insane birther-type conspiracy theories.  And nobody ever voted for him with evidence of his insanity already in hand. All of which makes it fairly obvious that you're trying to steer the conversation away from Moore by picking a "standing" fight with a bunch of nerds. I'll admit it was a good strategy, but it's not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No difference. I already addressed his judicial philosophy. Yes, his famous dissent where he tried to give legal personhood to trees, or more colloquially, "standing." That was famous.

You can argue all you want. You and Tobias are already wrong. I'm going back to listen to Aesop Rock's "Cycles To Gehenna" and let you guys hash that out while HF comes in and argues some fine point about standing and personhood when everybody in the world calls it "standing." 

What you're doing here, even beyond the absurdity of the comparison you've chosen to make, is something that I see intelligent conservatives do all of the time, unfortunately. You're attempting to excuse incompetence within your own ranks by bringing up eccentricities within those opposed to you. 

rockaction, you may disagree with Douglas' decisions and find him odd, but I know that you know that we're talking about a brilliant mind here. You're too smart not to get that. And you know very well that Roy Moore is an idiot. It's frankly embarrassing to mention both in the same paragraph. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Are you really going to argue for Douglas? Are you really going to do that?  

Are you really going to ask him that question? Are you really going to do that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

What you're doing here, even beyond the absurdity of the comparison you've chosen to make, is something that I see intelligent conservatives do all of the time, unfortunately. You're attempting to excuse incompetence within your own ranks by bringing up eccentricities within those opposed to you. 

rockaction, you may disagree with Douglas' decisions and find him odd, but I know that you know that we're talking about a brilliant mind here. You're too smart not to get that. And you know very well that Roy Moore is an idiot. It's frankly embarrassing to mention both in the same paragraph. 

What's Moore's IQ, you think? I wonder if he's dumb or just crazy. If he's dumb, then I'll concede.  

Tobias's point about the rule of law is much better. Douglas was almost impeached on the Court for reasons of competence. Those are different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Nobody has to argue about standing.  Even if we concede that Douglas was totally off his rocker on standing or even generally, he never rejected the rule of law through his actions. He also didn't promulgate any insane birther-type conspiracy theories.  And nobody ever voted for him with evidence of his insanity already in hand. All of which makes it fairly obvious that you're trying to steer the conversation away from Moore by picking a "standing" fight with a bunch of nerds. I'll admit it was a good strategy, but it's not working.

Your point about the rule of law is taken. Can't stress that enough.  

But there was almost an impeachment for competence by an FDR appointee in a lifetime position. 

That's bad. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's especially ironic is that rockaction claims to be a libertarian, and there may have never been a greater writer of libertarian views, at least from a social perspective, as William O Douglas. His writing on the subject is passionate and brilliant, particularly in his many dissents when he believed the court interfered with individual liberty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

What's especially ironic is that rockaction claims to be a libertarian, and there may have never been a greater writer of libertarian views, at least from a social perspective, as William O Douglas. His writing on the subject is passionate and brilliant, particularly in his many dissents when he believed the court interfered with individual liberty. 

I'm a paleolibertarian and also a left-libertarian, actually. 

That doesn't mean I have to agree in the least with Douglas's jurisprudence. I could argue against incorporation for heaven's sake, and I could still be a libertarian so long as I refused federal government overreach. 

The definition of libertarian is broad. 

Generally, yes, I should be for Douglas's defense of individual liberty as a practical matter - in some instances. But they're not mutually exclusive in the least.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

But there was almost an impeachment for competence by an FDR appointee in a lifetime position. 

This is a complete misrepresentation of both attempts to impeach him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Coeur de Lion said:

This is a complete misrepresentation of both attempts to impeach him.

Just read that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rockaction said:

There have been plenty of versions of Roy Moore on the left, except they resided on the Supreme Court. 

Delete this before anyone else reads it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, massraider said:

Delete this before anyone else reads it.

Kelo v. New London

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four that just argued the ICC allowed the government to order us to eat certain things and the Congresspeople that supported it.  

Did they think about the method of enforcement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, massraider said:

Don't bother.

I wish I knew Latin because I'd encourage you to take your advice in a very smart-sounding way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Just read that.  

If you're interested in having an honest discussion about either Douglas or Moore, then I'm sure that a few of us would be happy to participate. If you're just looking to be provocative, no thanks. I'd believe that this was genuine for some people on here, but I'm very sure that you're not an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.