Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 483 posts

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#91

Post by medium_burrito »

flavor8 wrote: post #6
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #4

Apologies if this is covered in the article, which I can't get to, but what is he doing to make amends? Or is this just empty, placatory words?

He's 85, his brother died recently, and he's very likely concerned about "legacy". According to Greenpeace, these assholes have poured $145,555,197 into groups that worked counter to climate policy changes being enacted (from 1997 to 2018). _Partisanship_ should be the least of his worries - he'll be remembered as a key figure who spurred inaction at the exact time that we should have been taking drastic action.

Greenpeace is directly working against nuclear energy, which is the best way to have clean energy in the future for a large portion of humanity.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#92

Post by the-dude »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #67
the-dude wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is everybody you disagree with an ?

For me, when the disagreement is about turning the planet into a hollow cinder for naked protection of wealth accrued in an unjust system and justified by Puritanical memes of free will and individualism, it's either a naughty word ascribing malice or one ascribing stupidity. (Consequentially, the difference is sadly zero.)

Great stuff, you can't make this up.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#93

Post by kemiller »

catawbasam wrote: post #84
gamblor956 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hogwash. No religion is forced to perform marriages they don’t believe in.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#94

Post by jswizzy »

andrewmg wrote: post #78
louwrentius wrote: post #19

“Dark Money” by Jane Mayer was extremely enlightening. The influence of the Koch family on politics and public opinion has been devastating. The Federalist Society is a conspiracy against democracy.

(Longtime HN lurker and FedSoc member/leader, although speaking for just myself here.) The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—…

I don't know what you mean by voters. Since the gay marriage issue was decided by the courts instead of legislatures.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#95

Post by ceejayoz »

catawbasam wrote: post #84
gamblor956 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There is genuine work to be done reconciling gay marriage with the first amendment...

Why? Catholics (as an example) don't perform or internally honor Jewish (as an example) weddings, either, without it being any sort of First Amendment issue.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#96

Post by colinmhayes »

andrewmg wrote: post #78
louwrentius wrote: post #19

“Dark Money” by Jane Mayer was extremely enlightening. The influence of the Koch family on politics and public opinion has been devastating. The Federalist Society is a conspiracy against democracy.

(Longtime HN lurker and FedSoc member/leader, although speaking for just myself here.) The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—…

It isn't a conspiracy. It is the organization most at fault for mitch's anti-democratic actions regarding the supreme court that I honestly believe has the potential to completely undermine our government. The supreme court's move to a completely partisan institution is a huge step toward a populist dictatorship. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#97

Post by oh_sigh »

catawbasam wrote: post #84
gamblor956 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is only allowing male female marriage against what you wrote? Religions would still be free to let gay people get married, they just wouldn't be able to register with the state.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#98

Post by colinmhayes »

medium_burrito wrote: post #91
flavor8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's 85, his brother died recently, and he's very likely concerned about "legacy". According to Greenpeace, these assholes have poured $145,555,197 into groups that worked counter to climate policy changes being enacted (from 1997 to 2018). _Partisanship_ should be the least of his worries - he'll be remembered as a key figure who spurred inaction at the exact time that we should have been taking drastic action.

Greenpeace is directly working against nuclear energy, which is the best way to have clean energy in the future for a large portion of humanity.

I don't think that changes how much the Koch's donated to climate change deniers.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#99

Post by nickff »

sdenton4 wrote: post #82
chub500 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 roa…

>"It's meant to be a living document, right? "

The constitution was not originally intended to be a 'living' document; that theory came about in the progressive era as a way to change the meaning of the constitution without amending it.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#100

Post by pnw_hazor »

jswizzy wrote: post #94
andrewmg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Longtime HN lurker and FedSoc member/leader, although speaking for just myself here.) The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—…

I don't know what you mean by voters. Since the gay marriage issue was decided by the courts instead of legislatures.

Not in free states like Washington. The voters decided.
Post reply on HN