The big "C" word

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2020, 02:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel, you're much smarter than to actually believe that.  However, on that note, the lower courts continue to thumb their nose at the Heller decision, so even if a law is found to be unconstitutional almost identical laws can survive as long as the states enacting them continue to fight for them in court.  See the recent New York City case that they fought for tooth and nail until the SCOTUS granted cert and then they quickly amended the law in an obvious admission that they were 100% wrong the entire time.  The deep blue states are playing games with people's constitutional rights to score lame political points and I'm tired of it.

I'm a systems/procedure/institutional guy. I trust in our institutions more than I do any ideology. It's why I have such a problem with Trump because he threatens our institutions. Anyway, as much as I may say "horseshit" to plenty of court decisions, I trust in their role in the process.

All of that being said; lower courts ignoring Heller is a problem, but don't act like it is just the deep blue states that play those games. This is why I don't get deep into the 2A community, because the single-issue focus frustrates me to no end.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't really know how best to express how wrong this is.

I thought you "believed in the process"?

Voting history of Supreme Court Justices prove I am correct.  Conservative Justices are more likely to swing to the left on more decisions than the other way around.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No.  Once again assuming facts not in evidence and stating your opinion as fact.  Name a right wing extremist currently sitting on the SCOTUS.  

Sorry.  Maybe not "extremist".  What term do you prefer that means "refuses to be moderate"?

Maybe "hard core" right wing?  Is that better?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry.  Maybe not "extremist".  What term do you prefer that means "refuses to be moderate"?

Maybe "hard core" right wing?  Is that better?

It's you trying to make a point, not me.  So kindly tell us which SCOTUS justices fit whichever word you want to use to replace "extremist".

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2020, 02:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought you "believed in the process"?

Voting history of Supreme Court Justices prove I am correct.  Conservative Justices are more likely to swing to the left on more decisions than the other way around.

I don't disagree with that, more about your description of why.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's you trying to make a point, not me.  

Wrong.  I was just responding to this comment you made.

(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.

I am just trying to figure out what type of Justices you think it will take if moderates don't agree with your position.

I guess we can just agree on "right wing justices that are not moderate". 

Okay?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  I was just responding to this comment you made.

So you weren't making a point?  OK, then I guess we're done here. 

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you weren't making a point?  OK, then I guess we're done here. 

Yes I was making a point.

All you have to do is read the rest of my post to get it.

The thing I said you were wrong about was the claim that YOU were not trying to make a point when you said middle-of-the-road moderate justices would not agree with your opinion.

But if you want to run away instead of discussing it any further that is your choice.

My point is that your opinion is strongly biased toward the right instead of fair and balanced.  And that is why middle-of-the-road moderate judges won't help you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I was making a point.

Ok, but you just said you weren't.  Please make up your mind.

Quote:All you have to do is read the rest of my post to get it.

The thing I said you were wrong about was the claim that YOU were not trying to make a point when you said middle-of-the-road moderate justices would not agree with your opinion.

That's my opinion, based on how the court has been operating since the Heller decision.  So, one could call it an informed opinion.

Quote:But if you want to run away instead of discussing it any further that is your choice.

Ahhh, playground tactics.  I honestly expect better.

Quote:My point is that your opinion is strongly biased toward the right instead of fair and balanced.  And that is why middle-of-the-road moderate judges won't help you.

No, my opinion is strongly based on the actual Constitution and the SCOTUS affirming that right in Heller, which as Bel (is he biased towards the  right as well?) stated is routinely ignored at the lower level.  Don't worry though, I got what I wanted and hopefully I will again.

[Benton]

(11-12-2020, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The liberal position is just more often the correct position.

Conservatives are the ones who have to sometimes admit that their position is wrong.

I think both lines of thinking open themselves up to being wrong. That's just life. Information evolves.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, my opinion is strongly based on the actual Constitution and the SCOTUS affirming that right in Heller, which as Bel (is he biased towards the  right as well?) stated is routinely ignored at the lower level.  Don't worry though, I got what I wanted and hopefully I will again.

None of this has anything to do with your claim that middle-of-the-road moderate judges would not agree with your position.

BTW I don't disagree with the decision in Heller, but it was clearly judicial activism since it basically deleted the language in the 2nd Amendment about a well armed militia.  Heller will not bar the registration and licensing laws that I support.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ok, but you just said you weren't.  Please make up your mind.

No I did not.

The part of your quote that I said was wrong was your claim that you were not making a point.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this has anything to do with your claim that middle-of-the-road moderate judges would not agree with your position.

It does if you're able to exercise logic.  It's rather simple, but seeing as you are having trouble I will assist you.  The SCOTUS is not addressing these cases, even though it well known that four of the nine justices want to hear them (I'll let you figure out which four). They want to take on a further 2A case as they (correctly IMO) believe that Heller is not only being ignored but it was not of sufficient scope.  Thus far they have failed to do so, because by most, if not all, accounts they are not sure of the fifth vote needed (*cough* Roberts) to do so.  The addition of a further justice with strong 2A sensibilities, Barrett, will enable them to hear such cases with a reasonable assurance of achieving the goal of ensuring the second amendment is no longer treated as a secondary (no pun intended) right.

Quote:BTW I don't disagree with the decision in Heller, but it was clearly judicial activism since it basically deleted the language in the 2nd Amendment about a well armed militia.

 
No, it clearly was not, that's your opinion.  Since the general consensus, affirmed by the SCOTUS itself in the late 1800's, is that all men of fighting age are "the militia", then they did not ignore it at all.  As I've said before, we in a more egalitarian age, so we can include all women in that as well.

Quote:Heller will not bar the registration and licensing laws that I support.

I didn't bring up your pet issues in this regard, although I disagree with them for reasons already stated.  Licensing could absolutely be seen in the same way as a poll tax, a charge to exercise a constitutional right.  Regardless, that's beyond the scope of your initial question.

[Dill]

(11-11-2020, 03:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how the travel ban did not include the vast majority of muslim majority countries, including the most populated, Indonesia, continuing to call the travel ban is an obviously partisan and inflammatory statement on your part.  

Also, Trevor Noah?  The guy isn't funny and I certainly don't go to him for insight on any issue.  He can't hold John Stewart's jock.

Again, not 'obviously.'

As my numerous links above and three years of national political discourse have established, "Muslim ban" has become accepted reference to Trump's intent and partial accomplishment, in part because Trump termed it that himself. Insisting it be called a "travel ban" 'cause "that's what it really is" because "it doesn't include Indonesia" seems to me the "obviously partisan" move here, an attempt to completely elide the intent and history of that policy. 

That history: Trump makes a PUBLIC CALL To BAN ALL MUSLIMS from entering the U.S. Can't word it that way, given our Constitution. After several wording fails, his staff creates a "travel" ban instead. Bans immigration from Muslim countries with the weakest Washington lobbies. Needs Saudi Arabia so doesn't ban Saudis. Includes North Korea for plausible deniabilityy (How can it be about religion if it stops those thousands of illegal immigrants from NK?).

So a "travel" ban delivered with a wink  but you missed the wink. 

And I am "inflammatory" and "partisan" if I continue calling it what everyone in national news discourse calls it. Like I have distorted the Trump record. Fair and balanced an non-partisan observers really see just a travel ban. 

As I explained to you a few years back, the result was a policy ineffective and pointless if judged as foreign policy and by its stated goals, but tremendously effective if judged by the support it gathered behind Trump. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-SCOTUS-rules-on-Travel-Ban?page=3&highlight=sudan

#s  49, 133, 234, 239, 240, etc. 

[Dill]

(11-12-2020, 10:20 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll admit when Trump beat Clinton I was ok with it because at least something interesting might happen.  Looking back I realize that wasn't a wise desire on my part.  America is like a teen girl from the suburbs who wanted to spice up her life by dating a drug dealer and now we can't shake him. 

Just to fill out this excellent analogy, I would add that a large number of Americans have felt like the parents of that teen girl who sized up the "glamorous" 30-year-old drug dealer correctly the first time he drove up to the house honking his pimpmobile and yelling "let's party."    

[*Nately120*]

(11-12-2020, 09:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to fill out this excellent analogy, I would add that a large number of Americans have felt like the parents of that teen girl who sized up the "glamorous" 30-year-old drug dealer correctly the first time he drove up to the house honking his pimpmobile and yelling "let's party."    

The year is now 2020 and said teen girl is ready to go to college and her parents are hopeful she will start anew.  Bad news, the drug dealer boyfriend is showing up on campus and isn't too keen she's moving on.  Clearly some sort of brainwashing is going on here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 09:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, not 'obviously.'

As my numerous links above and three years of national political discourse have established, "Muslim ban" has become accepted reference to Trump's intent and partial accomplishment, in part because Trump termed it that himself. Insisting it be called a "travel ban" 'cause "that's what it really is" because "it doesn't include Indonesia" seems to me the "obviously partisan" move here, an attempt to completely elide the intent and history of that policy. 

That history: Trump makes a PUBLIC CALL To BAN ALL MUSLIMS from entering the U.S. Can't word it that way, given our Constitution. After several wording fails, his staff creates a "travel" ban instead. Bans immigration from Muslim countries with the weakest Washington lobbies. Needs Saudi Arabia so doesn't ban Saudis. Includes North Korea for plausible deniabilityy (How can it be about religion if it stops those thousands of illegal immigrants from NK?).

So a "travel" ban delivered with a wink  but you missed the wink. 

And I am "inflammatory" and "partisan" if I continue calling it what everyone in national news discourse calls it. Like I have distorted the Trump record. Fair and balanced an non-partisan observers really see just a travel ban. 

As I explained to you a few years back, the result was a policy ineffective and pointless if judged as foreign policy and by its stated goals, but tremendously effective if judged by the support it gathered behind Trump. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-SCOTUS-rules-on-Travel-Ban?page=3&highlight=sudan

#s  49, 133, 234, 239, 240, etc. 

Trump calls to ban all muslims.  Takes office.  Does not ban all muslims.  Still called muslim travel ban.

What you do is far more important than what you say.  I reiterate, calling the travel ban a "muslim ban" is factually inaccurate and deliberately so.  All your reasons for still referring to it as such are window dressing.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2020, 11:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump calls to ban all muslims.  Takes office.  Does not ban all muslims.  Still called muslim travel ban.

What you do is far more important than what you say.  I reiterate, calling the travel ban a "muslim ban" is factually inaccurate and deliberately so.  All your reasons for still referring to it as such are window dressing.

At the risk of triggering your "how dare someone defend someone I disagree with!  They must be white knighting!" button Dill's words say it was generally referred to as a "Muslim Ban" and Trump wanted it to be a "Muslim ban".  But that it was not doesn't change what he wanted or said.  You're giving Trump some kind of credit for not being 100% an idiot because the courts shot down one attempt and he went with Muslim ban lite.

in other words Dill's actions :showing what it was called and by who and why...are more important that his words: Muslim ban.  You just want to argue that one fine point rather than whatever larger point is being discussed because...Trump.

There's a phrase or two for that.  I'm sure they will come to me. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2020, 09:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: At the risk of triggering your "how dare someone defend someone I disagree with!  They must be white knighting!" button Dill's words say it was generally referred to as a "Muslim Ban" and Trump wanted it to be a "Muslim ban".  But that it was not doesn't change what he wanted or said.  You're giving Trump some kind of credit for not being 100% an idiot because the courts shot down one attempt and he went with Muslim ban lite.

in other words Dill's actions :showing what it was called and by who and why...are more important that his words: Muslim ban.  You just want to argue that one fine point rather than whatever larger point is being discussed because...Trump.

There's a phrase or two for that.  I'm sure they will come to me. 

I'm not avoiding talking about anyone or anything.  As I said in the post that started this conversation, his post was excellent except for referring to the travel ban, erroneously, as a "muslim ban".  I wasn't defending anyone or deflecting from anything.  As to your other point, I have zero issue with someone interjecting when they have something to add or clarification to be made.  In this case you did neither.  You just reiterated the exact same things Dill said and threw in a lame jab about me not being able to defend Trump.  Defending Trump, or avoiding talking about him, was never even part of this discussion, but you had to mention it for "reasons".  

In other words, it's not the fact that a post was made, but that the post was worthless.

[Big Boss]

Trump asked aides if he could pursue a wild plan to replace the Electoral College with loyalists who would ignore the vote, report says

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-discussed-replacing-electoral-college-with-loyalists-nyt-2020-11