Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics political discourse

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2018, 08:37 AM   #76
Money2Burn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Misreading your post.
Posts: 11,770
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by masque de Z View Post
You know that if things get real ugly in US, there is a way to get even uglier and have to elect all 9 again because something remarkably unacceptable happened like a true revolution where all the tyrants fall the old fashioned way!

If US this fall doesnt completely terminate this shamelessly republican backed fascist train wreck then we have a seriously ethically dead society going on here that fully deserves the abyss. Too bad the beautiful country itself, its kids and its potential never deserved this nightmare.

This is what you get when you want to have a Clinton win no matter what (after the failed 2008 run) and push such poor character choices to people after first having tilted the poor logic centrists with all kinds of divisive low impact social warrior type projects and political correctness running crazy. All those truly important social projects now that could have been fought a lot better will be delayed because the big game was lost so ridiculously with such mfer for president winning the joke of the century. Clinton was 100 times better than this going on now but you should never go to an election with the best of two evils. The first woman deserved something better as background.

It has now become the true ethical responsibility of any conservative to examine closely what is happening and reject their own party if they cant change its soul. There is nothing wrong with being conservative if done right. This is not it. It is a brave and necessary choice to prevent the abyss that is coming and halt the damaging power of this imbecile in chief.

Also shame on Kennedy for not having the decency or heroism even to wait and do this a few months later, knowing full well that he was the person that was deciding critical issues and not a hardcore conservative, having instead the audacity to give such questionable character "president" such gift.


PS: I still have no idea how someone like Comey is not on suicide watch list. The audacity of that person to even think that he was doing the right thing. If there is a time to victimize your principles in order to save much higher ones that affect more people that was it. A rational person could see forward how horribly dangerous was to give the slightest chance to such unethical person as Trump to become prenazident.
Kennedy is a hardcore conservative, though. He is happy to let Trump pick his replacement! He clearly wants an extreme right-wing SCOTUS.
Money2Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 08:58 AM   #77
Terry "Hulk" Hogan
journeyman
 
Terry "Hulk" Hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: WrestleMania
Posts: 376
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Ric Flair and his puny little pythons haven’t been relevant since the 80s, brother.
Terry "Hulk" Hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 09:16 AM   #78
Money2Burn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Misreading your post.
Posts: 11,770
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

One overlooked area that this new justice will likely affect is Chevron deference. With a Justice in a similar vein as Gorsuch replacing Kennedy, it is all but certain Chevron deference is gone. As a reminder, that is the legal doctrine that gives executive agencies wide latitude in the interpretation of the particular statutes they administer. The basic reasoning behind it is that the agency is in the best position to determine how to apply these statues irl because they, theoretically, have all the expetiee and practical experience way more so than Congress or the judiciary. So when an agency makes a rule or regulation, it gets deference from the court as to, essentially, the breadth of the agency’s authority under the law, so long as Congress hadn’t spoken directly on the precise issue being addressed.

A good example of this comes from the EPA’s administration of the Clean Water Act. The Act charges the EPA with eliminating the pollution of navigable waters and ground waters. It further defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” Given that that definition is vague, the EPA has promulgated rules that expand on what it means based on their understanding of the Act’s goals and particular expertise with respect to pollution. Generally, EPA has determined that waters of the US encompases much more than strictly navigable waters, things such as intermittent streams, small trubutaries to navigable waters, and wetlands that aren’t necessaily attached to a navigable water are considered within the CWA’s jurisdictional ambit. This definition has been tested and largely upheld in part because the Court was unwilling under Chevron analysis to substitute its judgment for the scientific expertise of the EPA. Without Chevron all that goes away potentially, and you are left with cretins like Scalia kneecapping the EPA’s ability to prevent the destruction of large swaths of wetlands, for instance, because there may not be evidence that you could float a boat in them whenever the area in which they are located became a state and Congress didn’t explicitly say the Act included wetelands that affect the waters of the US. It’s ****ed.
Money2Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 09:19 AM   #79
domer2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
domer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,747
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn View Post
One overlooked area that this new justice will likely affect is Chevron deference. With a Justice in a similar vein as Gorsuch replacing Kennedy, it is all but certain Chevron deference is gone. As a reminder, that is the legal doctrine that gives executive agencies wide latitude in the interpretation of the particular statutes they administer. The basic reasoning behind it is that the agency is in the best position to determine how to apply these statues irl because they, theoretically, have all the expetiee and practical experience way more so than Congress or the judiciary. So when an agency makes a rule or regulation, it gets deference from the court as to, essentially, the breadth of the agency’s authority under the law, so long as Congress hadn’t spoken directly on the precise issue being addressed.

A good example of this comes from the EPA’s administration of the Clean Water Act. The Act charges the EPA with eliminating the pollution of navigable waters and ground waters. It further defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” Given that that definition is vague, the EPA has promulgated rules that expand on what it means based on their understanding of the Act’s goals and particular expertise with respect to pollution. Generally, EPA has determined that waters of the US encompases much more than strictly navigable waters, things such as intermittent streams, small trubutaries to navigable waters, and wetlands that aren’t necessaily attached to a navigable water are considered within the CWA’s jurisdictional ambit. This definition has been tested and largely upheld in part because the Court was unwilling under Chevron analysis to substitute its judgment for the scientific expertise of the EPA. Without Chevron all that goes away potentially, and you are left with cretins like Scalia kneecapping the EPA’s ability to prevent the destruction of large swaths of wetlands, for instance, because there may not be evidence that you could float a boat in them whenever the area in which they are located became a state and Congress didn’t explicitly say the Act included wetelands that affect the waters of the US. It’s ****ed.
A wildly controversial idea, but why not just pass a revised law in this instance?
domer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 09:27 AM   #80
LFS
emo gaylord
 
LFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Doing the deal
Posts: 21,547
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafja View Post
pro tip: when a poster is as absurdly bad as the bad poster ITT, don't argue, don't quote their posts, put them on ignore and wait for them to get bored or get banned.
ugh it's so hard tho. I had a multi-quote all tee'd up but you are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry "Hulk" Hogan View Post
Ric Flair and his puny little pythons haven’t been relevant since the 80s, brother.
This guy gets it.
LFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 09:54 AM   #81
Pwn_Master
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Pwn_Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,685
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by domer2 View Post
A wildly controversial idea, but why not just pass a revised law in this instance?
Don’t you worry, we will do that and ALOT more once we get rid off the filibuster. You’ll be wishing you had Hillary Clinton.
Pwn_Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 10:00 AM   #82
eyebooger

 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 41,658
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pwn_Master View Post
Don’t you worry, we will do that and ALOT more once we get rid off the filibuster. You’ll be wishing you had Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, about that...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...president.html
eyebooger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 10:01 AM   #83
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Looking for Rush HU Poker
Posts: 16,924
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

I really really hope Trump nominates Jared Kushner.

He does have a J.D. from NYU Law.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 10:38 AM   #84
cilldroichid
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 277
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson View Post
Hahaha, when abortion becomes illegal we’ll be more backwards than the Irish.
That the Republic of Ireland is more backwards than the US on 'moral' issues might nave been true 20 or more years ago but most certainly is not true now and we were always more progressive on issues such as healthcare and social welfare than the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by An_Reathai View Post
Plus, our Prime Minister is a young guy in his forties who is the son of an immigrant from India.
And is also openly gay which, as it should be, does not rate a mention in political converse. Trolly, do you think that could ever happen in the US?
cilldroichid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 10:45 AM   #85
Trolly McTrollson
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Winesburg, Ohio
Posts: 25,628
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by cilldroichid View Post
That the Republic of Ireland is more backwards than the US on 'moral' issues might nave been true 20 or more years ago but most certainly is not true now and we were always more progressive on issues such as healthcare and social welfare than the US.



And is also openly gay which, as it should be, does not rate a mention in political converse. Trolly, do you think that could ever happen in the US?
I wasn’t being entirely serious there.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 10:55 AM   #86
Pwn_Master
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Pwn_Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,685
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyebooger View Post
No surprise, Schumer/Pelosi made crystal clear they are out-of-touch elitists with their Red Hen and Maxine Waters comments. They are skating by right now but when the Ds take power they are either going to have to step out of the way or face much, much worse.
Pwn_Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:06 PM   #87
Rococo
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Rococo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,187
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Dominic,

At the risk of getting flamed, I'll risk an actual substantive response.

I'll start with Roe and Obergefell. If RBG and Breyer last long enough to be replaced by a Democratic president, then I think those decisions are less than <50% to be squarely overturned in the next 5-10 years. I'm reasonably confident that four justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kennedy's replacement) would vote to overturn. But I'm not sure about Roberts. He's conservative, of course, but he's more tactical and less dogmatic than someone like Scalia.

Regardless of what Roberts personally thinks about gay marriage and abortion, I suspect that he believes that opponents of those rights are swimming against the cultural tide over the long run, especially on gay marriage. I suspect also that he is reluctant to hand Democrats the electoral gift of squarely overturning these decisions. (As a political issue, abortion has always been more valuable for Republican politicians as a fugitive than as a captured prisoner.) Lastly, he probably thinks it would be a bad look for the court to overturn Obergefell so soon after it was decided.

Four justices are all that is required to grant a cert petition, but Roberts can exert a lot of influence over the process by signaling to the other four that he may not be in the tent. And even if a cert petition were granted, I suspect that Roberts would strain to find some narrow ground on which to decide the case one way or the other without squarely affirming or overturning the underlying cases. Everything changes if RBG leaves the court and is replaced by someone like Gorsuch. At that point, I think Obergefell, and especially Roe, would be very vulnerable to being overturned because the majority wouldn't need Roberts.

Incremental erosion of abortion rights is very possible even if RBG stays on the court. I don't think Roberts cares so much about preserving the substantive right. He would be happy enough to chip away at it as long as he can avoid the "Roe Overturned!" headline.

I'm not suggesting that Roberts is a swing vote by any means. On issues that are less visceral and tougher to understand than abortion rights and gay marriage (e.g., Citizens United), he will continue to be a reliable member of the conservative bloc. And much damage will be done.

Also, all of this could be dead wrong. I'm reading tea leaves like everyone else.
Rococo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 12:32 PM   #88
TrollyWantACracker
veteran
 
TrollyWantACracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,117
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic View Post
What's on the agenda to be revoked should Trump get another pick this year?
  • Gay Marriage?
  • Hell, all gay rights?
  • Roe v. Wade?
  • Due Process?
You forgot Brown v. Board of Education.
TrollyWantACracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:09 PM   #89
hobbes9324
veteran
 
hobbes9324's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Reno
Posts: 2,481
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by domer2 View Post
conversely you'd probably see a lot more children being born if there are impediments to legally killing the fetus!
Obviously.

Which wasn't the point of my post. Having some sort of handle on the actual consequences of a particular change in the law used to be thought of as helpful. I'm fully aware that this for the most part is no longer the case.

Also - the numbers I put up were eyeballed at 2am after a couple of beers - so they could be off by an order of magnitude (I doubt it, though)

MM MD
hobbes9324 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:14 PM   #90
synth_floyd
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,824
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy View Post
I really really hope Trump nominates Jared Kushner.

He does have a J.D. from NYU Law.
"Jared Kushner, smart guy. Helluva law school."
synth_floyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:19 PM   #91
becky88
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 228
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

always wondered about roe vs wade. so a woman can decide to get an abortion of her child. what about the father of that child. does he get a vote? and if the woman decides not to get an abortion the father is on the hook for 18 years of a child. he can get sent to jail if he does not pay up. seems the father should have a little say in these things,perhaps. they should make a law that says the father wants to give up his parental rights before birth so that he does not have to pay. in retrospect i think this might cut down on unneeded pregancies. some woman do get pregnant to snag a man. this way guys would have an out as well as women. and before you all start flaming the 88 has nothing to do with hitler.
becky88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:20 PM   #92
Cornboy
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: I have other friends.
Posts: 2,046
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Man, Clarence Thomas is only 70.
Cornboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:37 PM   #93
Money2Burn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Misreading your post.
Posts: 11,770
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by domer2 View Post
A wildly controversial idea, but why not just pass a revised law in this instance?
Why are you asking me? Conservatives could have changed the law to make its scope narrower at any time in the last 40 years, instead they have gone on a crusade against a cornerstone of administrative law that is the most sensible way for technical laws to be administered.
Money2Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:37 PM   #94
jman220
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
jman220's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: My gimmick acct is no longer a mod.
Posts: 11,214
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornboy View Post
Man, Clarence Thomas is only 70.
That’s actually a good thing. We’re drawing to runner runner at this point but the only scenario now where America doesn’t get ****ed for a generation is:

1. RBG hangs on for another 2.5 years;
2. Clarence Thomas hangs on for another 2.5 years and doesn’t retire;
3. President Trump loses in 2020;
4. Clarence Thomas dies sometime during the next 4 or 8 years and there is a democratic president with democratic control over the senate.

That’s it. Everything has the fall perfectly in that sequence.
jman220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 01:57 PM   #95
Lapidator
LLSNL Frequent Flyer
 
Lapidator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Weather is good on Deribasovskaya.
Posts: 11,707
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jman220 View Post
That’s actually a good thing. We’re drawing to runner runner at this point but the only scenario now where America doesn’t get ****ed for a generation is:

1. RBG hangs on for another 2.5 years;
2. Clarence Thomas hangs on for another 2.5 years and doesn’t retire;
3. President Trump loses in 2020;
4. Clarence Thomas dies sometime during the next 4 or 8 years and there is a democratic president with democratic control over the senate.

That’s it. Everything has the fall perfectly in that sequence.
Quote:
Life expectancy also changes throughout your lifetime. A 50-year-old man born on July 1, 1960 currently has a life expectancy of 81, according to the SSA’s new life expectancy calculator, released last week. Once he makes it to age 67 his live expectancy grows to 84.4 years and if he hits 70 the average life expectancy is 85.3 years.
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...ife-expectancy

Thomas is likely going to hold onto his seat for another 15+ years. Unlikely he decides to retire at any time.
Lapidator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 02:02 PM   #96
goofyballer
 
goofyballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 64,896
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

RBG on that calculator: 7 years
Breyer: 9 years

HOOOOOOOOOLD
goofyballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 02:16 PM   #97
TrollyWantACracker
veteran
 
TrollyWantACracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,117
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Some of us are old enough to remember that when Thomas taking Thurgood Marshall's seat it was just some months after Brennean left the court. This has been in a downward spiral for some time, things aren't going to turn around in 4 years.
TrollyWantACracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 02:18 PM   #98
Money2Burn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Misreading your post.
Posts: 11,770
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator View Post
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...ife-expectancy

Thomas is likely going to hold onto his seat for another 15+ years. Unlikely he decides to retire at any time.
Black males have significantly lower life expectancy, though.
Money2Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 02:23 PM   #99
TrollyWantACracker
veteran
 
TrollyWantACracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,117
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn View Post
Black males have significantly lower life expectancy, though.
There is also like a 1 in 4 chance of him going to prison.
TrollyWantACracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2018, 02:23 PM   #100
bware
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ♫
Posts: 7,042
Re: SCOTUS BOWL 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by becky88 View Post
always wondered about roe vs wade. so a woman can decide to get an abortion of her child. what about the father of that child. does he get a vote? and if the woman decides not to get an abortion the father is on the hook for 18 years of a child. he can get sent to jail if he does not pay up. seems the father should have a little say in these things,perhaps. they should make a law that says the father wants to give up his parental rights before birth so that he does not have to pay. in retrospect i think this might cut down on unneeded pregancies. some woman do get pregnant to snag a man. this way guys would have an out as well as women. and before you all start flaming the 88 has nothing to do with hitler.
I assume it refers to your IQ, then.
bware is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online