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

111–120 of 483 posts

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#111

Post by nickff »

sdenton4 wrote: post #102
nickff wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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

I meant living document in the prosaic sense, of document meant to be regularly updated. The amendment process is baked in from the start, so was clearly intended from the beginning.

Originalists are usually in favor of more frequent amendments to the constitution, they're only against re-interpreting existing text in new ways.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#112

Post by pnw_hazor »

brewdad wrote: post #80
splintercell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well-regulated does not mean government regulations. It means well-functioning. Like a well regulated clock.

We have a standing army now. The 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant.

The Army has nothing to with personal self-defense or protection of civil rights. Standing armies were the part of the motivation for the 2nd Amd.

There is plenty of 2nd Amd. scholarship that goes over all of this. Not saying you need to agree with the scholarship, but a lot of people have thought about his stuff and researched it deeply.

Gotchas statements re: "...well regulated...", cars are registered why not guns, restrict people to owning muskets, etc., are unhelpful.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#113

Post by chmod600 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #96
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!—…

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/

The supreme court partisanship is overstated. It's brought out all the time as though the sky is falling, but typically when the court is tilted, side-switching magically appears.

Roberts, Gorsuch, Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter all switched sides on major issues. Conservatives switch sides a lot more often, but perhaps because the court has been tilted towards Republican nominees.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#114

Post by voltaireodactyl »

ceejayoz wrote: post #95
catawbasam wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First Amendment protects you from government. Catholics are not the government.

That’s why Catholic discussion of Jewish marriages is not a First Amendment issue, while Supreme Court Justice Alito advocating against gay marriage is.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#115

Post by the-dude »

colinmhayes wrote: post #98
medium_burrito wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you please consider using heretics instead of the energy wasting climate change deniers?

This would emit about 60% less CO2, mind you.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#116

Post by pnw_hazor »

blfr wrote: post #27

The US seems to be in the middle of another realignment, like in the 60s. The Democratic party is consolidating its support from the big corporations, while the Republican party is making inroads with the working class.

We are seeing the end of the nation state or at least its prominence.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#117

Post by nickff »

sjy wrote: post #74
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?

You could look to the legal system in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia, which has the same basic structure, without the bizarre political pageantry surrounding the appointment of apex court judges. In these countries judges are not considered “liberal” or “conservative,” at least not by the general public. Theories of judicial interpretation are treated as an obscure philosophical concept taught at law school,…

UK, Canada, and Australia all have radically different constitutions; very hard to compare any of them to the US Constitution. Broadly speaking, the UK one is more a body of law, the Canadian is a single document which the government can override, and I'm not too familiar with the Australian one, but it seems fairly limited compared with the others mentioned.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#118

Post by ceejayoz »

alain94040 wrote: post #107
chub500 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure "originalist" means anything. The constitution, like all legal texts, contains contradictions between different principles. As logic students know, once you have contradictions in your principles, you can prove anything you want. The role of a judge is to sort through these contradictions to decide which principles are more important than others, even though they are all mentioned in the constitution. So…

> I'm not sure "originalist" means anything. The constitution, like all legal texts, contains contradictions between different principles.

Not just the Constitution, either. Other contemporary writings - the Federalist Papers, etc. - are often quote-mined to determine "intent". As you identify, these offer a lot of opportunities to pick and choose stuff in favor of whatever ideological decision you'd like to make.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#119

Post by colinmhayes »

chmod600 wrote: post #113
colinmhayes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

The supreme court partisanship is overstated. It's brought out all the time as though the sky is falling, but typically when the court is tilted, side-switching magically appears. Roberts, Gorsuch, Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter all switched sides on major issues. Conservatives switch sides a lot more often, but perhaps because the court has been tilted towards Republican nominees.

Sure, but partisanship is getting much worse. The precedent has now been set to completely reject any nomination from the opposing party. That will lead to even more partisanship as nominating "moderates" no longer makes sense. We're in for a future of nothing but Alito's and Thomas's.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#120

Post by voltaireodactyl »

the-dude wrote: post #88
flavor8 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“A rose by any other name”.
Post reply on HN