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

171–180 of 483 posts

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#171

Post by jjeaff »

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.

Technically, the courts interpreted the legislation that was already passed as allowing gay marriage.

If there was a political, legislative will, "the people" could pass an amendment to the law specifying that gay marriage is not allowed or protected.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#174

Post by chmod600 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #163
chmod600 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's partisanship of Congress, not the Supreme Court. When it comes down to real decisions by SCOTUS, they usually come out more moderate and narrow than you might imagine.

In the past that has been true. But if every confirmation from now on is as partisan as Alito and Thomas are(who as far as I'm aware almost never rule against republican causes) that will soon cease to be the case.

I don't see how Alito and Thomas show a trend here. Roberts joined after Thomas and Gorsuch joined after Alito, and both have a more independent record.

Among the Democrat appointees, Kagan has a more independent record than Sotomayor but came afterward.

I know there are counterexamples but my point is that there's not an obvious trend toward more partisan justices, or at least no evidence has been presented so far in this thread.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#175

Post by simlevesque »

chub500 wrote: post #39
Pirgo wrote: post #24

"Mr. Koch has written (with Brian Hooks) a new book, “Believe in People: Bottom-Up Solutions for a Top-Down World,”" Can it get any more cynical than this?

Forgive my asking - what's cynical about this title? Should we not believe in people? Is the world not top-down oriented? Sorry - just confused.

He spent hubdreds of millions of dollar doing the exact opposite. You know what they say, put your money where your mouth is. He's lying in plain sight.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#177

Post by rurounijones »

a-nikolaev wrote: post #153
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.

Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima), as well as from possible terrorist attacks. Imagine a 9/11 type of accident with a nuclear plant as its target. Potential danger is still extremely high, even if the chances of it are very small. We still cannot correctly estimate the risks of nuclear energy, after all these years.

> Nuclear energy is still dangerous. For example, it is still not safe against possible natural disasters (Fukushima),

I mean, if we are going to be bringing up a single datapoint then allow me to raise a counterpoint.

Nuclear energy is still safe. For example, it is still safe against possible natural disasters (Onagawa) [1]

[1] https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear...

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#178

Post by [deleted] »

chmod600 wrote: post #174
colinmhayes wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past that has been true. But if every confirmation from now on is as partisan as Alito and Thomas are(who as far as I'm aware almost never rule against republican causes) that will soon cease to be the case.

I don't see how Alito and Thomas show a trend here. Roberts joined after Thomas and Gorsuch joined after Alito, and both have a more independent record. Among the Democrat appointees, Kagan has a more independent record than Sotomayor but came afterward. I know there are counterexamples but my point is that there's not an obvious trend toward more partisan justices, or at least no evidence has been presented so far i…

[deleted]

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#179

Post by nobodyandproud »

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.

Why even touch this topic?

There was a mistrust of the Federal government at the time, and it was believed that state militias could act as a check against a Federal standing army which goes rogue.

We have bigger issues than gun control at a federal level.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#180

Post by CameronNemo »

bwanab wrote: post #156

This reminds me of George Wallace’s famous realization that his long term institutionalization of racism in Alabama was wrong when he was getting close to death’s door. It was kind of nice to hear, but lots of damage was done.

Also the Emmet Till accuser admitting she lied, once she was on her death bed.
Post reply on HN