Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[oilcan]

  Trump leads from the gut, disdains detail and often appears to handle crises by saying or doing whatever it takes to get to the end of the day. This building crisis requires study, strategic thinking three, four or five steps ahead and an evaluation of the cascade of consequences that could unfold from any course of action.
National security emergencies often stretch an administration to its limits and require a unity of purpose and inter-agency cohesion that Trump has gone out of his way to undermine.
So far, in the hours since an Iranian missile brought down the $110 million surveillance drone over the Gulf of Oman, Trump has been -- perhaps surprisingly -- slow to pull the trigger.
He has controlled his impulsive instincts in an out-of-character show of restraint from a man who Hillary Clinton said should be kept from the nuclear codes as he could be baited by a tweet.   

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/donald-trump-iran-presidency/index.html

It's still, basically, Trump trying to fix a problem of his own creation. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

What if the same question that came up for the giant cross on public land came up, instead, for a monument of similar vintage and intent, but instead of its being a cross, it held a moon and star in the way commonly associated with Islam? How would Justice Alito handle it?

It is as much a constitutional question as the cross was, but with a less certain chance of a 7-2 result.

7-2 at the least, assuming the same SCOTUS makeup.
Did you read the opinions?
. “Even if the orig­i­nal pur­pose of a mon­u-ment was in­fused with re­li-gion, the pas­sage of time may ob­scure that sen­ti­ment,..“As our so­ci­ety be­comes more and more re­li­giously di­verse, a com­mu­nity may pre­serve such mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices for the sake of their his­tor­i­cal sig­nif­i-cance or their place in a com­mon cul­tural her­itage. What’s more, tak­ing down such sym­bols may be even more “evoca­tive, dis­turb-ing, and di­vi­sive” than leav­ing them stand.
“Where cat­e­gories of mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices with a long­stand­ing his­tory fol­low in that tra­di­tion, they are like­wise con­sti­tu-tional——-Jus­tice Al­ito



What mat­ters when it comes to as­sess­ing a mon­u­ment, sym­bol, or prac­tice isn’t its age but its com­pli­ance with age­less prin­ci­ples, “The Con­sti­tu­tion’s mean­ing is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a prac­tice con­sis­tent with our na­tion’s tra­di­tions is just as per­mis­si­ble whether un­der­taken to­day or 94 years ago.”——-Justice Gorsuch

[NeedsAdjustments]

  Trump leads from the gut, disdains detail and often appears to handle crises by saying or doing whatever it takes to get to the end of the day. This building crisis requires study, strategic thinking three, four or five steps ahead and an evaluation of the cascade of consequences that could unfold from any course of action.
National security emergencies often stretch an administration to its limits and require a unity of purpose and inter-agency cohesion that Trump has gone out of his way to undermine.
So far, in the hours since an Iranian missile brought down the $110 million surveillance drone over the Gulf of Oman, Trump has been -- perhaps surprisingly -- slow to pull the trigger.
He has controlled his impulsive instincts in an out-of-character show of restraint from a man who Hillary Clinton said should be kept from the nuclear codes as he could be baited by a tweet.   

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/donald-trump-iran-presidency/index.html

It's still, basically, Trump trying to fix a problem of his own creation.

Assuming some combination of reports and Trump’s claims are true, some questions are on the table.  As in, who the hell is the maniac on Trump’s defense team that is recommending and drawing up a strike in retaliation for shooting down an unmanned drone that could kill 150 people?  How the hell was Trump put in the position to say yes to that, before saying no later?

Trump’s goal here is to renegotiate some tweaks into the Iran deal so that he can claim that Obama’s deal was terrible but his is great!  Bannon has different ideas.  Hopefully Trump has the sense to keep him and his idiots at arm’s length, but as others have said when you are depending on Donald Trump to be the adult in the room…

No idea what Russia’s role might be in Trump finding the light, but I’ll just note here how Trump’s “restraint” in this case is in line with Putin’s wishes.

[kiidcarter8]

You're a fucking hypocritical political hack, Red. You haven't taught one  person one thing here. The amusement is that you apparently think you are an educator.

YG!   You have known this about Jim for how many years? 
He is not going to be changed by anything anyone posts here. His certitude is cemented and set.
Don't waste your time or energy on him.  He is not worth it, and will never be.

Why is it a negative that you can't "change a mind"? 

Just live, bro.

[Hairy Lime]

What if the same question that came up for the giant cross on public land came up, instead, for a monument of similar vintage and intent, but instead of its being a cross, it held a moon and star in the way commonly associated with Islam? How would Justice Alito handle it?

It is as much a constitutional question as the cross was, but with a less certain chance of a 7-2 result.

7-2 at the least, assuming the same SCOTUS makeup.
Did you read the opinions?
. “Even if the orig­i­nal pur­pose of a mon­u-ment was in­fused with re­li-gion, the pas­sage of time may ob­scure that sen­ti­ment,..“As our so­ci­ety be­comes more and more re­li­giously di­verse, a com­mu­nity may pre­serve such mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices for the sake of their his­tor­i­cal sig­nif­i-cance or their place in a com­mon cul­tural her­itage. What’s more, tak­ing down such sym­bols may be even more “evoca­tive, dis­turb-ing, and di­vi­sive” than leav­ing them stand.
“Where cat­e­gories of mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices with a long­stand­ing his­tory fol­low in that tra­di­tion, they are like­wise con­sti­tu-tional——-Jus­tice Al­ito



What mat­ters when it comes to as­sess­ing a mon­u­ment, sym­bol, or prac­tice isn’t its age but its com­pli­ance with age­less prin­ci­ples, “The Con­sti­tu­tion’s mean­ing is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a prac­tice con­sis­tent with our na­tion’s tra­di­tions is just as per­mis­si­ble whether un­der­taken to­day or 94 years ago.”——-Justice Gorsuch

Did you? Gorsuch's opinion can best be summarized as, "Shut the Fuck up atheists" and the portion you quoted would have been more apt to the case - not to mention the plurality - had he used added the "in" before consistent and the "im" before permissible, while.Thomas questioned the applicability of the incorporation doctrine. And the plurality continued the right's tacit overruling of Lemon by not applying it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Racism isn't over, SCOTUS declares:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/mississippi-death-row-inmate-decision/index.html

[REDSTATEWARD]

What if the same question that came up for the giant cross on public land came up, instead, for a monument of similar vintage and intent, but instead of its being a cross, it held a moon and star in the way commonly associated with Islam? How would Justice Alito handle it?

It is as much a constitutional question as the cross was, but with a less certain chance of a 7-2 result.

7-2 at the least, assuming the same SCOTUS makeup.
Did you read the opinions?
. “Even if the orig­i­nal pur­pose of a mon­u-ment was in­fused with re­li-gion, the pas­sage of time may ob­scure that sen­ti­ment,..“As our so­ci­ety be­comes more and more re­li­giously di­verse, a com­mu­nity may pre­serve such mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices for the sake of their his­tor­i­cal sig­nif­i-cance or their place in a com­mon cul­tural her­itage. What’s more, tak­ing down such sym­bols may be even more “evoca­tive, dis­turb-ing, and di­vi­sive” than leav­ing them stand.
“Where cat­e­gories of mon­u­ments, sym­bols, and prac­tices with a long­stand­ing his­tory fol­low in that tra­di­tion, they are like­wise con­sti­tu-tional——-Jus­tice Al­ito



What mat­ters when it comes to as­sess­ing a mon­u­ment, sym­bol, or prac­tice isn’t its age but its com­pli­ance with age­less prin­ci­ples, “The Con­sti­tu­tion’s mean­ing is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a prac­tice con­sis­tent with our na­tion’s tra­di­tions is just as per­mis­si­ble whether un­der­taken to­day or 94 years ago.”——-Justice Gorsuch

Did you? Gorsuch's opinion can best be summarized as, "Shut the Fuck up atheists" and the portion you quoted would have been more apt to the case - not to mention the plurality - had he used added the "in" before consistent and the "im" before permissible, while.Thomas questioned the applicability of the incorporation doctrine. And the plurality continued the right's tacit overruling of Lemon by not applying it.

Josh asked how the court would rule if it was a Muslim symbol on public land.
I suspect the Court would grapple with the issues raised in the opinions of Alito and Gorsuch.
As it is now the court has a 7-2 majority and is willing to go quite a bit further in allowing the government to signal its support for religion in various ways.

[facilitatorn]

The spiritual descendants of Pilot and Herod tend to gather under the biggest cross.

[barton]

I don't think a conservative court will be able to get away with invoking the Lemon test only when it suits a prevailing climate of intolerance.   

The test was compared to a "ghoul in a late night horror movie" by Justice Scalia.  Classic case of psychological projection IMO.

[barton]

I enjoyed Hairy LIME opining on the LEMON decision.

[FlyingVProd]

Instead of making high school students study algebra, each student should be taught how to get a business loan to start their own business, and how to get a home loan to buy their own home, etc.

Students should also be taught how much various jobs pay, etc, so they can better choose what career path they want to take, etc.

Students should also be taught how to join a union, and they should be taught labor laws, etc.

And of note, as 500,000 jobs in California have been lost to China alone, we need to give redevelopment money and business loans to our people, and the students need to be taught how to get in on that, the students need to be taught how to receive redevelopment money and business loans.

There are many things that the students should be taught which are more important than learning algebra.

Salute,

Tony V.

[facilitatorn]

For actually understanding most of those things it helps to be a little handy with algebra.

It’s not either/or. The school day should be 8-6 so more things can be taught better. It already works this way in some exceptional schools.

[Hairy Lime]

The spiritual descendants of Pilot and Herod tend to gather under the biggest cross.

That's a flighty opinion....

[Hairy Lime]

I don't think a conservative court will be able to get away with invoking the Lemon test only when it suits a prevailing climate of intolerance.   

Why not? Nothing to stop them. They can always distinguish the cross case since outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition there are very few long standing religious symbols on public grounds.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I don't think a conservative court will be able to get away with invoking the Lemon test only when it suits a prevailing climate of intolerance.   

Why not? Nothing to stop them. They can always distinguish the cross case since outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition there are very few long standing religious symbols on public grounds.

The vote was 7-2 with 6 different concurring opinions