Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Maybe it's because you have such enormous respect for my handling of crash or Geezer that you don't feel the need to ever correct their immense and regular election lies. I should be flattered I suppose that you think DSL has that handled pretty well.

[iam416]

Well, I've been clear on the stupidity of election deniers. Many times. I expect that would cover it today and going forward. I certainly don't feel the need to point it out repeatedly. I have, of course, noted the rank hypocrisy of Left when it comes to election integrity, but that doesn't mean the Trumpers aren't off their gourds. But, that's been done to death. Whereas you seem to say -- or rather, parrot -- something profoundly stupid on a daily basis, so it's fresh. Not a re-run.

The documents case against DJT is airtight, but insignificant politically. The January 6 DC case is statutorily plausible. I firmly disagree with the reading of the statute on "obstruct an official proceeding" -- but that's one where reasonable minds can disagree. I don't know enough about Georgia state law RICO to have a strong opinion, but it's more dubious than the DC case. The NY cases are utter fucking trash. Disgraceful. The "consumer" fraud fine is, perhaps, one of the most egregious examples of a government targeting a specific person -- ever.

I'm not neutral. I was a "Clinton Democrat". I'd probably be closer to a Reagan Republican at the moment. I don't view those two positions as all that far apart, but neither has a place in either party at the moment. But, if there was still a Clinton Democrat party (vs a DJT party), I'd be a D. I definitely view the Progs as far more dangerous to the strucutre and functioning of the government and well-being of society in general. And I firmly reject the contemporaneous identitarian politics. Unequivocally.

And you can read or not read easily available primary source material and, for that matter, easily accessible. The CPFB opinion isn't particularly complex and Kagan's concurrence is short and fairly direct. Or you can read what others tell you to think. I don't give a fuck.

And if you want to keep tilting at fucking straw men, knock yourself the fuck out.

[THE_WIZARD_]

PGA getting started late today because someone got run over by a shuttle bus. Regrettably NOT the Wizard

Seconded and Thirded

[Dr. Strangelove]

GOP mom discovers the reports of rampant wokeness in her local schools may have been highly exaggerated.

Texas school board member disavows the far-right platform she campaigned on | The Texas Tribune

[THE_WIZARD_]

Rrrrrrrrrrrright. It's all just one big hoax...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, I've been clear on the stupidity of election deniers. Many times. I expect that would cover it today and going forward. I certainly don't feel the need to point it out repeatedly. I have, of course, noted the rank hypocrisy of Left when it comes to election integrity, but that doesn't mean the Trumpers aren't off their gourds. But, that's been done to death. Whereas you seem to say -- or rather, parrot -- something profoundly stupid on a daily basis, so it's fresh. Not a re-run.

The documents case against DJT is airtight, but insignificant politically. The January 6 DC case is statutorily plausible. I firmly disagree with the reading of the statute on "obstruct an official proceeding" -- but that's one where reasonable minds can disagree. I don't know enough about Georgia state law RICO to have a strong opinion, but it's more dubious than the DC case. The NY cases are utter fucking trash. Disgraceful. The "consumer" fraud fine is, perhaps, one of the most egregious examples of a government targeting a specific person -- ever.

I'm not neutral. I was a "Clinton Democrat". I'd probably be closer to a Reagan Republican at the moment. I don't view those two positions as all that far apart, but neither has a place in either party at the moment. But, if there was still a Clinton Democrat party (vs a DJT party), I'd be a D. I definitely view the Progs as far more dangerous to the strucutre and functioning of the government and well-being of society in general. And I firmly reject the contemporaneous identitarian politics. Unequivocally.

And you can read or not read easily available primary source material and, for that matter, easily accessible. The CPFB opinion isn't particularly complex and Kagan's concurrence is short and fairly direct. Or you can read what others tell you to think. I don't give a fuck.

And if you want to keep tilting at fucking straw men, knock yourself the fuck out.

Kagan wrote a concurrence that Kav and ACB considered important and well-written enough to co-sign onto. It wasn't just the little vanity piece that you're portraying it to be.

Geezer and crash can rest easy that the forum's one impartial judge, the only one of us capable of being honest about any subject, will never push back on election denial because he's bored with the topic.

We've said our piece. Have a lovely weekend.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I agree with DSL that talent is an enormous douch.......but he's spot on in his response to DSL's rant.

I'm unabashedly a Reagan R but there's no political party at the moment that represents my political interests. Nor is there any leading politician that speaks for me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I agree with DSL that talent is an enormous douch.......but he's spot on in his response to DSL's rant.

I'm unabashedly a Reagan R but there's no political party at the moment that represents my political interests. Nor is there any leading politician that speaks for me.

You have to punch back against Talent because he'll walk all over you if you don't. He often bullshits his way through arguments, which is the most important skill you learn at law school.

Years ago I attacked a law passed in Mississippi that made it legal for businesses to refuse to serve gay people. This is back before Obergefell, so maybe 10 years. Talent came at me hot and heavy, bellowing that I understood nothing. I cited the exact language of the law and he forced himself to admit I was right and that he hadn't actually read the law before exploding on me.

So yeah, I know Talent blusters his way through an argument on occasion. He's a 50+ year old man with entrenched beliefs who loves to nevertheless present himself as the room's only open-minded person. The only one intellectually capable of seeing things for what they are.

He's an arrogant asshat and a friend.

[THE_WIZARD_]

you misspelled "fiend"

[iam416]

Kagan wrote a concurrence that Kav and ACB considered important and well-written enough to co-sign onto. It wasn't just the little vanity piece that you're portraying it to be.

Geezer and crash can rest easy that the forum's one impartial judge, the only one of us capable of being honest about any subject, will never push back on election denial because he's bored with the topic.

We've said our piece. Have a lovely weekend.

I never said it was vanity piece. YOU said it was a potential issue for originalism -- borrowing someone else's opinion. I pointed out that Kagan signed on entirely to Thomas' originalist opinion and added what she added (that is was that at the founding and throughout history). Again, I've read the concurrence.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about re Mississippi. I've certainly been wrong numerous times, though.

And the goalposts perpetually move with you. Whatever. Every point I address there's some other weird one. I don't think "I'm not neutral" is a proclamation of "impartial judge." But, hey, whatever. I do think I can defend my opinon re Kagan "taking pokes at originalism". All. Fucking. Day.

[iam416]

I agree with DSL that talent is an enormous douch.......but he's spot on in his response to DSL's rant.

I'm unabashedly a Reagan R but there's no political party at the moment that represents my political interests. Nor is there any leading politician that speaks for me.

Of course I'm spot on. It's not hard to knock that shit down.

I realize asking someonen to read the primary source materials and form their opinion and then justify it with the source materials is a tough ask when you can just parrot THE MEDIA.

Anyway, any issue DSL wants to take issue with, bring it. He can go read up on what Chris Hayes thinks and if I somehow stray beyond those talking points attack me with whatever his attack du jour is. I guess, perhaps, I don't take Geezer or Wizard to task enough, so how dare I clown you.

[iam416]

Anyway, looking forward to June 1.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I've read the concurrence. She added that history & practice beyond the Founding matters too. In this case, the practice at the time of the Founding and the succeeding 200+ years were the same. I believe what she's also hinting at is if there's a conflict between practice at the Founding and the practice of the succeeding 200+ years, then a practice that long-standing should not be easily brushed aside.

And again, ACB and Kav liked this enough to sign onto it. Kagan's concurrence clearly offers something at least a little different than Thomas' opinion else it would've made it into the main opinion OR Thomas/Roberts would've themselves concurred. Jackson wrote her own bit (which no one co-signed) basically just to complain that all the history lessons are unnecessary.

[iam416]

I believe what she's also hinting at is if there's a conflict between practice at the Founding and the practice of the succeeding 200+ years, then a practice that long-standing should not be easily brushed aside

I think it way more likely that she's suggesting if the originalist interpretation is ambiguous that certainly the practice immediately after the founding is a relevant place to look. The more proximate in time to the Founding (or Amendment ratification) the more probative the practice. But that's hardly earth-shattering. That's more along the lines of a contemporaneous understanding. I mean, I'd be really surprised if an originalist reach an intepretation that directly conflicted with a practice started, say, in 1793 and continued for 100 years.

And I'd be gob-smacked if Kav and ACB decided that a practice that started, say, 50 years ago would trump an originalist interpretation. I realize it's not analogous, but those two weren't particularly persuaded to say Roe was right because of 50 years of practice and tradition.

What Kagan is saying is that this particular understanding of the Appropriations Clause has always been this way and continues to this day. In order to actually take a shot at originalism it would have to be a practice that has not always been this way AND conflicts w/ an originalist understanding.

In no way is she poking at originalism. I mean, to flip your point, SHE SIGNED ON TO THE MAJORITY OPINION. She says everything in that opinion is correct. She wants to add an additional justification.

So, if you want to cast Kagan's concurrence as stating another way to confirm originalism, that's fine. I strongly disagree, however, that it has some sort of negative implications for originalism -- that now only Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are using it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I believe Kagan/SS/Kav/ABC are saying that they agree with Thomas' originalist approach conclusion but think it isn't necessary to zero in on the 1780's alone to decide this case. There's 200 years of subsequent similar practice too.

Now if there's ever a conflict between practice in 1787 and the succeeding 200 years, I don't know what Kav and ACB would necessarily do. I feel kinda safe that Thomas would stick with 1787.

I would agree with you that 50 years isn't enough "tradition".

Alito had an odd footnote trying to distinguish the way the Federal Reserve is funded from the CFPB that was not terribly convincing, IMO