Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL:

"...I am a man who will fight for your honor..."

[Dr. Strangelove]

...We'll live forever, knowing together, that we did it all for the glory of love...

[THE_WIZARD_]

...don't try to fake it...I know you are a Cobra Kai...

[lineygoblue]

Regarding the USSC vacancy.

I was thinking that it might be a politically savvy move on Trump's part to nominate Merrick Garland. Reasons?

First and foremost, its most important for Trump to maintain the Presidency, than just one spot on the USSC right now. He'd be replacing a liberal with a liberal so there would be no net shift in the ideology on the Court.

It would totally disarm the Dems argument against him nominating a successor to Ginsberg. What are they going to do? Call it a "cynical" choice and vote against him?

Trump needs to be the next President so that he can replace the likely two (2) conservative justices that are rumored to be looking at retirement. If he replaces Ginsberg with a conservative, but loses to Kamala Harris, he puts her in charge of replacing the two conservatives. She's going to replace them with two liberals that are just a tad to the left of Vladimir Lenin. So, why put her in that position?

A Garland nomination would completely take the wind out of the sails for Harris/Biden right now. The Dems would be in such a tizzy over the pick that they'd be hard-pressed to put Trump away in the Presidential race.

And, in the process, he'd likely get a stimulus bill passed, because on-the-fence Dems would appreciate his nomination of Garland. They'd look pretty stupid to vote against a stimulus package with Trump making such a gregarious move.

I'm just a hillbilly from rural Michigan, but I think this could be a good move on his part.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Sure ...... he may get that advice from reasonable R's but he'd reject it at face because it wasn't his idea. Trump is by far the least politically savvy American president in US history. It's not that he isn't capable of getting things done, he's proven he can, but he too often gets in his own way. A lot of what he does turns out to be bad politics, bad policy or both. The wall, the NK gamut, the trade wars, his approach to global institutions and his interference and direction of the pandemic response including, isolating and contradicting experts within HHS and the CDC.

When I sit down to list the things he's fucked up, the lies intended to create his own reality, it's hard for me to understand why he still has supporters in the numbers he does. An indictment of the American electorate if there ever was one and fuel for the wealthy elite class both right and left that think voters are dumb.They are. And they certainly believe that their money and power buys the right to both articulate and find ways to make policy.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Maybe two weeks ago, I quoted a PH official in Europe and posted a link to an article that was demonstrative of a paradigm shift in government responses to the pandemic. The shift involved PH policy that shunned country wide lock-downs - the norm as Italy, early on, was experiencing a horrendous number of COVID related deaths - to much less restrictive mitigation measures with national messaging that stressed taking personal responsibility for containing viral spread (masks, social distancing, keeping the more vulnerable safe). WithIn that article there was reference to Sweden's experience that incurred a relatively larger number of deaths in exchange for more social mobility and less government imposed restrictions on the Swedish economy. Of course, and as expected, a debate here followed on the question of whether such an approach - trading deaths for preserving a nation's economy - was ethically and morally appropriate. The debate included issues of the accuracy of generalized CFR for making policy decisions as opposed to age stratified CFR guiding them.

IMO, the world is coming to grips with the reality that humans and governments have to deal with the reality that the virus is not going to go away and we need to live with it in less disruptive ways. Hypothetically this sounds great but I'm not sure those articulating this position understand how to do that. It's easy to talk about opening things up given the data we have at our disposal, e.g., if you're over 75, COVID is a different ball game, 65-74, also different but not as scary if the likelihood of death is a measure of that, 45-64, pretty safe, under 45, the risk of death is near zero and the risk of serious illness is under 5%. The big question is for that under 45 cohort that is out partying with little risk of serious consequences if they become infected, what is the risk of that group infecting the 65yo and up cohort who have a much higher risk of serious consequences. I don't think that is known with any degree of confidence. Does that cohort have to lock down, severely limit mobility, not socialize? In a world like that of China where the communist government can impose those kinds of restrictions on the at risk cohort, that isn't going to work in free, democratic countries.

The bottom line is that without buy-in to messaging that clearly defines age stratified risks and asks all citizens, especially those at higher risk, to take personal responsibility for their actions. their own health and the health of others, easing mitigation measures, like many call for including me, will produce the kind of increased case numbers and increased serious consequences, including deaths, that we're seeing in various European countries now.

The US never actually controlled contagion like most of Europe did, Asia did still better and China with its draconian mitigation measures controlled contagion the best of all. Accordingly, we're still seeing outbreaks and local community spread in the US that, compared to the EU and most of Asia, is significantly worse. Most of that is due not to testing capacity but rather that the US is plagued with poor test result turnaround, limited tracking resources and decrepit PH infrastructure. The result is the US leads the world in many of the data points used to measure degree of SARS-CoV-2 control.

Without coming to terms with these specific testing and tracking shortcomings in the US, I'm less likely to argue for just going for it and hoping things don't get too bad before a vaccine is available at scale. Accordingly, here in the US, although I think changes in human behavior are behind the decline in community spread, there are venues that should remain restricted and events that shouldn't be fully authorized to return to normal operations. I believe that local officials know precisely what those are. I also know that the public will push-back against government imposed restrictions to mobility and socialization. That's mostly because there is a large segment of Americans who resist being told to conform and won't behave in the face of COVID. What might work in Europe and Asia given cultural differences, won't work in the US. That's a shame.

[Ghengis Jon]

Liney, picking Garland as the nominee would be a tremendously savvy move by the GOP. Garland's certainly no liberal, he is someone respected by both sides of the aisle. That's why Obama picked him - someone with a reasonable chance of passing confirmation in a polarized political chamber. Nominating Garland would undermine the Democratic position that the GOP is composed primarily of cowardly ass lickers beholden to an anti-American grifter. The GOP could say 'in the spirit of bipartisanship, enough is enough and we need to come together as Americans'. That would rip the heart out the dem argument of the GOP's inflexible intolerance. Right on the cusp of an election...a GOP "October Surprise".

I would also favor a supermajority requirement at the SC to end 5-4 decisions based on politics rather than law. The Senate is so bipolar. They have the ability to confirm conservative judges like Roberts yet they confirm rapists like Kavanaugh. Its not like the Dems would be much different. Given the current environment, they would nominate AOC instead of Garland. Politics should be excluded from the SC. There should only be two questions at hand, is the issue Constitutional and does the issue comply with the law. Politics should be left in the political arena not the legal one.

[Mike]

Rapists?

[Hannibal]

The Supreme Court needs term limits. These fights over nominations are the result of the Supreme Court having completely unchecked powers and Left Wing activist judges completely trashing the Constitution at all levels. I'd gladly take another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the SC if it meant that that person would only be there for 12 years. Most nominees over the past 40 years have voted significantly to the Left of what we thought we were getting when they were appointed. There needs to be accountability for everyone in power, including judges.

At any rate, I'm fully onboard with pushing through a nominee. We live in a country where Kyle Rittenhouse is rotting in jail despite clear exculpatory evidence showing that he acted in self defense, and where the FBI conspired with the Democrat Party to unlawfully spy on a Presidential Candidate and then use fake evidence as a pretense for a 2 year fishing expedition. We live in a country where one party sides with angry lunatics throwing Molotov cocktails at police vehicles and grocery stores -- God knows I don't want that party appointing the next judge. We also live in a country where huge issues like free speech and the right to defend yourself against violent Communists will likely be decided in the courts. I don't know how a Republican-appointee will vote every time, but I know how a Democrat appointee (even a "moderate" one) will vote every time. So I don't give a shit about precedent. All precedents have been thrown in the trash lately anyways.

[Ghengis Jon]

Bipartisanship is possible. Here's a shot of Scalia and RBG when they and their families vacationed together in India.


scalia_ginsburg.jpg

[Cody_Russell]

Stocks *slightly* tanking/ giving back the big gains from August. Ruh roh.

Liney, picking Garland as the nominee would be a tremendously savvy move by the GOP.

If Trump wants to troll everyone, the nomination would be Garland.
I'm interested to see how the Ds would react... Trump could even use it as a positive talking point during the debate.

It won't be though. Amy Coney Barrett will be announced on Friday I bet.

[Hannibal]

Garland being a "moderate" appointed by Obama means that he will side with the Leftists 100% of the time. If you can't even rely on Bush and Trump appointees to play defense then you know that anyone that is Democrat and Liberal media approved with help them advance the football. Fuck that. I hope that Trump nominates a frothing-at-the-mouth extremist wingnut. She might not get approved but at least it wouldn't be some Cuck like John Roberts who helps the Left find obscure penumbras in the Constitution so that they can ram ever more of their lunatic agenda down our throats.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd be open to considering age limits. Ohio Supreme Court justices are forced to retire at 70. Maybe make it 75 for the USSC

[iam416]

Rapists?

Jon can't help himself. He's been over the edge for awhile now.

It won't be though. Amy Coney Barrett will be announced on Friday I bet.

There's a total zero chance Garland gets nominated. PDJT will probably nominate ACB, and she'd be an outstanding justice. And the Ds will, once again, show how they only care about women or minorities if those women and minorities are Ds.

And we can talk about changing the structure of the SC, but it's fanciful nonsense, much like changing the electoral college.