OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
The goal of scotus isn't to touch every potential legal matter imaginable. You get that, right?
Of course I realize that. You’ve been consistently wrong for months about nearly everything you’ve been saying about the SC. You’ve demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the SC and the appeals process is supposed to work. Despite your protestations and statements to the contrary, this SC is not full of right wing extremists. Your TDS undermines just about every post you make. It’s destroyed your ability to see things from both sides. I feel sorry for you. I know you’re the village idiot, but you’re our village idiot.
And the order granting cert was unsigned. So, how do you know who voted to grant it or what the vote was?
But this is clearly something within their exact purpose. Just because you think a lower court fully addressed something (and ruled in a manner you would favor), how is that any different than any other ruling from a circuit court of appeals? That is, if every case at that level simply had a well explained, lengthy opinion that fully addressed the underlying issue, why would the SCt ever grant cert on ANY matter? I mean, there's a lower court opinion fully addressing the issue, so they should leave it alone under your scenario. They would be left with only deciding cases where there was a mechanism for direct appeals to them or cases where the circuit court of appeals got lazy and wrote a short opinion.
In fact, a very easy argument can be made that this is the type of issue that is so important and so vital to be addressed and settled that the SCt MUST address it to resolve any doubt that Trump got his fair day in court with the rules applying as they should. If a president is to be convicted of a crime he/she committed while in office, it makes sense that everyone knows the ground rules and that it is settled because the ultimate authority gave us those rules.
It's as if they don't realize people can fly into airports. Massachusetts is having a big issue with migrants sleeping at Logan airport, and is currently throwing a TON of money at the issue (band-aids like providing housing, food, healthcare, etc. for migrants, not money going towards actually addressing the problem). The rich white liberals in this state that love to shout "No human is illegal! Provide them housing!" are starting to get upset that the housing is turning out to be down the street from them.
And for all those who claimed Jon Stewart had suddenly turned over a new leaf on things, he's up to his old antics. He even goes after Dr. Phil here about two minutes in with an attack that can only be described as claiming he is a homophobe. The crowd thought the entire bit was hilarious.
NIMBY has always been the real issue for the rich and powerful.
to roughly paraphrase and condense @pooponduke.....and no one says it is, but YOU are the one suggesting that the case they have chosen here is somehow the least important 'imaginable', even given the effect it could have on who our next president is. Hmmm
I'm just basing my feelings on the analysis i've read from scholars and experts that are both conservative, lib, indy, and those who try to be impartial.
I didn't bother to watch this, because I am NOT one of those blinded to Stewarts extreme bias. What's incredible to me is that some here don't seem to be able to recall that for quite some time, virtually every word he mouthed was in derision of the right.
And talk about incredible, it flabbergasted me that his faithful audience couldn't see that he tweaked and twisted the facts of a matter just so he could spin a gag. Many took his commentary as actual news, and I'm convinced that a good many leftist knotheads copped their extreme attitudes toward the right based on his disingenuous pandering to them with ill-founded material..
He's a gifted talking head. It's too bad he couldn't use his talent to address actual problems instead of facilitating the division.
and you've read none that agree with SCOTUS hearing the case? Do you think it somehow escapes our notice that you only present that which (supposedly) speaks for you?
To paraphrase, "I just based my feelings on my TDS."
Of course I read ones agreeing with decision to hear it. Jack Goldsmith had a column in one of the law blogs, and a professor from Colo St or similar had some interesting and similar takes. I disagree with their perspective or opinion and i'm not alone.
Nobody here is a legal scholar. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
I agree we have a problem with immigration, but I thought most of that was pretty funny. Some of it was legit LOL. If you step back and allow yourself to see how ridiculous these politicians are, I'm guessing you would think it's funny too. I would think you would have at least laughed at him talking about the democrats being hypocrites.
but but but you insist that the legal scholars you present are the correct ones....doesn't that make you a self-proclaimed legal expert? Of course it does. Hope it doesn't hurt your feelings that by your own assertion, your legal expert status is bogus..
Actually, I think almost all this stuff is funny. Just because I might take issue with a particular bias or perspective from a policy standpoint, it doesn't take away the humor. And that, to me, is truly part of the revealing part about people. If one can't see the humor and laugh about it, even about one's self, they need to take a breath and chill.
I never claimed that... but, that was fvcking hilarious! If you can't allow yourself to enjoy the satire, I feel sorry for you.
Who are you to disagree with those legal scholars? I mean, you said it yourself:
Hilarious? C'mon. Get real. It was mildly humorous. I never laughed audibly but I did smirk once or twice. Largely because I just think Trump is funny. The nicknames, the way he speaks, his cadence, the constant barrage of attacks on people I think are awful; all of that was funny. Stewart did a decent job, or at least the Daily Show crew did a decent job of splicing the video clips together. But you really thought Stewart was "hilarious"?
I found it entertaining. I don’t understand your angst over him going after dr phil. The guy is a walking meme.
I will say that what Stewart has done for the 9/11 first responders who were totally fukked over by bureaucrats is hero shyt. IMO that’s a great example of using your celebrity to do good.
Dr. Phil is actually a really good and smart dude with a lot of life experience. I get that he's easy to make fun of. But he's a pretty accomplished fellow and he too has been doing great work through his foundation that focuses on families dealing with domestic violence since 2003.
The issue I had with the small Dr. Phil bit is that it simply wasn't funny. The accent Stewart uses wasn't remotely close and it appeared he was attempting to make Phil look like some dumb, southern redneck moron, which again, is far from reality.
I thought the monologue was mildly funny. But the Phil bit tanked for me.
Dr. Phil is a lot like DJT... they're screaming to be mocked. They are both probably so thin-skinned that it drives them crazy when they are mocked. Oprah should have her ass kicked for ever giving that SFB hack a platform.
To paraphrase, "Dr. Phil is an old white guy."
And with those admissions, had it come from someone not a darling of the left, there would have at a minimum a boatload of apologies from everyone involved and likely he'd be "cancelled". Different rules . . . . .
oh, OK...I thought she should have her ass kicked for throwing her enormous support (at that time) behind giving that other, racist, lying hack a much larger platform.
And Jon Stewart? Good for him for standing up for the first responders, although in reality it wasn't Congress's duty or place to help them; rather they had the misplaced notion thrown at them under the impetus of emotional reaction. And don't paint me a fan of Congress. I hate most of them every bit as much as the next guy. But what he should have been doing was assailing US for not responding to their needs in a way he deemed proper. But that wouldn't have made him popular. Going after Congress, on the other hand, always works in that respect.
And then there was the vets affair, where he vilified republicans for holding up a bill that they themselves had helped pass in equal or even greater proportion than their dem counterparts. He vilified them instead of assailing the dems for, as usual, leveraging a situation in order to sneak in their typical, unrelated fat to the package. I would much rather have seen him, alongside the republicans. exposing that routinely practiced bullshit.
Let me clarify this. He vilified the republicans when it was the sleazy dems who used needy vets to get unrelated agenda furthered. He gave republicans an undeserved black eye while giving the real slimeballs a pass.
But no, the grandstanding was more important to him. And if you don't think he was grandstanding, I pity your naive ass.
If this is in ref to Obama, I’m in agreement. That man set race relations in our country back 40 years. I’ll never forgive him for that.
Race relations were not what they are today until the Michael Brown situation. Of course there was always racism. There will always be racism. But Obama chose to focus national conversations on it when it wasn't needed. There is no good that can come from that. He knew that too. He didn't want race relations to get better. If he had, he would have never stoked the fires. He wanted them to get worse. He wanted to divide. He basically created (or at least endorsed) the Ferguson riots built on the lie of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot." That was the flashpoint of the devolution of race relations in this country. He fanned the flames with his Trayvon Martin comments. There are studies on this. There are studies showing how often race was mentioned in media before 2013 and after. It's startling.
