And in the long run we are all dead.
Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
81–90 of 483 posts
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you seriously think Scalia cared about protecting people's rights to bear arms beyond the text of the 2nd amendment? Whatever rights to bear arms there are, they come from the 2nd Amendment. It is absurd to stretch an Amendment about "well regulated Militia" to mean D.C. can't require people to store a handgun with a trigger lock because it would impinge on their ability to use it for personal protection. Yet th…
Let me push back one more time. If what you're saying is true, and no judge no matter how much integrity they have can be truly originalist - what do we do? Is our judicial system dead? Should we even try to pick originalists or give up on a third branch and let it be a super legislature? What comes of rule of law? Doesn't this seem like a problem?
Why does a legal system need to be 'originalist' to be valid? That seems like some pretty stiff kool-aid...
Via ye olde wikipedia: 'In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".'
This is the start of a very short road to bandying around conflicting subjective interpretations of what the original founders believed, rather than what's in the text of the constitution or the law. You can have rule of law without second-guessing the founders; if you get unintended consequences, update the law and/or constitution accordingly. It's meant to be a living document, right? In the meantime, protections for gay and transgender people based on equal rights laws is a feature, not a bug.
[on edit: To put an even finer point on it, Alito's arguing originalism because he doesn't like the text. That is fundamentally against the rule of law.]
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so that massive wealth has a tendency to be distributed throughout the population rather than concentrating in few hands If you look at the data, i think you'll find that billionaires own a very small proportion of all wealth
Very rough numbers, a bit out of date: Allegedly about 2100 billionaires - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires A couple of years ago all the millionaires put together controlled about 45% of global wealth - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-wealth-concentration... Since billionaires are a subset of those, then they cannot possibly control any more than 45%, so certainly less than half. Can'…
re is a very accusable article on the topic of millionaires in the US with some good sources.
There are 19 million millionaires in the US, or 5-6% of the population.
Hhttps://spendmenot.com/blog/what-percentage-of-americans-are...
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give a brief synopsis about how the federalist society is a conspiracy against democracy? I thought it was about originalism which seems to me to be pro-democracy by maintaining proper separation of powers etc.
See a transcript of Alito's speech this week. It's a hour of ranting against democracy. He didn't even hide the fact that he doesn't care that gay marriage or other issues were approved by voters; he would judicially end gay marriage in the name of "religious freedom." But this freedom only extends to particular forms of Christianity, as Alito is quite comfortable with restricting the religious practices of Muslims a…
There is genuine work to be done reconciling gay marriage with the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Unfortunately Alito is more likely to add to the problem than to help resolve it.
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federalist Society finds, indoctrinates, and advances conservative lawyers and judges. That's not inherently anti-democratic though their level of success and influence on judges selection processes may be considered so. The problem is they also tend to be highly partisan (pro-Republican) which undermines the separation of powers. Often their picks ignore their "originalist" approach when it would be counter to t…
I believe for the last 30 years or so (after the late Antonin Scalia) 'conservative' judge is almost synonymous with originalist. I think you may be falling victim to correlation is not causation? IE there are no liberal originalists by definition (above). If I'm wrong, could you give me an example of a liberal originalist? I would be very happy to be wrong about this. The correlation here is that conservative presid…
Originalism is fine in theory when coupled with judicial restraint. However, in practice, it has become justification for big-C Conservative justices to actively impose their views, overriding the democratic legislative process.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/how-determinate-is-original...
We're not going to settle this in the comment section of HN, but I happen to agree with this opinion:
As the Warren and early Burger Courts faded into history, originalism drifted away from its critique of judicial activism. The political conservatives who had disliked the countermajoritarian output of the Warren and early Burger Courts developed a fondness for judicial activism once there was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Originalism was thus transformed from a shield against what its proponents saw as illegitimate liberal decisions striking down laws adopted by conservative lawmakers into a sword that could be wielded by conservatives to strike down laws adopted by liberal lawmakers.
Originalism coupled with judicial restraint could not invalidate affirmative action, campaign finance regulations, or gun control. Abandoning judicial restraint led to an "unbound" form of originalism that licensed conservative judicial activism, even as judicial conservatives continued to complain about liberal judicial activism in cases involving such matters as abortion, the death penalty, and gay rights.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2019/11/why-not-to-be-originalist.h...
Do you have a non-activist originalist argument for Alito's on-going stance against legal protection of gay marriage? In Obergefell v. Hodges he stated that the Due Process clause protects only rights "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". He's making up a justification to allow a minority of conservative opinion to prevent gay people from getting married. How isn't that activism?
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federalist Society finds, indoctrinates, and advances conservative lawyers and judges. That's not inherently anti-democratic though their level of success and influence on judges selection processes may be considered so. The problem is they also tend to be highly partisan (pro-Republican) which undermines the separation of powers. Often their picks ignore their "originalist" approach when it would be counter to t…
Indeed. To illustrate Samuel Alito just gave a keynote address to the Federalist Society a few days ago. The NY Times and NPR have recaps: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/samuel-alito-religious... https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934666499/justice-alito-pande... You can watch the whole thing for yourself here: https://youtu.be/tYLZL4GZVbA The speech is an attack on science, expertise, and common sense. It’s a MAG…
> It’s a MAGA hat with a thin veneer of respectability.
So like a MAGA fedora?
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#87Now when he is done ruining the planet with pushing for fossil for decades, got billions on his bank accounts, god knows what else, he has had enough and he wants to be a good boy. I totally buy it.
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I object to your polarizing language.
Genuinely curious - are you seriously a fan of the Kochs? What do you find admirable about them?
I have no opinion on the Kochs, I have too little information, and since I don't have any influence, I couldn't care less.
I do care about civil discourse though.
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#89Is there a trick to getting around the WSJ paywall?
Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federalist Society finds, indoctrinates, and advances conservative lawyers and judges. That's not inherently anti-democratic though their level of success and influence on judges selection processes may be considered so. The problem is they also tend to be highly partisan (pro-Republican) which undermines the separation of powers. Often their picks ignore their "originalist" approach when it would be counter to t…
Indeed. To illustrate Samuel Alito just gave a keynote address to the Federalist Society a few days ago. The NY Times and NPR have recaps: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/samuel-alito-religious... https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934666499/justice-alito-pande... You can watch the whole thing for yourself here: https://youtu.be/tYLZL4GZVbA The speech is an attack on science, expertise, and common sense. It’s a MAG…
I saw parts of the speech and it was crazy. This is why appointing judges for life makes zero sense to me. If I become a supreme court judge at 45 and live to 75, I have a full three decades to change the direction of the country forever. This is very very scary.
There should be a term limit for everyone in government like presidents do - mayors, congressmen, senators, judges...