Skip to main content
Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 22573 times)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #125
If immigrants had no nominal rights, then USA would be under serious charge due to lack of legal framework for human rights at home. But if immigrants have nominal rights, then bussing them *is* human trafficking and against the law. Which way is it?
First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
Third, if you're in the country legally (i.e., have been processed by Border Patrol and have a scheduled court hearing) and I offer you a bus or plane ticket to -say- New York, that is not "trafficking". That is largesse.
And since you only want to consider Florida's governor (and not Abbott of Texas... :) ), I'd ask how -do you think- the "migrants" got to Florida in the first place? :)

Of course, your quoted comment poses a false dilemma — and you know it. Is all your legal analysis predicated on self-righteous indignation? So it seems to me... If only you were Czar, eh? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #126
The following are notes for myself. You are completely unqualified for this discussion, Oakdale.

First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
This is exactly my point, knowing that "conservatives" and "literalists" in USA do not acknowledge the concept of human rights, even though Declaration of Independence of USA takes it "to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's an enlightenment concept, not a World Court concept.

A country that is in denial of this concept is not an enlightened country. It is in plain evidence now that what Declaration of Independence proclaims does not obtain in the legal and moral sense of the inhabitants of the country at all. The bussing of immigrants is a clear example that the moral turpitude is not limited to Oakdale rednecks in the country, but it is a general state of mind among the country's officials and jurists. As follows:

The flights last month, carrying 48 migrants, attracted international attention and drew condemnation from Democrats as well as several legal challenges. Mr. DeSantis immediately claimed credit for what appeared to be a political maneuver — dumping dozens of asylum seekers on the doorstep of Northeastern Democrats who have resisted calls to clamp down on immigration.
The fact that DeSantis is using the budget of his own state to bus immigrants of another state (since his own state does not have such readily abusable immigrants) to a third state should be an inter-state/federal legal challenge in multiple ways, but this is not the most pertinent point. The most pertinent point is that "legal challenges" in this article refer to lawyers trying to figure out whether there is something legally challengeable in this activity.[1]

If lawyers are puzzled about human trafficking on the level of governors of states, then clearly USA is a sad third-world dump when it comes to the legal framework concerning human trafficking.

Third, if you're in the country legally (i.e., have been processed by Border Patrol and have a scheduled court hearing) and I offer you a bus or plane ticket to -say- New York, that is not "trafficking". That is largesse.
To reduce the concept of human trafficking as far as possible, its minimum key feature is the consent of the trafficked. Now, many people *want*, even desperately so, to get to a country that has been presented to them as a better country. They are lured by alleged opportunities. So people's want is not the kind of consent relevant to the concept. Trafficking comes in with a trafficker/smuggler who does the allegations of the work/living opportunities and then the opportunities don't obtain at the destination.

Say a pimp promising a different job to someone at a destination while the actual job ends up being prostitution — this is sex trafficking even when the pimp pays all the costs to the destination and provides accommodation at the destination.  This should be easy peasy to understand for a ten-year-old, if not a five-year-old. For an Oakdale pimping is a largesse because he cannot afford it, but legally pimping is sex trafficking. In case of the bussing of immigrants, the perpetrators provide nothing at the destination.

DeSantis and Abbott qualify as human traffickers. Human trafficking is a serious crime when regular people do it, but lawyers in USA are puzzled about it when governors do it, so once again so much for being a law-and-order country where people allegedly have rights. Immigrants deserve more adequate information about their destination country: USA is a below-average third world dump where non-citizens have zero constitutional rights and there is no recourse against state officials. African smugglers advertise the EU as the place where everyone who crosses the border receives an Adidas jumpsuit, iPhone and a fully equipped apartment. Sorry, dear immigrants, the traffickers are lying to you.
There's a class action lawsuit that has amounted to nothing much thus far.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #127
The following are notes for myself. You are completely unqualified for this discussion, Oakdale.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL
First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
This is exactly my point, knowing that "conservatives" and "literalists" in USA do not acknowledge the concept of human rights, even though Declaration of Independence of USA takes it "to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's an enlightenment concept, not a World Court concept.

A country that is in denial of this concept is not an enlightened country. It is in plain evidence now that what Declaration of Independence proclaims does not obtain in the legal and moral sense of the inhabitants of the country at all.
Human rights? Another symptom of your self-righteousness: You believe everyone in the world has the right to residence and citizenship anywhere they choose... Why? It's certainly not enlightenment. It's Soros-style agitprop.
How do you determine that residence and citizenship are inalienable? Hand-waving?
No. You just want to keep the argument going, and this red herring is just a means to that end. It doesn't matter that it's nonsensical!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #128
Human rights? Another symptom of your self-righteousness: You believe everyone in the world has the right to residence and citizenship anywhere they choose... Why? It's certainly not enlightenment. It's Soros-style agitprop.
How do you determine that residence and citizenship are inalienable? Hand-waving?
No. You just want to keep the argument going, and this red herring is just a means to that end. It doesn't matter that it's nonsensical!
Oh dear, you have not learned your fallacies properly. Your reading comprehension is F as usual.

My point was that DeSantis and Abbott are engaged in human trafficking. Human trafficking is a crime. Crimes should be prosecuted in a law-and-order country. Also, human rights reads straight in the Declaration of Independence of USA.

Your attempt to sidetrack from this by attributing the concept of human rights to Soros instead is a red herring. You are using logical fallacies to compensate for your lack of facts, but this is not going to work. Just keep on cheering crimes and criminals - when they are of your own party, you hyperpartisan hypocrite.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #129
This one, restoring Trump to presidential candidacy in Colorado, may yet take the cake for being the worst SCOTUS decision ever. It's all the more tragic because it was formally unanimous. [1] And some comments were unwarranted, such as the one saying that the court is turning "the national temperature down" on a politically charged issue. How do you turn the temperature down by enabling an insurrectionist?

The ruling is flatly wrong. The constitution, Amendment 14 Section 3, says that insurrectionists do not belong to state office. This is how straightforward it is. How was it possible to mess this up? The court focused on Section 5 which says, in full, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." From this the court decided that the states cannot apply the sections of the amendment on their own. However, in reality the states have much liberty and variety in applying for example Section 1, the citizenship and civil rights section.

Moreover, we are talking about a candidate of the presidential elections. Had SCOTUS members read the constitution about presidential elections, instead of relying on stupid political propaganda, they'd know that such a thing as a candidate of presidential elections is not prescribed to the states by the constitution. Entire USA is widely brainwashed into thinking that the voting population choose the president. This is false. According to the constitution, the states appoint electors and the only requirement for the presidential candidates, insofar as the electors are concerned, is that at least one of them is not from the same state as the electors are. So, essentially, Colorado was in full liberty to remove Trump from candidacy, have a list of candidates as they themselves please, and instruct their electors as they please. If constitution matters, that is. To SCOTUS something else matters.

Now, what did Colorado do when this ruling was handed down to them by SCOTUS? Did they whine like liberals that their rights and liberties are being trampled on? That it is a witch hunt and persecution? No. They put Trump back on the ballot and bowed themselves to the SCOTUS idiocy in the name of formally upholding the rule of law. This is squarely contrasting to Trump's behaviour, who in every indictment against him whines like a liberal that his rights and liberties are being trampled on, that it is a witch hunt and persecution, while himself being an insurrectionist who cares nothing about the rule of law.

Also, SCOTUS deployed some technicalities in taking Trump's absolute immunity argument for consideration in order to delay the documents investigation case. Thus SCOTUS aims to ensure that Trump not only remains on the ballot as an insurrectionist, but also as the thief and distributor of state secrets, an asset of foreign powers.

SCOTUS evidently has decided that USA is ripe for doom and Trump is up for the job. However, according to reasonable projections, Biden will win, if he survives until inauguration. But I'd say that even when Trump loses, it is a very bad mark on USA that the country's highest justices stepped in to prevent justice from happening.
In reality, the assenting comments sounded occasionally close to dissent. There is evidence of actual dissent according to those who have examined the metadata of the document.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #130
This one, restoring Trump to presidential candidacy in Colorado, may yet take the cake for being the worst SCOTUS decision ever.
By "worst" you -of course- mean contrary to your presumption of guilt of Trump. You have lots of company holding that opinion. (Although not very good company!)

I liked your section:
Also, SCOTUS deployed some technicalities in taking Trump's absolute immunity argument for consideration in order to delay the documents investigation case. Thus SCOTUS aims to ensure that Trump not only remains on the ballot as an insurrectionist, but also as the thief and distributor of state secrets, an asset of foreign powers.
Specially the "some technicalities".... :) You seem always able to ignore "technicalities" — such as due process, constitutional rights and rules of evidence — for your preferred outcome of trials: You're still a Soviet at heart, ersi!

And like many Europeans you simply wish the U.S. ill: If it's bad for the U.S,, you're for it!

Have you actually followed the case you mention? (Why would you, of course: "The man is guilty! Find the crime..."! Dictat.)
But the U.S. has not been defeated, yet! :)

———————————
BTW: Have you an opinion on the NYC trial? I'll bet you have a lot in common with Cohen... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #131
When it comes to US. Supreme Court decisions, the crucial distinction that European posters don't understand is that the court is not a common law court... Which obviates most of the comments.

For those few who don't know the terminology, let me explain in simple terms: SCOTUS does not make law.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #132
For those few who don't know the terminology, let me explain in simple terms: SCOTUS does not make law.
You are wrong in this as in everything else. SCOTUS overturns law, makes law, and meddles in administrative matters beyond law.

SCOTUS interferes with the due process of other courts even when the case is blindingly obvious and self-evident. See the Mar-a-Lago documents case delayed by SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity. The question SCOTUS is considering here is not whether the president has immunity in this particular case, but whether the president is an unrestrained autocratic dictator, as Trump's lawyers would have it, or not. There is no question there to ponder. The law is clear. It's just that SCOTUS is affected by partisan hackery as everything in USA right now.

Another thing, SCOTUS likes to overreach and go beyond law into decisions of administrative agencies that are not matters of law, such as in the case of gun bump stocks. Here the judges — nevermind their partisanship — made fools of themselves from the standpoint of technical expertise and common sense.

Add to this the (lack of) ethics of the judges. They supposedly regulate themselves. The result is that nobody regulates them, particularly not themselves.

At this point it is safe to say that nobody knows what SCOTUS is there for. They have lost their own sense of purpose and they are no longer capable of getting back on track on their own.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #133
For the longest time, I gave you credit for an intelligence I now have to admit you don't possess, ersi: I'd mistakenly allowed that you might just be uninformed (...and unwilling to learn) about admittedly foreign circumstances and concepts. But now I realize you have a vacant mind...when you post about anything involving the U.S., specially its form of governance — of which its legal system is a crucial part — you are merely practicing your English.
I admit that's gotten better. But your form of practice is nothing but playing the :troll: !
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #134
...when you post about anything involving the U.S., specially its form of governance — of which its legal system is a crucial part — you are merely practicing your English.
I admit that's gotten better. But your form of practice is nothing but playing the :troll: !
Again as I thought: Projection! (To be clear: Did you point out a single thing where I was wrong so I could correct myself? No. Instead, I pointed out every step of the way exactly where you are wrong, and you chose not to acknowledge a single fact. And I understand: Nobody ever taught you the difference between fact and opinion. And now it is too late for you to learn.)

You occasionally utter some fairly flourishing language. The problem with it always was that as one looks closer, there is no meaning behind the words. Everything you say you borrow from your favourite pundits just for the soundbite effect, without any regard to what it means. Much of what you say is semantically broken, amounting to half-sentences at best, betraying utter lack of independent thought and thorough brainwashedness. You are close to coherence only when in a 100% projection mode.

But don't despair. You are not the worst redneck specimen I have encountered online. By now I have seen much worse ones, those who have not read any book where they could borrow some well-formed phrases and competent-sounding terms to delude the audience temporarily.

You are solidly in the worst company though. For the longest time I wondered if Americans don't care or don't know about their own socio-political depravity and squarely self-defeating political leanings. I have found that it's neither about knowing or caring. A significant portion of Americans are intently and decidedly depraved and proud of it, thinking it to be virtue,[1] and there is no way to determine whether there is any sincerity in their thoughts and ideas. The only sincerity they have is their sincere belief that they have a full right to their bubble, and every other idea flows from that: They have absolute rights and total constitution and form of governance and legal system etc. and with equal absolute certainty nobody else has any of it, or if anybody else has something that looks like it, it must be inferior. And all along, facts don't matter. What matters is "persuading" others, never yielding to a single fact on one's own side.

For example, over the years your theory of economy has become clear, and it is in its entirety as follows. Presidents make economy. Good presidents make good economy, such as soaring stock market, low inflation, low unemployment etc. Bad presidents make bad economy, such as falling stock market, high inflation, high unemployment etc. Republicans are good presidents and good for the economy. Democrats are bad presidents and bad for the economy. If facts, such as right now — the best stock market, inflation and unemployment indicators in this century when Biden is president — disprove your silly theory, then instead of correcting the theory you disbelieve the facts and you call the fact-based approach uninformed or worse, a vacant mind. Because great minds can disregard facts without hesitation!

I have been to USA and seen it all (well, enough to inform myself) for myself. Have you ever been anywhere outside USA? Yup, that's what I'm saying.
Do you think you have the moral high ground? Do you think you have the intellectual high ground? Or at least parity? You voted for Trump (twice even, and will do so again) and you are defending him, as if there were anything defensible about him... For a normal person, this would be enough said. Those whose mind does not start pondering upon this are incorrigible.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #135
They have absolute rights and total constitution and form of governance and legal system etc. and with equal absolute certainty nobody else has any of it, or if anybody else has something that looks like it, it must be inferior.
A brief interlude is what you want? Ok.

Yes, (some) Americans do (still) believe that our rights derive from G-d: It plainly says so in our Declaration of Independence.[1]  And (some few still believe) that our Constitution is the supreme law of our land, which requires our states have republican governance. Our legal history derives from England's, but we've departed in ways you wouldn't -and couldn't be bothered to- understand.
After your "etc." you state what constitutes your inferiority complex... :)

Indeed, the NeoCon Republicans (but mostly Democrats!) pushed an ideology that said basically Everyone wants to be an American... (You'll note, most of them have still refused to recognize reality: Human nature is much more varied than they thought! (Go figure!? :) ) Not everyone wants to be free.

Me, I'm a conservative (...think Oakshott) and the old acorn: We are the friend of Liberty everywhere but the defenders of only our own! still makes the most sense to me.

(Consider: What was the purpose of NATO? To defend Europe from an expansive Soviet Union, no? Well, the Soviet Union dissolved in the '90s. So: Why is there still this thing called NATO?
Or is the question too obtuse to even consider? :) )

I'm sorry your country has been conquered so often... Specially, that it was conquered by the Soviet Union, and that you lived (and were educated) under such a regime. But it wasn't my fault, bro! :)
For example, over the years your theory of economy has become clear,
As you expound your straw-man, you expose your lack of honesty.

I've merely said that Biden (following Obama) has exacerbated the dangers of our national debt out-pacing our ability to recover from its consequences...

Remember how often R.J. Howie used to chide Americans for their Defense/Military spending? Well, the annual interest on our national debt now is more than our entire military budget! (Indeed, more than every other item in the budget than Social Security payments... Yup! Even more then Medicare!) Is the President solely responsible? No, of course not! But if he has enough support in Congress, and he keeps spending beyond receipts — what do you expect the economy to do?
It'll deal with inflation as it must, until a new administration re-sets our budget/tax priorities.
(Reagan did it. Clinton did it — with Gingrich's House. Trump did it — until Covid.)
I don't say Biden controls the economy... I say he doesn't care! He wants to be re-elected, and he'll spend us into a depression trying!
What does he care?

It's the ones who support him, who finance him, and who control him that I worry about...

I have been to USA and seen it all (well, enough to inform myself) for myself. Have you ever been anywhere outside USA? Yup, that's what I'm saying.
So funny!

You visited Miami (when?) and, I'd ask: How many Cuban expatriates did you meet? And how many -depending on the timing of your visit- Cuban criminals released by Castro to "emigrate" to the U.S.?
Did you visit another state? (We have 50 of them, you know...and a few territories, still.)

But I understand: You call me a redneck! I was raised in the Boston area, and my ancestors mostly fled the New England and New York colonies before the Revolution — mostly to Canada. (Many came back, eventually.) I did re-locate to the western U.S. over 40 years ago! (But I've visited -and lived- in quite a few states. And I've liked them all.) And I'd not really be offended, being called a redneck. :) (You obviously don't know the term's derivation...)

Have I visited other countries? Yeah: Canada. Have I known and talked to people from other countries? Yeah. Lots...
So: Your point is that, because I've not been an ignorant tourist, that I have no understanding of "others"! :)

I don't mind that others have different ideas of acceptable governance, and that they often don't understand mine. But I do take umbrage at those who presume to lecture me — when they can't even be bothered to know what they're talking about.
And I'll certainly not consider accepting their Bizzaro rantings as intelligent discourse, let alone perspicacious criticism.

————————————————————————————
Shall we resume discussion of SCOTUS decisions — with someone who knows (or at leasts admits he doesn't!) that court's function in the U.S. constitutional republic's government? :)
It's difficult for you to make distinctions that cripple your prejudices... But try to consider the source of "rights" not being the government!
Call it what you will, it puts all the petty bureaucrats in a peculiar position: Having to accept such rights as inviolable...
(The Declaration clearly states what is risked! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #136
A brief interlude is what you want? Ok.
Interlude. Another word whose sound you like but whose meaning you do not know.

Yes, (some) Americans do (still) believe that our rights derive from G-d: It plainly says so in our Declaration of Independence....
(The Declaration clearly states what is risked! :) )
Says the guy in whose opinion human rights derive from Soros and World Court. It's actually U.S. Declaration of Independence that talks about "inalienable rights", an enlightenment concept. So which way is it: Does Declaration of Independence matter or not? I get it: It matters only in ways moronically delineated by you. Anything outside of it is Democrat liberal Commie conspiracy.

Yes, I'm quoting yourself to your face and this entire post will be this way. I don't care about direct links though. You can search up your own historical posts for yourself.

And (some few still believe) that our Constitution is the supreme law of our land, which requires our states have republican governance.
"Republican governance" clearly meaning rule by Republican party. No Democrats allowed, as you keep emphasising in each and every post of yours.

After your "etc." you state what constitutes your inferiority complex... :)
Thus says your instinctual projection.

Indeed, the NeoCon Republicans (but mostly Democrats!) pushed an ideology that said basically Everyone wants to be an American... (You'll note, most of them have still refused to recognize reality: Human nature is much more varied than they thought! (Go figure!? :) ) Not everyone wants to be free.
You do realise what your last sentence here means, right? It means that in your view Americans are free, have rights, a legal system, republican form of government etc. - and this is unique to Americans only. Which is exceptionalist messianic bullshit propaganda, brainwashed into each American citizen from childhood. And throughout their lives, most of them (you being a prime example) never question the propaganda.

Me, I'm a conservative (...think Oakshott) and the old acorn: We are the friend of Liberty everywhere but the defenders of only our own! still makes the most sense to me.

(Consider: What was the purpose of NATO? To defend Europe from an expansive Soviet Union, no? Well, the Soviet Union dissolved in the '90s. So: Why is there still this thing called NATO?
Or is the question too obtuse to even consider? :) )

I'm sorry your country has been conquered so often... Specially, that it was conquered by the Soviet Union, and that you lived (and were educated) under such a regime. But it wasn't my fault, bro! :)
What do we have on display here? A mindless slogan in bold, coupled with ignorant commentary getting things profoundly wrong.

I get it that you like slogans. I also get it that it is too late to shake you up from the fact that sloganeering does not give any principles of governance. Sloganeering is not a reliable policy guideline. Yeah, I get it, you do not do facts, but facts matter regardless of your God-given right to mindless propaganda bubble.

NATO was created as a geostrategic foreign policy decision. You cannot fathom any of this, neither geostrategy, foreign policy or decisions. You only do blind factless propaganda.

Geostrategically, how did Soviet Union become expansive? Here are two maps for you. MRP secret protocols dividing Europe between Hitler and Stalin:


Yalta Conference map, indicating allowance for Stalin by Churchill and Roosevelt:


For those with eyes to see (which does not include you), the maps indicate that Churchill and Roosevelt gave away to Stalin much more than Hitler had given. Like it or not, via Roosevelt it was your fault that Estonia was conquered last time. You are consistently both blind and wrong about everything.

NATO was created as a post-fix to correct the atrocious geostrategic mistake committed at Yalta Conference. The mistake did not end with the collapse of USSR. Russia remained a threat. To properly correct the mistake, NATO needs to defend successfully against Russia next time all the countries that were betrayed by UK and USA (and the rest of the West) last time. Of course I get it that history is not just and there will be a continued endless cycle of criminal aggression, fatal mistakes, retribution and correction attempts.

For example, over the years your theory of economy has become clear,
As you expound your straw-man, you expose your lack of honesty.

I've merely said that Biden (following Obama) has exacerbated the dangers of our national debt out-pacing our ability to recover from its consequences...
So you are confirming that you think presidents make economy! So let's go with what you are confirming. (You can whine about strawmanning as much as you want. I will keep representing your views as they are.)

I know you don't do facts, but here are the facts concerning U.S. national debt (measured as % of GDP) for onlookers who care about facts:


Reagan, your favourite president, followed by Bush, ballooned the national debt when there was no crisis. The emphasis is important. When there is crisis, such as the Great Depression or WWII, expansion of national debt is inevitable. Obama did not balloon the national debt willy-nilly. He did it because of the Great Recession which started under W!!! Since in your opinion presidents make economy, at least insofar as it comes to national debt, then blame W. for Great Recession, not Obama. But no, you cannot have it the factual way. You absolutely must have it the partisan way: W. good (because Republican). Obama evil (because Democrat). And Reagan supergood (because he is Republican, his economy was perfect and flourishing, and ballooning of national debt for no reason under his watch never happened — facts don't matter!!!). FDR bad (because Democrat). Herber Hoover good (because Republican), even though according to your theory he should be guilty of the Great Depression. So why are you not consistent? I know why: You are a partisan hypocrite through and through. Or, perhaps a more generous interpretation is that you simply do not know what the word "economy" means just as you do not know the meaning of the words policy, principle, ideology, prejudice, interlude and so on and so forth.

In contrast, I believe that economy is more or less like weather or climate, and presidents work with what they have got with varying levels of success. Obama had to address the Great Recession that had erupted under W... Obama had to do it; there was no other option. Trump, completely regardless of his beliefs and policy principles (which is fine because he does not have them in the first place; he only has incoherent narcissistic rambling), had to address the pandemic, and Biden had to continue addressing the pandemic. The pandemic was not a partisan thing. Both the Republican and Democrat presidents had to address it. There was no other option regardless of their party affiliation.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #137
Interlude. Another word whose sound you like but whose meaning you do not know.
Gee! I thought I was being "polite" when obliquely referring to your constant "swerving" (as R.J. would have called it), your use of straw-man and ad hominem arguments, and your prolific ignorance...All because you can't understand simple topics?! (Well, simple to rednecks, anyway! :) )

But apparently you only recognize one topic, when I post in a thread: Your TDS and projections onto me of (most of? :) ) your own worst qualities!

———————————————————————
So. Let me see what else you had to say about this thread's topics, shall we?
———————————————————————

You do realise what your last sentence here means, right? It means that in your view Americans are free, have rights, a legal system, republican form of government etc. - and this is unique to Americans only.
See?! This is just another example for why I years ago suggested you up-date your understand to a more modern logic... That last part was neither implied nor stated: You pulled it out of your syllogistic ass! :)

(I wasn't going to ask, but now I will: Where the hell did you get "Says the guy in whose opinion human rights derive from Soros and World Court" from? I've always considered Soros an evil man, and the World Court just another U.N. grift... So, what hte heck did you mean?)

Nice maps! :)
For those with eyes to see (which does not include you), the maps indicate that Churchill and Roosevelt gave away to Stalin much more than Hitler had given. Like it or not, via Roosevelt it was your fault that Estonia was conquered last time. You are consistently both blind and wrong about everything.
Wow! I'm not quite that old, and I was never a fan of Roosevelt anyway. But I can understand your thinking! (You're an idiot!)
Because most of the Allies from WWII didn't go to war with Stalin (as General Patton wanted to do...[1]) Americans are responsible for Estonia's subjugation?[2] Perhaps Estonia should have looked out for itself? Or are Estonians just one of the proto-typical "victems" of this world?[3]
NATO needs to defend successfully against Russia next time all the countries that were betrayed by UK and USA (and the rest of the West) last time.
The "slogan" you derided was from the writing of Thomas Jefferson, the guy who drafted the American Declaration of Independence...
(It wouldn't do you any harm to read some of his stuff! But some of it was pretty loopy!)

Jeez!  You said "So you are confirming that you think presidents make economy!" Are you that simple-minded? Of course Congress (and its acquiescence or connivance with the President's policies — or recalcitrance or outright resistance) matters!
(This seems to be your favorite kind of straw-man. I'm surprised you use it so often: Elementary School children know better...)

Reagan, your favourite president, followed by Bush, ballooned the national debt when there was no crisis.
Responding to the U.S.S.R's aggression around the world and America's debilitated military -not to mention, recovering from Carter's malaise- accounted for Reagan's bump.
Newt Gingrich and his Republican House majority accounted for Clinton's slump! :)

Obama did not balloon the national debt willy-nilly. He did it because of the Great Recession which started under W!!! Since in your opinion presidents make economy, at least insofar as it comes to national debt, then blame W. for Great Recession, not Obama.
Whose policy was it, for Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to flood the housing market with sub-par  loans?

Your question is sort-a ingeresting:
So why are you not consistent?
Because, dear ersi, I'm not living in your head — I have to piece together your various delusional thoughts to understand what you really mean. (It's not a language problem. Your English is quite good! It's a psychological problem: You're suffering... But I'm not a therapist.
I'll listen and respond when I can. If such doesn't help, tell me to sod off! 'K?



I believe that economy is more or less like weather or climate

So you've intimated! (But I assume you don't know the difference between those two... So how can I begin to cure you of your prejudice? :) ) Unless your modifying phrase "more or less" merely means "complicated or complex"...

Whoa! The Corona Virus Pandemic is a whole 'nother kettle of fish!

But — does it relate to this thread's topic? (Well, the case hasn't been decided yet...) We'll see; that is, if Trump is re-elected we will. It's doubtful we will, if he isn't...




Also recall that MacArthur want to go after Communist China during the Korean kerfluffle
That's the source of your animosity for the U.S.? :) I'm beginning to think the protozoa from which you evolved was diddling itself way, way too much...
I think the Jews have a prior claim! But, since I've been a Zionist since 1967, I'd say they've "over-come".
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #138
See?! This is just another example for why I years ago suggested you up-date your understand to a more modern logic... That last part was neither implied nor stated: You pulled it out of your syllogistic ass! :)
First, you never know what you are saying anyway, so that's not the point. The point is what your country is and does. Your country is a colonial empire. In this light, "Not everyone wants to be free" is what it is. You do not have to understand what is going on with this. Let it be over your head as so many other far simpler things are.

(I wasn't going to ask, but now I will: Where the hell did you get "Says the guy in whose opinion human rights derive from Soros and World Court" from? I've always considered Soros an evil man, and the World Court just another U.N. grift... So, what hte heck did you mean?)
In this instance, I was directly quoting you back to yourself. Look it up on this forum. Or don't. As you please.

Because most of the Allies from WWII didn't go to war with Stalin (as General Patton wanted to do...) Americans are responsible for Estonia's subjugation? Perhaps Estonia should have looked out for itself? Or are Estonians just one of the proto-typical "victems" of this world?
No, you are the prototypical victim. Whenever your direct faults are pointed out to you, you play the victim.

USA and UK gave all countries between Germany and USSR away to Stalin in Yalta Conference. It's the kind of game colonial empires play without any sense of guilt. You can pretend all you like that it did not happen. [edit]It disproves your contention that NATO was created to defend against expansive USSR. In reality, USSR's sphere of influence was directly granted to be overly large by Western allies, then it was understood to be a mistake when USSR created Warsaw Pact, and that's why NATO was created.[/edit]

The "slogan" you derided was from the writing of Thomas Jefferson, the guy who drafted the American Declaration of Independence...
(It wouldn't do you any harm to read some of his stuff! But some of it was pretty loopy!)
Another equally bad source attributes it to John Quincy Adams instead. To whomever you attribute it, it does not make it any less of a slogan. And it does not make it any better as a foreign policy guideline, particularly when considering everything else that the framework of Oakdalean redneckery has on offer.

Reagan, your favourite president, followed by Bush, ballooned the national debt when there was no crisis.
Responding to the U.S.S.R's aggression around the world and America's debilitated military -not to mention, recovering from Carter's malaise- accounted for Reagan's bump.
Newt Gingrich and his Republican House majority accounted for Clinton's slump! :)
Remember that you were measuring presidents by their national debt. It's your own proposition. So either do it or not. Clearly, when facts get in the way, you find excuses — again exactly along party lines, as expected. The only thing consistent about you is partisan hypocrisy.

Obama did not balloon the national debt willy-nilly. He did it because of the Great Recession which started under W!!! Since in your opinion presidents make economy, at least insofar as it comes to national debt, then blame W. for Great Recession, not Obama.
Whose policy was it, for Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to flood the housing market with sub-par  loans?
Yup, everything whatever goes to:
- Insist that presidents make economy
- Economic events follow strictly partisan lines, good being the Republican side
- Facts don't matter!!! (Facts such as that presidents not so much make economy but rather deal with issues at hand, that the largest known crises occurred under Republican presidents and that the numerically best economy this century according to your own misguided metrics is under a Democrat president)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #139
Update on Chevon Deference coming... it's a 6-3 opinion, so there's at least one dissent opinion to read.
You, ersi, can of course give your opinion now — no need for you to know more! :)

Yike! Another ruling: The Enron-obstruction charge for J6 defendants is deprecated.

(I hadn't expected the release of such consequential opinions today — specially since the calendar was extended to July 1st...)
Interesting stuff, to me. More grist for ersi's malevolent mill... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

 

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #141
Sorry, Frenzie, I hadn't known anyone else was still interested... (Specially in the Chevron cases! :) )[1]
I've long seen Chevron Deference to be detrimental to stable administration, and too lax with Congress (and the courts). The conflation of administration and policy, of law and policy, has permitted NGOs to control both — via lawfare.

The case involving obstruction charges of J6 tourists/protesters/rioters is Fischer v. United States. (Guess I don't have to spell out my view, but -for ersi and his ilk, I'll say again that I find the "insurrection" narrative to be ludicrous.)[2]

The somewhat interesting decision concerning Presidential Immunity is forthcoming... It matters more to future presidencies than to Biden or Trump...
If you'd like an erudite but more leftist view, consider reading Roger Pielke, Jr.'s substack, The Honest Broker.)
Please note, that I consider the J6 Committee to have been illegitimate, by the rules of the House of Representatives... That would make contempt-of-congress charges for refusing to appear because of a subpoena moot. And since the Attorney General himself has violated a subpoena from a legitimate House Committee, I call "Foul!"
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #142
The Presidential Immunity case has been released.

The President, Joe Biden, remains "at large"! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #143
The rise and fall of the United States of America.

While this ruling is tailor-made for Trump, it will stick around for a long time. Even with a new supreme court, it will stay until the next president-criminal is charged.

The US highlights a problem with being an early adopter, in this case of democracy: the lack of precedents to learn from. Even so, they tried to constrain the president with checks and balances, even the title "president" is as un-king-like as they come. Still, where the executive power isn't expressly constrained, it is effectively limitless. Now also to do certain forms of crime.

We have amassed enough data now, parliamentary system > presidential system, always (hybrids, like in France, are much like hybrid cars, transitional).

The advantage of a presidential system is that you get a face, either to identify with or loathe. Parliamentarians are faceless. Most Europeans could name Ursula von der Leyen, I'd think. Most would also be hard-pressed to name one or more MEPs, even from their own country or party allegiance. That could be an argument for presidents-as-king, symbolic figureheads, that many countries are using.

Of course, a prime minister also usually comes with a face attached, so this advantage is rather slight.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #144
While this ruling is tailor-made for Trump, it will stick around for a long time.
I understand why you'd think it's "tailor-made" for Trump... :) But -seriously- nothing in the decision changes the rules that were in place pre-Trump. The Parade of Horribles some commentators (and Justices!) brought up are ludicrous.
But — "Orange Man Bad!".
Such "logic" doesn't deserve refutation: It deserves scorn!
The rise and fall of the United States of America.
I think you mean the rise and fall of the Democratic Party — or, at least, the redemption of its republican sensibilities! (Not to mention democracy.)

But tell me, jax: Should Barack Obama be charged with Capitol Murder for killing the father and then his son?
Only the son?
Who should bring the charge, and where?

(Which other countries would subject their political leaders to such legal jeopardy?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #145
I understand why you'd think it's "tailor-made" for Trump... :) But -seriously- nothing in the decision changes the rules that were in place pre-Trump.
This decision revises the Nixon situation. From now on, Nixon was neither guilty or not guilty. He was immune.

Trump's attorneys literally argued in the hearings that the president sending special forces to execute his opponents can be an official act. And SCOTUS concurs that official acts are absolutely untouchable.

In response to the decision, Trump truthered out that he is now totally exonerated and that this should end Biden's witch hunt and hoaxes against him. But actually, if Trump's attorneys were to be believed, SCOTUS gave a green light to Biden to execute Trump, as long as he does so openly in broad daylight, properly signing an executive order to that effect.

What SCOTUS did was a character test. Trump cultists failed it yet again. More seriously, the test was completely unnecessary because the case has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But tell me, jax: Should Barack Obama be charged with Capitol Murder for killing the father and then his son?
Only the son?
Who should bring the charge, and where?
Thinking capital and Capitol are the same thing? That's Oakdalean redneckery. No wonder, because Trump displays the same idiocy, and Leader's incompetence is worthy of emulation.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #146
This decision revises the Nixon situation. From now on, Nixon was neither guilty or not guilty. He was immune.
Ahem! Nixon was pardoned...
You're misreading History[1] , ersi! Nixon was going to be impeached and convicted in the Senate. He resigned before that could happen, and Ford pardoned him — rather than allow a likely conviction for obstruction of justice...
Nixon's worst offense was his misplaced loyalty to the clowns who thought it was a good idea to burgle a Democrat campaign office! He should have fired them as soon as he found out, and let them face the consequences... (You'll recall -likely from your readings- that some went to prison.)

I find it unsurprising that the arguments of the weakest minds on our Supreme Court (and in our commentariat) appeal to you most. As I said, the Parade of Horribles isn't -in this instance- very persuasive.
If you can read the UCMJ, you'll find that "illegal" orders can (and should be) disobeyed.
the case has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh? What case is that? :)
The capital "H" is a sop to persnickity readers.... who've never committed a typo to the page. Nor made a pun! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #147
This decision revises the Nixon situation. From now on, Nixon was neither guilty or not guilty. He was immune.
Ahem! Nixon was pardoned...
Pardoned means guilty, and guilty means it's the Supreme Court's business to uphold the law and order and the legal and judicial system, not cover the ass of the guy who appointed them, like they do with Trump, interfering with and delaying his cases, hindering due process.

The capital "H" is a sop to persnickity readers.... who've never committed a typo to the page. Nor made a pun! :)
By Capitol pro capital you committed far worse than a typo. You demonstrated that to you sending soldiers to war against another nation and organising a mob to attack another branch of government (which is what Trump did) are comparable, and the first of these is somehow worse, less lawful. You cannot wiggle your way out of this.

For years now you are in a position where you have to prove that you are not a Q/MAGA cultist, a hyperpartisan hypocrite that does not care anything for law, order and due process, but you keep proving that you are the cultist and the hypocrite both directly and indirectly. Consistently so, and the "typo" was not the latest instance of it. Your most recent post is always that.

Nixon's worst offense was his misplaced loyalty to the clowns who thought it was a good idea to burgle a Democrat campaign office! He should have fired them as soon as he found out, and let them face the consequences... (You'll recall -likely from your readings- that some went to prison.)
Judging by your idiotic character assessment[1] you must be assuming that Trump is being smart by arguing for absolute and total immunity (and having his leftover attorneys and appointed judges make it happen) while his associates are already in prison or disbarred for what he trusted them to do.

Trump's offenses include pardon-peddling for money. What do you say, should Trump have pardoned himself? And perhaps he did it by thinking about it, exactly the way he declassified the documents. So maybe we can expect this argument come up next: Self-pardon by claiming to have thought about it, in addition to total and absolute immunity.

What I'm saying is that it was as pointless of SCOTUS to consider the presidential immunity as it would be to consider self-pardon or declassifying documents by thinking about it. The law is not ambiguous on those points, and a little bit of common sense helps too, such as that the president should be different from a wanton king.

I find it unsurprising that the arguments of the weakest minds...
You're projecting again, and no, I don't find it surprising at all. You don't even think a single step ahead, much less two or more.
By more accurate character assessment, the burglary was Nixon's idea and his offense was to order his underlings to burgle.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #148
But tell me, jax: Should Barack Obama be charged with Capitol Murder for killing the father and then his son?
Only the son?
Who should bring the charge, and where?

(Which other countries would subject their political leaders to such legal jeopardy?)

Of course not, three presidents in succession made sure they didn't break US law, of which we got "enemy combatant" and the rest. Bush may have broken international law, torture is a war crime, but you're America, you don't care. The ruling was whether the US president was above US law, which he now is.

Several countries give their leaders and/or members of parliament immunity while in position. Some have taken advantage of that, including Berlusconi, the Italian media tycoon who managed to stay out prison that way so long that when the law finally caught up with him, he was given leniency for old age and served one year of community service.

In the UK (and the US as I gather, and many other countries) you cannot be charged with libel for what you say in Parliament or Congress. However your position gives you no immunity even while in power. In theory a sitting prime minister could be charge with a crime (though he would be unlikely to be sitting by then).

The normal course is to wait until afterwards. That includes, apart from Berlusconi finally, leaders of countries like South Korea, France, and your favourite, Netanyahu.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #149
Trump hush money sentencing is delayed until September 18th because of the immunity ruling.

In their letter to [judge] Merchan, defense lawyers argued that prosecutors had presented evidence involving Trump's official acts as president, including social media posts he made and conversations he had while in the White House.

"This official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury," lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.
So now Trump's tweeting is an official act.

Of all Trump's crimes, paying hush money to a porn star he slept with while campaigning, i.e. while not being the president either during sleeping or paying, is the one the least related to being the president and thus the least related to immunity, yet Trump is making the case that it is related.

See how dangerously stupid this is? As I said, the case has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.