What's new
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 Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (2 Viewers)

Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Correct.  I'd consider it wrongly decided.  I might consider it politically motivated or disingenuous.  But I don't think it's activist as I understand that term.  It would just be a ####ty decision for another reason.
Click to expand...
Got it. I guess I've thought of the term differently. For instance, I thought of the recent 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's statute which bans doctors from discussing guns with their patients as an activist decision because it essentially creates a new rationale for upholding a law that seems pretty clearly unconstitutional.

 
My question for the legal scholars is this: if we begin with the premise that we as a people would like money (and big donors especially) to play less of a role in elections, can we create a statute that meets that goal while putting the least restrictions on the first amendment?

 
The Z Machine said:
My question for the legal scholars is this: if we begin with the premise that we as a people would like money (and big donors especially) to play less of a role in elections, can we create a statute that meets that goal while putting the least restrictions on the first amendment?
Click to expand...
A few days ago, any statute you would have crafted would be struck down as unconstitutional.  Now, who knows?

 
The Z Machine said:
My question for the legal scholars is this: if we begin with the premise that we as a people would like money (and big donors especially) to play less of a role in elections, can we create a statute that meets that goal while putting the least restrictions on the first amendment?
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a way to do it.  If you eliminate the ability for big money donors (or corporations) to donate money to campaigns or Super PACs, then you're giving outsized influence to "the media", which is really a distinction without a difference.

 
I know we have freedom of the press, but is the press actually defined somewhere?  What if the RNC declares that it is a newspaper and then invokes freedom of the press to buy ads?

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't think there's a way to do it.  If you eliminate the ability for big money donors (or corporations) to donate money to campaigns or Super PACs, then you're giving outsized influence to "the media", which is really a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
On the bright side, I think money for running ads is becoming increasingly irrelevant (and was probably overrated to begin with). Trump's tweets, sent out for free, are a lot more effective than Jeb's ads that cost tens of millions of dollars. Candidates can use social media (as well as the regular media) to get their messages out. People don't really watch commercials anymore anyway.

 
Follow up question:

Other democratic republics don't seem to suffer from the influence of big money on their politics in the same way (e.g. Canada, France, Germany, etc.)  Is this due to the parliamentary system, or for some other regulations in place on political speech?  If the latter, then has there been a chilling effect on the freedom of speech in other ways?  Are those countries "less free" and is that a trade off that we as a people are not willing to make?

 
The Z Machine said:
Follow up question:

Other democratic republics don't seem to suffer from the influence of big money on their politics in the same way (e.g. Canada, France, Germany, etc.)  Is this due to the parliamentary system, or for some other regulations in place on political speech?  If the latter, then has there been a chilling effect on the freedom of speech in other ways?  Are those countries "less free" and is that a trade off that we as a people are not willing to make?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting question.  Honestly I have no idea.

Part of your analysis should also include the amount of corruption in those countries.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
On the bright side, I think money for running ads is becoming increasingly irrelevant (and was probably overrated to begin with). Trump's tweets, sent out for free, are a lot more effective than Jeb's ads that cost tens of millions of dollars. Candidates can use social media (as well as the regular media) to get their messages out. People don't really watch commercials anymore anyway.
Click to expand...
My perception is that Presidential races are very different from ordinary Senate and House races.

 
pantagrapher said:
I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand, it would be nice to have that appointment done with, but on the other: if she feels healthy and sharp, I don't see why the onus is on her to step down so a political party can "protect" her seat. And as others have said, it's unlikely a jurist as liberal as Ginsberg would make it through confirmation process today.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to their political process, but none of those countries are as friendly to free speech as the US is.  The US is sort of an outlier in that area even compared to other liberal democracies.  (A point in our favor IMO).

 
The Z Machine said:
Follow up question:

Other democratic republics don't seem to suffer from the influence of big money on their politics in the same way (e.g. Canada, France, Germany, etc.)  Is this due to the parliamentary system, or for some other regulations in place on political speech?  If the latter, then has there been a chilling effect on the freedom of speech in other ways?  Are those countries "less free" and is that a trade off that we as a people are not willing to make?
Click to expand...
Britain, for instance, doesn't have First Amendment.  It also has a very compressed election period (and yes the parliamentary system reduces the influence).

Germany and Canada's constitutions are very different from ours.  Germany has something like 200 provisions in it.  Canada's charter is kind of interesting, because the legislature can pass an "unconstitutional" law so long as they declare they are doing so and review it every five year. 

Which leads me to my thesis.  Our Constitution is important as an early expression of the type of values essential to a fWestern style government founded on the rule of law and certain acknowledged natural rights.  But lots of countries have managed to embrace those values without following our Constitution.  And "Constitutional Law" as practiced in this country for more than two centuries has done more for our understanding of the advancement of liberty than  adherence to some mythical notion of the original meaning of the Constitution ever could have.  It always amuses me to hear a self-professed originalist proclaim America the "greatest country in the world."  Because there's no way we'd have the same standing and power in the world if we confined we had applied such a limiting definition of federal power in the first place.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Anybody have current ratings for Fox and MSNBC?
Click to expand...
Or CNN for that matter...

cstu said:
The press supposed to be unbiased.

In the case of radio and cable TV infotainment, I agree corporations should be allowed to create any show they want but that's much more difficult than directly donating money to a campaign.
Click to expand...
The press is not unbiased.  They have the loudest microphone.  One of the reasons we face the prospect of a President Trump, is because the press gives him more free coverage than any other candidate.  

Another aspect is that 6 companies control 90% of the media.  Given that info, I'm reluctant to further disarm those who would seek to  disseminate viewpoints differing from those in the media echo chamber.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
 It always amuses me to hear a self-professed originalist proclaim America the "greatest country in the world."  Because there's no way we'd have the same standing and power in the world if we confined we had applied such a limiting definition of federal power in the first place.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with this at all.  I think limiting federal power, and empowering individuals, is what made the country great.

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm not sure I agree with this at all.  I think limiting federal power, and empowering individuals, is what made the country great.
Click to expand...
This country was made "great" by the available land, mass immigration, and the massive industrialization that happened after the other two were in place.  Other industrialized countries exploded into world wars while the US was spared that on our soil. 

 
The Z Machine said:
This country was made "great" by the available land, mass immigration, and the massive industrialization that happened after the other two were in place.  Other industrialized countries exploded into world wars while the US was spared that on our soil. 
Click to expand...
There are plenty of places which had available land and people.  We had a government which gave the people the freedom to succeed and to enjoy what they created. 

 
News has it that the president is not attending Scalia's funeral.  I thought the bar was set at it's low point when this administration sent no one to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, but this appears to be a new low.  Or a new high in the "classless" category, whichever way you want to look at it.

 
Sand said:
News has it that the president is not attending Scalia's funeral.  I thought the bar was set at it's low point when this administration sent no one to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, but this appears to be a new low.  Or a new high in the "classless" category, whichever way you want to look at it.
Click to expand...
Did they even know each other? I think it's weird to care about stuff like this.

 
I thought we already established that previous presidents skipped other SCOTUS funerals.  Not a big deal IMO.  

(For the record, I think funerals are kind of stupid, and if I were Obama I would want to weasel my way out of as many as possible).  

 
It is hard for me to believe that someone who skipped the State of the Union every year would care about whether the President attended his funeral.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
If it makes everyone feel better, I'm sending a tasteful flower arrangement.
Click to expand...
When he came to give a talk at my school, he apparently got angry at the person in my class who arranged the visit because there was no fruit basket in his hotel room.  So, I'm considering sending a belated fruit basket.

 
What I found a bit weird, more so than not attending the funeral, is speaking about replacing him the same day we found out he died.  Not sure the etiquette, but I would wait til after.  But the GOP seemed just as eager to engage the topic. 

 
Don Quixote said:
When he came to give a talk at my school, he apparently got angry at the person in my class who arranged the visit because there was no fruit basket in his hotel room.  So, I'm considering sending a belated fruit basket.
Click to expand...
And no brown M&Ms!  I feel fortunate. He just pWned me on a standing question when he visited my school.

 
Thought I read he was going to the Supreme Court tomorrow to pay respects while Scalia is in repose, and then the VP is attending the funeral.  WTF is wrong with that?

 
Sand said:
News has it that the president is not attending Scalia's funeral.  I thought the bar was set at it's low point when this administration sent no one to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, but this appears to be a new low.  Or a new high in the "classless" category, whichever way you want to look at it.
Click to expand...
There's no way that can be accurate.  I can't stand Obama but even he wouldn't miss the funeral of a 30 year Supreme Court Justice who died in office.

 
I just read the news and I'm shocked.  There have only been two Supreme Court Justices in the sat 65 years to die while still on the bench, and in both cases the President attended the funeral.  In 2005 George Bush gave the eulogy for William Rehnquist.  And in 1953 Eisenhower attended the funeral of Chief Justice (and Democrat) Fred Vinson.

Obama is very selective about whose funeral he attends: Clementa Pinckney, Nelson Mandela, Dorothy Height (civil rights activists);  Tom Foley (D), Daniel Inouye (D), Robert Byrd (D), and Ted Kennedy (D).

 
The backlash to this is going to be substantial.  Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes is criticizing Obama's decision.

 
Eh. Hillary is going to win. I imagine the gop might get a more agreeable nominee if they don't stall it out and piss her and everyone else off in the process.

 
Higgs said:
The backlash to this is going to be substantial.  Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes is criticizing Obama's decision.
Click to expand...
Substantial?   98% of the American population would not have been able to name Scalia if you showed them a picture. 

 
Higgs said:
The backlash to this is going to be substantial.  Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes is criticizing Obama's decision.
Click to expand...
Meh. Obama and Michelle are paying their respects at the SC Great Hall where his body will lie in state Friday. Plus Joe Biden will be attending the funeral. As far as most people are concerned that will be sufficient and if not, so what?  And while Chris Hayes made a subtle dig at Obama in a tweet, it didn't seem that critical, more along the lines that it was something that he should do. Plus while his opinion is interesting, it doesn't carry that much weight in the progressive community.

 
squistion said:
Meh. Obama and Michelle are paying their respects at the SC Great Hall where his body will lie in state Friday. Plus Joe Biden will be attending the funeral. As far as most people are concerned that will be sufficient and if not, so what?  And while Chris Hayes made a subtle dig at Obama in a tweet, it didn't seem that critical, more along the lines that it was something that he should do. Plus while his opinion is interesting, it doesn't carry that much weight in the progressive community.
Click to expand...
Fine.  Then can we at least agree he should quit belly-aching about how partisan and toxic the political process has become?  Every time he is presented with an opportunity to unite and heal, he instead chooses to divide.

 
Higgs said:
Fine.  Then can we at least agree he should quit belly-aching about how partisan and toxic the political process has become?  Every time he is presented with an opportunity to unite and heal, he instead chooses to divide.
Click to expand...
Because Obama's presence at the funeral would unite and heal?  Conservatives would find something wrong with him attending had he chosen to.

 
Higgs said:
Fine.  Then can we at least agree he should quit belly-aching about how partisan and toxic the political process has become?  Every time he is presented with an opportunity to unite and heal, he instead chooses to divide.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

 
Scoresman said:
Because Obama's presence at the funeral would unite and heal?  Conservatives would find something wrong with him attending had he chosen to.
Click to expand...
That's false.  Reasonable Conservatives would appreciate the gesture and sign of respect.  I know I would.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top