" The public wants diversity, not intolerance; more marriages and fewer executions; less money in politics, not more. Justice Scalia’s views—passionately felt and pungently expressed though they were—now seem like so many boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. "
- Jeffery Toobin
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oking-backward
...
now what ?
who's next ?
Last edited by 57Brave; 02-21-2016 at 10:29 AM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
That's a very good read. Given what's been posted about Scalia, I encourage everyone to read it, for the sake of balance.
I always felt like it was kind of a shame that Scalia used all that vaunted wit, intellect, and writing ability to essentially build a stout and sometimes beautiful fortress around such a retrograde worldview. For all the ink that's been spilled about his defense of the constitution, it needs to be noted for the record that he was as much an activist as any colleague, if not more so--and that's ON the bench. Off it, he was pretty much just a partisan cheerleader. He was perfectly capable of engaging in the same kind of philosophical maunderings that he accused other justices of, and of conceiving tortured constructions in order to achieve the outcome he wanted.
Anyway, he was a mixed bag, and his legacy will reflect that, even as some folks try to turn him, a la Reagan, into some kind of spotless secular saint. As usual, real life is messier.
Imagine that, someone expressing what they view as their moral superiority. They, of course, are in the right. The opponent de jour is retrograde, ugly, and just wrong. Sez who? Sez them of course. And they've got the votes to prove it and might makes right and all. Sez who? Sez them so long as they are in the ascendency.
"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."
~Justice Scalia~
chop2chip (02-22-2016), FreemanFan (02-21-2016)
I'm a Christian and all I can say is just stop with this nonsense. In a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, somehow some Christians still pull out this "woe is me" card. If a Christian is even remotely bothered by criticism from the sophisticated smart set, my advice is "Buy a backbone."Originally Posted by BedellBrave
57Brave (02-22-2016), bravesnumberone (02-23-2016), goldfly (02-24-2016)
"Christian" what does that even mean when Trump wins SC? Oh, and please stop the nonsense that the movers and shakers in academia and the media and in your party and in your denominational circles aren't guilty of the very sort of scorn that Scalia spoke of (a scorn expressed quite frequently here). Also, as a Christian then you are quite aware of Paul's message in 1 Cor. 1. Tell him to just stop if you'd like.
Julio3000 (02-23-2016)
I'm not really talking about religion here. I didn't mention it at all, actually. Sure, I think Scalia's writings in gay rights cases are pretty abhorrent. His faith informed his thinking on all fronts, and I accept that. The idea shines through pretty clearly that he probably thought that homosexuals should just get off his Constitution, er, lawn and get back in the closet, and I can't say I agree with either the sentiment or the reasoning. I'm really speaking more of his full-throated, activist, and sometimes headstanding ideas about corporate power, issues of race, and the more general idea that his originalism preserved in amber a world where the landed gentry of a certain complexion were free to go about their business without worrying about "racial entitlements" like the VRA, or getting sued or whatnot.
Since you mention it, nothing says "fool for Christ" quite like hanging out with your multimillionaire oil buddies, blasting hell out of semi-tame birds.
And you are making your own moral judgments. And you are writing off an opposing view as retrograde, ugly, foolish, vile, etc. You frame the one you dislike in the worse possible light - using the same sort of inflammatory rhetoric as he. We all do that sort of thing. And we all have to face the "Sez who?"
Last edited by BedellBrave; 02-22-2016 at 12:57 AM.
Garmel (02-22-2016)
Senate Judiciary Committe votes to not give nominee a hearing
The Roberts Court has made it easier to buy an election and harder to vote in one, which is why I recently argued that Democratic candidates should make repairing American democracy a central focus in the campaign by embracing policies that reduce the influence of big money, curb gerrymandering, and protect voting rights. None of these causes can be achieved without a sympathetic Supreme Court.
-Ari Berman
still don't understand why McConnell did what McConnell did
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
There's still a part of their wacko base (and frankly there's a part of our wacko base that thinks W.'s election was illegitimate) that sees Obama as not truly being President. I think it's that simple. Kind of crazy, but I'm going with Ockham's Razor on this one.
That's not the one that Favre is always trying to sell on the Weather Nation channel is it? ;)
I certainly don't agree with the decision, but I think it's rational and probably safe. Consider the cost/benefit:
McConnell and the leadership seem like they're increasingly under threat (whether by caucus revolt or primary challenge) from the right. This buys them goodwill there. The rainmakers and the donor class don't want to see the ideological balance of the court flipped, and they'll write checks to protect the majority and muddy the waters of the debate, if it comes to that. They're at least buying a chance at a palatable ideological successor to Scalia if a Republican is elected.
The downside of potential electoral losses? I don't think that the electorate is even going to care. They'll see it as another in an interminable line of partisan scraps, and tune out. Democrats are not positioned to run an anti-status quo campaign across the board (or at all). So the Republicans brazen out the election year fuss and the anger of an outgoing president. Sure, they'll further poison the well of partisan relations, but if you'll forgive the metaphor, what's another turd in a cesspool?
If they win the election, they buy another term of control of the court. If they lose the election, they're not much worse off than they would be if they considered a nominee in good faith. Sure, if I'm an incoming Democratic president in that scenario, I'd consider nominating a more liberal candidate, but that seems like the absolute worst that could happen for the Rs.
I don't like it, but I get it.
If Hillary wins the Presidency then she will nominate someone probably the liberal equivalent of Scalia. That's why Pubs are better off getting a Kennedy Moderate to nominate now.
Forever Fredi
The issue with raising taxes is you are raising the price of something, somewhere. Direct or indirect. If you raise income taxes, then the cost of labor goes up, more labor goes underground/overseas, etc. Raise it on the poor, then the cost of American goods increases and struggle even more to compete with foreign imports. Raise taxes on the wealthy, then we see less investment in the US. Raise taxes on corporations, companies migrate their IP to foreign jurisdictions like the UK, Singapore, Ireland, and the Caymans so they can "legally" allocate profits out of the US.
France, for example, was forced to repeal their 75% "super tax" on millionaires because thousands of wealthy Frenchmen were leaving the country. Money always goes to where it's best treated.
Now, you can say that median income will shift and nominal prices of goods will probably drop, which is true. But the economy is going to produce less of something. That's the trade off.
Yes but if you're wealthy in France you're restricted comparably the size of Texas to move to. Unless you move to Switzerland or Monaco.
If you're wealthy in the US, you have tons of options around the country to live. Live in the South during the winter, anywhere north in the summer. I don't see any reason someone like Romney, Trump, Buffet, Cuban would renounce their citizenship unless their tax rate went up to 80-90% and even then, where else would you want to live when you're so used to the United States culturally. I think it's a bigger culture shock for a long time wealthy American entrepreneur to move everything to another country, than someone from France having to assimilate here.
Speaking anecdotally, I know someone personally whose father sold his company big in France and moved to New York and now runs an investment startup in NYC. I asked him about the French Tax thing on super rich and he told me from his father's perspective it was moreso the chance to live in New York and the USA rather than paying higher taxes in France. They wanted to live in America after visiting many times on business and now they are.
I don't buy the idea that you lose investment, you only lose investment from the same players. It would encourage those trying to move up to take risks and invest instead of the same players at the top controlling everything. Also, I think it would also prevent more companies from merging or buying out other companies which further cuts more jobs. For every merger between two Fortune 500 companies, you're gonna lose thousands of jobs to replace while the surviving will take on 50% of a workload at roughly the same pay.
I also don't buy that the economy will produce less, simply because in the next 15-20 years robots and automation will have replaced a lot more jobs which will lead us into another crisis. I give credit to Obama for at least trying to lead us in that direction. Nobody will admit that automation is going to further cut jobs, but it's a reality we're going to see soon. I mean in our lifetime we'll see automated Uber/Taxis. Forget automated manufacturing because that's almost here.
And for the record I wouldn't be in favor of anything over 50% tax even for the wealthy. 45% I'm reluctant to go to. 50% is where I draw the line. So no I wouldn't want to go back to post-depression 80-90% tax brackets.
Forever Fredi
That's fair. It's definitely easier to leave France than the US. I have to believe there is a tax rate where people would consider it, but it likely wouldn't occur at the levels you are suggesting.Yes but if you're wealthy in France you're restricted comparably the size of Texas to move to. Unless you move to Switzerland or Monaco.
If you're wealthy in the US, you have tons of options around the country to live. Live in the South during the winter, anywhere north in the summer. I don't see any reason someone like Romney, Trump, Buffet, Cuban would renounce their citizenship unless their tax rate went up to 80-90% and even then, where else would you want to live when you're so used to the United States culturally. I think it's a bigger culture shock for a long time wealthy American entrepreneur to move everything to another country, than someone from France having to assimilate here.
It was enough of a problem in France that Hollande was forced to repeal the tax. The super tax was his baby and the unintended consequences smothered it quickly.Speaking anecdotally, I know someone personally whose father sold his company big in France and moved to New York and now runs an investment startup in NYC. I asked him about the French Tax thing on super rich and he told me from his father's perspective it was moreso the chance to live in New York and the USA rather than paying higher taxes in France. They wanted to live in America after visiting many times on business and now they are.
This is where you start to lose me. You are making a lot of broad assumptions.I don't buy the idea that you lose investment, you only lose investment from the same players. It would encourage those trying to move up to take risks and invest instead of the same players at the top controlling everything. Also, I think it would also prevent more companies from merging or buying out other companies which further cuts more jobs. For every merger between two Fortune 500 companies, you're gonna lose thousands of jobs to replace while the surviving will take on 50% of a workload at roughly the same pay.
1. What do you mean it would encourage people to move up? I don't understand how levying an additional tax on the wealthy would provide extra incentive to become wealthy than that what already exists.
2. Mergers and acquisitions are good for business because they (1) encourage startups which create more jobs and spur innovation and (2)create economies of scale that lower costs for consumers (at least if the Justice Department is doing their job correctly in approving healthy mergers and acquisitions)
This isn't about simple job growth. This is about production of goods. We measure our wealth not in the number of hours we work at our job, but in the number of things that we can buy. If you raise taxes, it creates dead weight loss somewhere in the economy. Dead weight loss means less consumption which means a lower standard of living.I also don't buy that the economy will produce less, simply because in the next 15-20 years robots and automation will have replaced a lot more jobs which will lead us into another crisis. I give credit to Obama for at least trying to lead us in that direction. Nobody will admit that automation is going to further cut jobs, but it's a reality we're going to see soon. I mean in our lifetime we'll see automated Uber/Taxis. Forget automated manufacturing because that's almost here.
Now, taxes do serve a purpose in redistributing consumption. I'm not a crazy libertarian who thinks that the government is incapable of everything. The free market isn't going to do a good job taking care of the mentally ill, single mothers, children, etc., but I disagree with those that believe the government is the best resource forproviding for the middle class, which it seems like what most new initiatives are catered towards.
The bigger problem than tax rate is the effective tax rates that corporations ultimately pay (because, lets be real, when we say wealthy, we really mean Google, Apple, Wal Mart). I'm all in favor in creating additional barriers that keep companies from shifting profits to shell corporations in foreign countries. Cayman and Singapore shouldn't be collecting tax dollars that the US is rightfully entitled to just because Google has a really creative tax structure.And for the record I wouldn't be in favor of anything over 50% tax even for the wealthy. 45% I'm reluctant to go to. 50% is where I draw the line. So no I wouldn't want to go back to post-depression 80-90% tax brackets.
Last edited by chop2chip; 03-01-2016 at 01:53 PM.
acesfull86 (03-01-2016), sturg33 (03-01-2016)
who's attacking ?
It's funny with how dumb 57 has proven to be at math, he is attacking the education of others
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
