Unlike a lot of other political bloggers, the election season is a time when I tend to step back a little bit from the blog. The obnoxious (and often wildly inaccurate) TV ads that constantly run leave me feeling hopeless about the ability for anyone to go to the ballot box informed enough to make the right decisions about which initiatives and candidates to vote for – and about my power to make any difference in that. Being able to separate truth from fiction is a challenge for anyone who isn’t already devoting significant amounts of their time to following the issues and candidates themselves.
But there are a handful of races out there where I feel like I need to speak up more. One of them is the race for the House seat in the 45th Legislative District currently held by Roger Goodman. Goldy wrote about the challenger there the other day, and I don’t have anything to add to that. Unlike Goodman’s last opponent for this seat – Toby Nixon, who I have a lot of respect for – Kevin Haistings is a partisan hack with absolutely no qualifications for that seat.
It’s no secret that I’ve worked with Goodman a lot in the past. I’ve supported his campaigns because I think that he’s one of the most courageous and principled legislators in the state. He’s one of the few people in Olympia (from either party) who understands what makes government effective and efficient, and can truly call himself “fiscally responsible”. So when I read this from the endorsement of Haistings in the Seattle Times, I was floored:
For Position 1, Republican Kevin Haistings would bring a pragmatic, independent voice to the principal task in Olympia: wrestling a tight budget. The Carnation resident and Seattle Police Department sergeant is a political novice. Haistings’ budget approach — which includes looking at spending and asking not if a program is of value, but rather who should bear the cost — ought to be the standard in Olympia. Haistings proposes a public-private partnership to help pay for parks and other public needs.
Rep. Roger Goodman is the Democratic incumbent. An attorney, Goodman is best known for drug-law reform. But his tenure lacked independent leadership and efforts toward pragmatic budget solutions.
What amazes me the most about this is that Goodman is considered such an expert in “pragmatic budget solutions” that he travels to other states to talk to their legislatures about how to reduce their criminal justice costs. If that’s not enough, and you want to see an even clearer illustration of how odd the Times endorsement is, the following video was taken last week at a candidate’s forum. Goodman asked Haistings about the specifics of his budget approach, and Haistings admits that he can’t answer it because he doesn’t have specifics:
Our state budget isn’t going to be fixed by slogans. It needs real solutions from people who take these issues seriously. The Times may have fallen for Haistings’ empty rhetoric, but the voters in the 45th LD don’t have to make the same mistake.
Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I generally distrust (and often dislike) politicians from across the political spectrum, but with that cynicism comes a real appreciation for the politicians who truly defy special interests and win by standing against the corporate shills and obnoxious nanny crusaders. It pains me to see Russ Feingold potentially losing his seat in Wisconsin this year, and I wish that more principled conservative politicians who truly believe in small government had a larger voice against the Tea Party crazies. Roger Goodman is one of the few politicians out there who belongs in that category – and he belongs in Olympia too.
Tx lee
Here is more fuel, his endorsements. All of them appear to be Honorable!
If the fellow is other than a political hack, don;t you imagine he would have earned less “Honorables” nad at least some from spheres outside the Republican party?
The Honorable Bill Backlund | Former State Representative – 45th District
The Honorable Bruce Dammeier | Washington State Representative – 25th District
The Honorable Christopher T. Bayley | Former King County Prosecuting Attorney
The Honorable Dan McDonald | Former State Senator – 48th District
The Honorable Dave Reichert | Member of Congress – 8th Congressional District
The Honorable David Carson | Redmond City Councilmember
The Honorable Dino Rossi | Former State Senator – 5th Legislative District
The Honorable Hank Myers | Remond City Councilmember
The Honorable Glenn Anderson | Washington State Representative – 5th Legislative District
The Honorable Jay Rodne | Washington State Representative – 5th Legislative District
The Honorable Jeff Glickman | Woodinville City Councilmember
The Honorable John Betrozoff | Former State Representative – 45th District
The Honorable John Curley | Sammamish City Councilmember
The Honorable John James | Sammamish City Councilmember
The Honorable John Spellman | Former Governor of Washington
The Honorable Kathy Lambert | Metropolitan King County Councilmember
The Honorable Louise Miller | Former King County Councilmember and State Representative
The Honorable Reagan Dunn | Metropolitan King County Councilmember
The Honorable Rob McKenna | Washington State Attorney General
The Honorable Toby Nixon | Former State Representative – 45th District
Lee, don’t get too discouraged.
The ST with its foundering business model and lazy editorial board is not long for this world in any event, and to the extent that it gets most of what it wants will disappear even more quickly as the advertisers it relies on disappear in the sink hole dug by the invisible hand fairy of failed Galtian snake oil.
As to the Teabaggers, their ilk are always the first to suffer the whirlwind of the emotionally charged and intellectually bankrupt slogans they repeat.
GEE WHAT DO YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE NO COLA OR COST OF LIVING RAISE AGAIN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AGAIN THIS MAKES IT TWO YEARS NOW.THIS WILL BE ANNOUNCED ON FRIDAY.TIME FOR SHIT FOR BRAINS MURRY TO RETIRE HER SNEAKERS
damned with feint praise?
@3: So we can get Dino Rossi – foreclosure expert and bought by the corporations – to eliminate SS completely or privatize it to death?
Are you stoopid?
I just watched another NRSC attack ad against Murray. Pretty much 100% lies.
The stimulus didn’t save jobs = lie.
Bush’s bank bailout cost 800 billion when it cost in fact 50 billion and that may even be turned into profit. = lie
You know what Republicans. If you can’t EVER tell the truth, what are you all made of deep down inside? Lying is ok as long as it is for “your” pile of lying human feces candidate? the truth doesn’t matter because this is “Amerika” or something.
Anyone that trusts Dino Rossi to do anything except steal MORE from them is living in an alternate universe.
It seems like aliens swooped down and sucked the brains out of every single Republican and filled their heads with horse poop. All they seem to know is they are mad, and Rush the liar Limpdik told them that Democrats are to blame for the mess Bush and his criminal Republican friends caused. These Manchurian Candidate Type Republicans seem to follow along like they are controlled by corporations like nothing the world has seen since pre-WW2 Germany.
All Rossi can do is lie. Period. All he has is right wing slogans that are proven to not work when actually applied to a nation.
Even though Dems have problems, at least they don’t have to lie with every single breath.
Haistings just is not prepared! I once ran for city hall in another place years ago and I spent about three months just reading the budget and the code in the evening to get ready for the race. If Haistings wants the job then he needs to be prepared and he isn’t.
pu @ 3 – fu!
@3 Murray should retire? Why? For voting correctly? For serving her state?
Tell you what. Why don’t you slither back under you rock, and pretend trickle down actually worked, and giving billionaires tax cuts helps the rest of us.
@3
Last May, Bernie Sanders proposed a $250 payment to seniors because the COLA would not go into effect this year. Every Republican senator voted no, Patty Murray voted yes. And you want to kick her out of the Senate because the party of no is acting like petulant children? Ask Dino if he would have voted no if he were in the Senate. If he says he would vote no, you shouldn’t be voting for him, according to your latest screed.
Republicans will vote for Haistings because he satisfies the basic requirements for an R candidate:
1) He’s angry about this country’s direction (though he would be wholly unable to tell you either why or in what direction he thinks the nation should go);
2) His lack of a clue about how he would do his job in the Legislature, or even about what the Legislature does, is a good thing because that shows he’s an “outsider” (kind of like expecting a virgin to have great sexual skill); and
3) He’ll do whatever the R leadership tells him to do.
Haistings has been a mouthpiece for misbehaving cops for years through his job with the Seattle police guild.
Re 10
My father and his wife are on Social Security. They thought 2 things about Socialist Sanders $250. First, what the hell would they do with a lousy $250? Better cat food for their pet? 2 golf games? A couple of nice meals out? A tank of gas in their motorhome? For the very poor $250 is a bitter joke, and for the better off it’s meaningless. They saw this for what it was, an attempt on the part of Sanders to buy votes at taxpayer expense for democrats. (I know, integrity and Bernie Sanders are words that are opposite to each other. Still…)
Second, they knew that since the nation didn’t experience inflation, the price of most things they bought remained stable. If the cost of living hasn’t risen, why would you have a rise in social security payments based on COLA?
Do we get to reduce Social Security in the deflationary spiral Obama is trying to cause with his suicidally reckless spending? When the dollar is worth roughly what the rouble is due to leftist fiscal lunacy, will they get any Social Security from a bankrupt nation?
Ideally Social Security would be phased out so that those who contributed get a return, but younger workers would be forced to sink or swim in retirement on their own choices. A persons retirement is their concern, not mine or any other taxpayer. And it absolutely is not the business of the federal government. But since people like my dad have had money taken from their paychecks for 4 or 5 decades it’s only fair to give them what they paid for.
RE 12
The vast majority of law enforcement personnel are hardworking decent men and women doing their best to serve their communities. Can you say the same of yourself? What charities or volunteer activities do you participate in? Do you tu
Re 12
Accidentally hit submit…
What charities or volunteer activities do you participate in? Do you tutor kids who need help?
Do you have a job that pays decently for taking great risks for your fellow citizens, but will never make you wealthy? Cops do. They like teachers get paid relatively little for what they contribute to society. And like teachers they have to put up with a lot of crap from loud mouths exxagerating what they do poorly and ignoring all the many things they do well every working day.
@13
Do we get to reduce Social Security in the deflationary spiral Obama is trying to cause with his suicidally reckless spending?
A deflationary spiral (like the one Japan experienced through the 90s) is caused by the opposite of what you appear to think causes it. Reckless spending (which I don’t agree is happening right now in ways that it wasn’t before Obama) causes inflation, not deflation.
There’s a lot of good information online about understanding the difference between inflation and deflation and what causes deflationary spirals. Warning that reckless spending could cause a deflationary spiral is like warning that you could die of heat stroke by traveling to Antarctica.
@13: Lost (hypocrite)
So your parents are living off Social security – either they don’t really need it and are sucking off the public tit, or they do need it and you are not helping support them…
Either way, your advocacy of republicans and privatization doesn’t square with your parents living off SS.
Oh, and by the way, for some seniors an extra $250 is the difference between eating and not eating some months. Not that you care if older people get fed or not.
Oh, and I give plenty to charity but I still consider the government the last resort for the poor. I don’t think people should have to sit through lectures on God in order to get food at a religous charity (say Union Gospel mission). ALL people should be fed – and not force-fed religion in oder to get food.
When was the last time YOU worked the food line at the downtown emergency shelter?
Like most conservatives, you talk a good game but can’t back it up with logic, actions or facts. Wimp!
@17
Oh, and by the way, for some seniors an extra $250 is the difference between eating and not eating some months. Not that you care if older people get fed or not.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was somewhat surprised that this point actually needed to be made since it’s quite obvious to most anyone who takes the time to study this stuff – or at the very least understand what COLA’s are.
At 17 and 18
CNR, my parents paid into SS for 5 decades. Asking that they recoup some of the money stolen from them isn’t hypocrisy.
What I actually said, though you didn’t understand it, is that SS ought to be phased out so that those who paid into the system get their money back out, but younger workers take their retirements into their own hands. Simply, the federal government has no legitimate interest in my retirement plans.
As for Cost of Living Adjustments, why would they go up the past couple years. The cost of living hasn’t. Sanders is trying to buy votes with a cash payment. The last I checked this is called corruption.
Your cat food eating senior for whom $250 makes the difference between starvation and eating is an extreme statistical anomoly. I have an elderly retired electrician neighbor for whom Social Security is just enough to pay his bills. His family, my other neighbors, and I pick up the slack. We go grocery shopping, help maintain his home and vehicle, help make sure his electrical bill is paid and so on. Point is, he doesn’t starve. While I wouldn’t want to retire as he has, he makes it.
@19
Your cat food eating senior for whom $250 makes the difference between starvation and eating is an extreme statistical anomoly.
No, it’s not. Large numbers of older Americans live upon that edge where their monthly grocery budget can be wiped out by rising costs in other areas (rent, energy bills, medical bills, etc). And unlike your neighbor, not everyone is able to count on the charity of others as well when they fall behind. That’s why we have Social Security in the first place – because several generations ago, Americans found themselves disgusted with a system that left too many seniors behind.
Your reaction to this is to pretend that the problem is imaginary – and you’re able to do that because the problem isn’t in your direct view. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that you’re successfully shielded from it, and convinced that it isn’t there.
Lost said “…younger workers take their retirements into their own hands.”
How do you protect the younger workers from the stock market crashes and the Enron thieves of the market? If a bunch of future seniors invest or are tricked into investing in the 2040 version of Enron, what would your response be when they loose everything, through no fault of their own? They trusted the financial investment system and it fails them.
Under the current system, they would get SS payments that would keep them from starving.
Under your proposed system, nothing keeps them from starving or living under the bridge.
You think that is acceptable? How is that different from Somalia or Calcutta?
Lost said “my parents paid into SS for 5 decades. Asking that they recoup some of the money stolen from them isn’t hypocrisy.”
You pay auto insurance. In a perfect work, you never have an accident and you die of old age before you do. Do you also think auto insurance premiums that you pay year end and year out are stolen from you?
@13. It’s amazing. I read what lost spews and all the republican consequences of spend but don’t pay for it, of destroying the economy and middle class, of shipping jobs over seas, of spending for two wars without raising taxes of putting them on credit cards, and he doesn’t see it as corporate republican fault, it’s Obama’s policies that are causing it.
I’ve found it’s really not possible to discuss things with lost. Oh sure, we can talk at other, but trying to explain the rightness of our positions to lost is like talking to the TV. It doesn’t matter what we say, how right we are, how much we make sense, how logical we are, it’s physically impossible for us to reach him, any more than we can influence the talking heads on the TV. He is too invested in his mindset to consider other viewpoints.
23
lost believes that the choices he’s made are the right choices for everyone. He does not believe in a safety net because he doesn’t think he’ll ever need one. According to lost, calamity befalls only those who deserve calamity. Curiously, lost equates his opinions to constitutionality. If he believes Social Security is a bad idea, then, in his mind, it is also unconstitutional.
RE 21 to 24
Calamity and bad investments happen. Smart people plan for both by insuring themselves or diversifying investments. Blue Johns hypothetical loss of everything ‘through no fault of your own’ doesn’t exist. This happens because people don’t plan, not through no fault of their own. And yes, I think it acceptable that adults who made choices live with the consequences of those choices, good or bad. Just as society has no right to the fruits of my good choices, I don’t ask them to bear the costs of my bad ones.
Oddly enough I don’t recall stories of elderly bridge dwellers prior to Social Security.
Social Security isn’t auto insurance. Or any kind of insurance. Comparisons of it to that industry aren’t to the point.
“…but trying to explain the rightness of our positions to lost is like talking to the TV.”
Do you know, I have the same sense talking to you folks. Everything moral, ethical, logical and right argues for my position. Every theory of political economy and general common sense shows me that progressive thought is nonsensical, though well intended. But you couldn’t see or hear it, no matter the arguments I might marshall.
“lost believes that the choices he’s made are the right choices for everyone.” No. Sometimes they haven’t proven right even for me. That’s a far cry from crawling to my government to shield me from the fallout of those choices.
Show me one place in the Constition or other documents around it where any hint of your nanny state is even dreamed of. I’ll save you time. It can’t be done. These were fiercely independent men who have nothing in common with the modern progressive ideology.
Oddly enough I don’t recall stories of elderly bridge dwellers prior to Social Security.
A simple google of the phrase “history of social security in america”
Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930. A spurt of pension legislation was passed in the years immediately prior to passage of the Social Security Act, so that 30 states had some form of old-age pension program by 1935. However, these programs were generally inadequate and ineffective. Only about 3% of the elderly were actually receiving benefits under these states plans, and the average benefit amount was about 65 cents a day.
(FYI $16.00 in the year 2009 has the same “purchase power” as $1 in the year 1934. So $.65 a day is about $312 a month in today’s dollars.)
This trend toward urbanization also contributed to another significant shift in American society, the disappearance of the extended family and the rapid rise of the nuclear family. Today we tend to assume that “the family” consists of parents and children–the so-called nuclear family. For most of our history, we lived in “extended families” that included children, parents, grandparents and other relatives. The advantage of the extended family was that when a family member became too old or infirm to work, the other family members assumed responsibility for their support. But when the able-bodied left the farms to seek employment in the cities, often the parents or grandparents stayed behind.
When the New York Stock Exchange opened on the morning of October 24, 1929, nervous traders sensed something ominous in the trading patterns. By 11:00 a.m. the market had started to plunge.
Before three months had passed, the Stock Market lost 40% of its value; $26 billion of wealth disappeared. (It would take 25 years for the stock market to return to its pre-crash level following the 1929 crash.)
President Hoover’s “Volunteerism”
President Hoover had a distinguished career before becoming president. He made a name for himself in international relief efforts before and after World War I. He helped feed millions of starving people, through the efforts of voluntary partnerships of government, business and private giving. He knew this kind of “volunteerism” worked, on a massive scale, and he saw no reason why it should not work to solve the problems of the Depression. So although he engaged in some limited federal relief efforts, his main response to the Depression was to advocate voluntary efforts, which never materialized.
The main problem with this strategy was that America was able to help rebuild Europe in the aftermath of World War I because America’s economy was basically sound. In the Depression the total wealth of the nation was cut in half during the first three years after The Crash. This made voluntary charity a difficult ideal to achieve.
From this, I read that voluntary charity is not effective when the economy is not sound, so lost’s argument that the poor should just use charity is not going to work.
“Smart people plan for both by insuring themselves or diversifying investments. “
Lost, by your argument, every last person during the great depression was stupid and did not plan and deserved what they got. You do love your Social Darwinism.
@25
Calamity and bad investments happen. Smart people plan for both by insuring themselves or diversifying investments. Blue Johns hypothetical loss of everything ‘through no fault of your own’ doesn’t exist.
That’s laughable. When the stock market as a whole goes down significantly, it takes out many diversified investors. And when you’re talking about a retirement plan that’s expected to gain a certain amount of value over time in order to yield a dividend that’s sufficient for a retirement, bad timing could easily cost you your savings. A diversified IRA is generally a safe investment, but it’s far from a guarantee. In fact, my retirement IRA lost roughly 40% of its value at the end of 2008, and it’s considered a low-risk long-term IRA. If you don’t think that irresponsible stewardship of the markets couldn’t yield more disastrous results than that, you’re even more naive than I thought.
And yes, I think it acceptable that adults who made choices live with the consequences of those choices, good or bad. Just as society has no right to the fruits of my good choices, I don’t ask them to bear the costs of my bad ones.
And I find it morally reprehensible to make a person starve in their final years because they were unlucky investors. As do most people with functioning brains and hearts.
Oddly enough I don’t recall stories of elderly bridge dwellers prior to Social Security.
What!?! Do you know anything about history at all? Social Security exists because of the large numbers of older Americans who were falling into poverty in the early part of the 20th century.
Social Security isn’t auto insurance. Or any kind of insurance. Comparisons of it to that industry aren’t to the point.
Why not? It’s essentially the same concept. We’re paying insurance on having a safety net as we get older. The point that Blue John was making is exactly on point for this discussion. Money paid into social security is no different than money paid into car insurance or health insurance. You may never get that money back in the end, but you never know that until all is said and done.
Do you know, I have the same sense talking to you folks. Everything moral, ethical, logical and right argues for my position.
I’m not surprised you believe that. What we’re pointing out to you is that you’re clueless. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You constantly get your facts wrong. You know jack shit about history. And you never learn from any of these discussions. You keep coming back here with the same stockpiles of bullshit every time.
Every theory of political economy and general common sense shows me that progressive thought is nonsensical, though well intended.
So why don’t we go back to the beginning of this thread when you actually said that we could enter a deflationary spiral because of overspending? Any economist can tell you that that’s total nonsense (and in case you might think I live in a bubble, I just finished reading Free to Choose by Milton Friedman). Are you going to learn from that? Are you going to step back and figure out why you ended up saying something that was total horseshit? No, of course not. You’re going to pretend it never happened so that you can shield yourself from having to face up to the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But you couldn’t see or hear it, no matter the arguments I might marshall.
Bring it. Nothing’s stopping you. I won’t see it or hear it because the magical arguments that explain why you’re right don’t exist. You can keep telling yourself that we’re the ones deluding ourselves in some rigid ideology, but it’s not a mystery to anyone who can read this comment thread.
No. Sometimes they haven’t proven right even for me. That’s a far cry from crawling to my government to shield me from the fallout of those choices.
Many people, myself included, will likely never need a government safety net, even if we happen to make a mistake with our finances. That’s not true for everyone, and it’s less true for folks who didn’t have the kinds of advantages starting out in life that I had. Of course, tragedies and unexpected hardships strike a lot of people when they don’t expect it. I don’t know how you’d react if you ever got into a situation where you weren’t capable of providing for yourself. You might have the courage of your convictions and refuse government assistance. Or more likely, you’d recognize the unpredictability of life and the value of safety nets. People often don’t understand this stuff until it affects them personally.
Show me one place in the Constition or other documents around it where any hint of your nanny state is even dreamed of.
This has nothing to do with a nanny state. A nanny state is a government that makes your moral choices for you – and I’m as opposed to that as anyone you’ll ever meet. That’s distinctly different from a government that provides effective programs to ensure medical coverage or retirement security. Our founding fathers believed in the value of various public expenditures – from libraries to universities to a strong national defense.
These were fiercely independent men who have nothing in common with the modern progressive ideology.
That’s unbelievable bullshit. Thomas Paine, one of the intellectual giants of the American revolution, was a loud advocate of progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth. My god, pick up a history book and stop making such an ass of yourself.
And lost, unlike you, I do consider the validity of your arguments.
You say that we should get rid of social security. Ok. Interesting Idea. I consider that. I then ask the question “What if there is a stock market crash and a lot of people lose ever everything? What then?”
Instead of really answering the question, you accuse me of not listening. you respond with “Everything moral, ethical, logical and right argues for my position.”
You never did answer the hard question, what responsibility does American society have people who are made poor? who are now out a job? who are wiped out by a stock market crash?
@26 “You do love your Social Darwinism.”
He’ll love it until the day he finds himself weeded out. Dumb fuck that he is, unless he married money, that’s where he’s headed. Scorn him as I do, I’d rather he found a social saftey net when that day comes so he doesn’t start begging me for a handout. Even Lost deserves better, although that might be the only way he’d ever learn about humility.
@27 “And you never learn from any of these discussions. You keep coming back here with the same stockpiles of bullshit every time.”
Good on you. I was hoping you’d understand that you’re wasting your time on this dolt.
“You never did answer the hard question, what responsibility does American society have people who are made poor? who are now out a job? who are wiped out by a stock market crash?”
You may have missed it, Blue John. After continuously berating the millions of unemployed for being shiftless and lazy, and being pressed by us for an answer as to where the unemployed should go to find a job, he finally replied,
“I don’t know and I don’t care.”
That’s Lost in a nutshell. He doesn’t know and he doesn’t care.
“Smart people plan for both by insuring themselves or diversifying investments. Blue Johns hypothetical loss of everything ‘through no fault of your own’ doesn’t exist.”
“Everything moral, ethical, logical and right argues for my position.”
Let’s discuss then….
Does the federal government have a moral and ethical imperative to help the “stupid” people wiped out after a stock market crash, to help the poor in general?
Yes, the bible says that we should feed the poor, and cloth the naked and heal the sick. If you are christian, you are compelled to find ways to help.
The federal government is one avenue to do that.
Does the federal government have a logical imperative to help the “stupid” people wiped out after a stock market crash, to help the poor in general?
Yes. Poor, desperate people will turn to crime and insurrection to provide for themselves, to feed their kids. To have a peaceful, well ordered society where companies can do business and it’s safe to walk the streets, it’s logical that the more well off help support the poor, until they can get on their feet again. Somalia and Colombia are templates of societies where the richer live in fear of the poor.
Does the federal government have the right to help the “stupid” people wiped out after a stock market crash, to help the poor in general?
The Constitution says
The federal government has the right and the duty to help the poor.
Those are my points based off of your arguments. Now what are your counter arguments? Let’s discuss.
lost @ 25
You’ve now lowered yourself to Mr Cynical’s level.
I was 19, got aplastic anemia, was treated with a bone marrow transplant, then got chronic graft vs host disease, and have had numerous complications since. Some quite severe. Some preventing me from working.
Until a few years ago, I was buried in debts, all medical related. I only avoided being more sick, homeless, or just plain dead, because of the generosity of the many angels in my life.
So, by your values, I deserved to be poor and almost die. Because I didn’t plan, and save enough, to handle a chronic life threatening illness.
Congratulations. You’re now beneath contempt.
I’m truly saddened that the rest of us have to suffer through your participation in the public discourse. You have exactly nothing positive or constructive to offer. By simply being present, you’re a detriment to civil society.
Cheers, Jason Osgood
“So, by your values, I deserved to be poor and almost die. Because I didn’t plan, and save enough, to handle a chronic life threatening illness.”
I’ve slammed Lost because his values would have killed my Mom at far too young an age and would have left me alone as a kid in some Dickensian nightmare. But I’m too close and yet at the same time too distant from my own experiences – my Mom died decades ago and I survived and have lived a good life for many years. It was so long ago that sometimes I really do forget what it was like. When I read what you wrote, the cruelity and heartlessness
of Lost’s values really hit me hard. Not everybody has those angels in their life. Not everybody is so blessed as you. I’m very glad that you knew such generosity and kindness when you were in need, Jason. Those are the very values I want to see reflected in our government.
Wow Factless… that’s what the Treasury Department and the NY Slimes wrote.
Too bad you live on Daily Kook-aid! So Factless ALL THE TIME TOO!
You know what DUMMOCRAPTS. If you can’t EVER tell the truth, what are you all made of deep down inside? Lying is ok as long as it is for “your” pile of lying human feces candidate Murray? The truth doesn’t matter because this is “Amerika” or something. – Corrected
Even the regular peeps are seeing through Murray’s lies and smears. Why is Murray running away from her senatorial votes?
Where did he say this Steve? Or as always it’s one of your “Psych 101” things?
No, that was his response, Puddy. That was a few weeks ago while you were gone. He doesn’t deny it. It’s not like I have a database, but if you want, I could attempt a search.
The search engine sucks. I was only able to determine that he wrote that sometime prior to September 3rd.
Re 28
“What responsibility does American society have people who are made poor? who are now out a job? who are wiped out by a stock market crash?” Easy. None whatever.
“Does the federal government have a moral and ethical imperative to help the “stupid” people wiped out after a stock market crash, to help the poor in general?” No. They have a moral and ethical responsibility to create a level playing field. How individuals play is up to them. I happen to agree with your interpretation of a personal Christian imperative to charity. In the rigorous separation of Church and State you and the left want so badly, how is this relevant to government? And how is my duty to charity discharged by shifting it to taxpayers better off than I, another tactic of the left? The federal government is not a valid avenue to charity.
Again, I don’t recall roving bands of bandits or elderly bridge dwellers prior to either FDRs nanny state or Johnsons intensifying of it. Nor, when my fathers business failed during the Carter recession do I recall him turning to crime to feed his 6 kids. On principle he refused food stamps, welfare or any other shifting of his responsibility to take care of his family. Yet he somehow managed to avoid a life of crime and take care of his obligations. At any rate your argument that poverty excuses crime is absurd on its face. No society in the history of the world tolerated crime on that basis, nor would or should we.
“To promote the general welfare…”
Ah yes, sooner or later in any discussion with a liberal this comes up. The elastic clause is not a blanket grant of any exercise of federal power, for Gods sake, though that’s how the left consistently reads it. Again, these were men who wrote, as Franklin did, things like ‘we should not make poverty comfortable, so that men will desire to get out of it.’ Do you really believe that men like this believed in the cradle to grave cosseting of citizens at taxpayer expense you espouse?
Re 35
I did say that, in a specific context. It was in discussing the folks on unemployment for 2 years complaining about benefits running out. In that context I wrote 2 things. First, that in a high unemployment industry, construction, no one I know who really is looking isn’t working. Second, that if my family needed food and shelter, I’d move, take a lesser job, do whatever it took to feed them sooner than beg at the public trough for 2 years. And then whine about how my benefits were running out.
Steve,
Your obsession with me is a bit alarming, for your sake. You might talk to a counselor or something. You constantly bring me up in threads I haven’t commented on, put words or intentions in my mouth I either didn’t say or said in a different context, and generally display far too much interest in what I think.
Also, while your intense dislike of me is obvious, I’m confused about why you think I care.
Jason,
While I regret a generally reasonable person (as opposed to someone like Steve or Rujax) taking offense at my words, I can’t help that.
While you won’t be interested in it, I am sorry for your misfortunes.
But the fact is that personal misfortune is not the province of the federal government as our Constitution authorizes it to act.
lost is back in all his glory. Wow. That is why he is the latest winner of the prestigious Golden Goat Award. Hey, Puddy, did you congratulate your compadre?
“What responsibility does American society have people who are made poor? who are now out a job? who are wiped out by a stock market crash?” Easy. None whatever.
Interesting. So if a crash hit and it overloaded the capacity of the local state and private charity to deal with, and Americans started to stave say in Oklahoma, you would be OK with that.
The federal government is not a valid avenue to charity.
>> Why not?
Again, I don’t recall roving bands of bandits or elderly bridge dwellers prior to either FDRs nanny state or Johnsons intensifying of it.
>> Then you don’t read history. There was great conflict between the towns and the migrant workers from the dust bowl of the mid west during the depression. The townies were trying to protect what they had, the migrants were trying feed their families.
Take inner cities today. There are few legit jobs, so people turn to crime as a means to pay the bills.
At any rate your argument that poverty excuses crime is absurd on its face. No society in the history of the world tolerated crime on that basis, nor would or should we.
>> The way I see it, If people are broke, a considerable fraction will turn to crime and lawlessness, to provide for them and their family. Not all, like your dad, but many.
Do you disagree with that premise?
>> And I don’t think we should allow crime because they are poor. I agree with you that is not an excuse. However I can see a couple of options. Take care of people enough on the front end so they don’t turn to crime or go your route and don’t and lock them when they commit crime.
>>Then what will be the consequences of locking them up? Now you have a huge population in prison, leeching off the public dole.
Is that acceptable to you?
>> You get a huge rise in parentless kids, cause their parents are in jail. Are you willing to pay for their upbringing?
“To promote the general welfare…”
Ah yes, sooner or later in any discussion with a liberal this comes up.
>> Yes. I used it. BECAUSE IT’S THERE! You cannot ignore that part of the Constitution because it’s inconvenient. It says the purpose of government is to, in part, “To promote the general welfare.” That’s like a liberal trying to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist so they can get rid of handguns in school.
>> I like your Franklin quote of ‘we should not make poverty comfortable, so that men will desire to get out of it.’. I actually agree with you. But I also think there should be processes in place to give a hand up to those who make the effort.
Do you really believe that men like this believed in the cradle to grave cosseting of citizens at taxpayer expense you espouse?
>> You need to rethink that. I’m advocating keeping the poor from starving and lifing them out of poverty and you extrapolating this out to mean “cosseting” and life of luxury.
Do you realized they are different things?
“your intense dislike of me is obvious”
You at least got one thing right, you miserable piece of shit. I don’t like you. I’m so very fucking glad it’s obvious.
You were pressed to answer a question that was phrased as, “where do the millions of unemployed in this nation go to find a job?” We’re talking millions. Not just you, not your father of forty years ago, not a handful of people that you pull out of your ass as some anecdotal answer to the problems of millions of others. Now answer again. Where do the millions of unemployed go to find jobs in this country?
You don’t know and you don’t care.
I entered the workforce during the Boeing recession of the early seventies when this state saw 16% unemployment. There were hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this state and no jobs. I moved to find work as did so many thousands of others. We were told to “turn out the lights” on this city. We found work because there was work to be found in other states. Do you understand? Do you get it? There was work elsewhere. All we had to do was give up our homes, pack up, leave our families and friends behind and go. Now there are tens of millions of unemployed across the entire nation. Where do they move to now, Lost? Where are the millions of jobs that are waiting to be filled?
You don’t know and you don’t care.
I could forgive you for not knowing. After all, you’re a ignorant, dumbfuck asswipe and that should be expected of you. What I do not forgive is that you do not fucking care.
@41
But the fact is that personal misfortune is not the province of the federal government as our Constitution authorizes it to act.
Absolutely incorrect. Please see comment #31 again if you’re not clear. Generation after generation of judges in this country have interpreted the constitution in a way that allows for the federal government to provide programs that act as safety nets for people who suffer misfortunes. I don’t know how Blue John could possibly explain it any clearer. You believe what you believe out of pure willful ignorance.
Furthermore….
“To promote the general welfare…”
Ah yes, sooner or later in any discussion with a liberal this comes up.
>> Yes. I used it. BECAUSE IT’S THERE! You cannot ignore that part of the Constitution because it’s inconvenient.
The founding fathers thought that the federal government had some role in promoting the general well being of it’s citizens, and left an open ended statement there, to account for the things they did not think of, that might come up in the future. This has lead to an expansion of government because we have much to large a population and technologically advanced population to go back to a agrarian lifestyle. There simply is not enough available arable land for us all to build log cabins and farm. We need government because we are specialized into doctors and bankers and graphic artists and bloggers and airline pilots and waiters. Most of us are too busy being specialized in our jobs, to be experts at everything. The government steps in and deals with issues that are too big, to vast, too diffuse for fierce individualism to cope with. It’s a matter of scale. If an individual loses their job, they can probably find a new one. if tens of millions of unemployed across the entire nation cannot find work, then the government has an obligation to step in, to keep them from starving and hopefully becoming homeless, until they can get back on their feet. If not for them, for their kids.
Are you suggesting America ignore that clause in the constitution?
If so, why?
“You believe what you believe out of pure willful ignorance.”
Nah, it’s all about hanging onto false perceptions in order to survive. He needs to delude himself into believing that he’s a fierce individualist. If he saw himself as he really is, entirely dependent upon the social contract he so loathsomely hates, he’d likely blow his fucking brains out.
@45. Thanks. It seems obvious to me.
I’m looking forward to Lost explaining why he sees it differently.
It’s fun to take his discussion points and find out if he has thought them through to their logical conclusion. Or at least, get him to define where he’s coming from.
So far, he has not logically convinced me much of the rightness of his positions, but I keep listening.
Often I’ve found he has strongly held positions, and feels the consequences of those positions are acceptable to impose on America. Often they cannot be reconciled with how I read the constitution and my understanding of the role of government, so we strongly disagree.
“It’s fun to take his discussion points and find out if he has thought them through to their logical conclusion.”
That’s one of the problems with Lost, Blue John. AS I’ve pointed out to Roger, Zotz and proud leftist, Lost displays no evidence that he think things through to their logical conclusion. For instance, take his stance that a zygote is a person and that abortion is murder. We ask repeatedly for him to share his vision of where this will lead our nation. The murder of a “person” is obviously a very serious crime. How do we prevent these murders? Do we even try? If we don’t try, do we then value the murder of one person over another? Do we monitor wombs? What is the legal fate of a woman who murders her zygote with a contraceptive? If caught, will she be tried for murder? If convicted, could she be executed for her crime? He refuses to discuss this in any detail but as sure as the sun rises, he’ll be back to declare again that abortion is murder. So we ask again, where does this lead us? What’s his vision? He doesn’t respond. And then he’s back yet again with abortion is murder. It goes nowhere. It never does. I’m pretty much certain that your attempts to converse with him will go nowhere as well. Sigh! And then there’s that unwarranted smug arrogance and his statements of his opinion as fact. Like what we needed around here was yet another uneducated troll who thinks he’s a constitutional scholar, lecturing and talking down to judges and attornies like Roger and proud leftist.
I realized this is kind of old news but….
Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: July 8, 2010
Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.
The delinquency rate on investment homes where the original mortgage was more than $1 million is now 23 percent. For cheaper investment homes, it is about 10 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07.....9rich.html
I await the outrage from the conservatives here against the deadbeat rich.
@50 Those are our “producers”, BJ, so I’m sure we should cut them some slack and maybe even cut their taxes some more. If we don’t, hell, they just might quit producing for us. You know, like how they produced all those millions of jobs begging to be filled that Lost tells us are somewhere here in America. By God, if it wasn’t for all those damned “lazy” unemployed Americans, our economy would really be humming.
Lee @ 45
I answered 31 point by point. You clearly disagree, which is your right.
But what the courts have done since FDR made it clear he’d bully them if they didn’t hardly is compelling to me. The courts have decided that a man growing corn on his own land to feed his own family violated a law against selling corn. The courts decided that the murder of unborn babies was fine, as stopping it violated the privacy rights of the mother. The courts have decided that every time I enter a federal building or fly in an airplane, or take a photo in the wrong place I can be illegally searched. Point is, courts aren’t infallible. Don’t believe me? Look at how Brown changed the view of equal treatment under the law, overturning Plessy.
Steve,
You missed the salient point. Yes, I realize you have an irrational hatred of me. If you choose to waste your energy this way, no skin off my nose. Good luck with that.
But do remember the important bit. I don’t at all know why you would think I care about your opinion of me.
I don’t hate you, Lost. I despise you. Do you understand the fucking difference?
Provide some answers, Lost.
How do we prevent these murders? Do we even try? If we don’t try, do we then value the murder of one person over another? Do we monitor wombs? What is the legal fate of a woman who murders her zygote with a contraceptive? If caught, will she be tried for murder? If convicted, could she be executed for her crime?
Look up some of the academic discussion around the elastic clause. Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought about Constitutional interpretation, or were when I briefly studied law. Rabbit, Proud or anyone who practices law could confirm or negate this anyway.
One says that the men who wrote the Constitution meant what the wrote. It assumes that the provisions for formally changing the document were intended to address changing conditions, more enlightened times or any other compelling reason to alter the Constitution. The courts have limited interpretative scope to define terms, but the document is itself the foundation of law and government activity in this country. Basically, it was meant to be a contract binding on the citizens and the federal government, with the usual wriggle room contracts allow for minor definitional issues.
The other end of the spectrum says that the Constitution is a living document whose meaning can change as the feelings of the day dictate. Courts have nearly unlimited scope to say what it means, and infer from what is in the document what might be meant by it. Roe V Wade is an excellent example of this latter view, where a right to privacy is nowhere written into the Constitution, but is inferred in Roe.
Problems with extreme advocacy of the first view include a government too slow to react to changing times and needs. Such a government would become an irrelevant anachronism. With the latter extremes the prospect of a government which defines its own power as it feels the need, risking tyranny or at least the dilution of democracy, seems to me to be the risk.
But fundamentally the perameters of the elastic clause, what it means to ‘promote the general welfare,’ are spelled out in the 7 Articles and 27 Amendments which make up the Federal Constitution. Sure, there’s plenty of room for interpretation. Completely ignoring the text and history of it to get a desired result (Welfare, the Patriot Act etc) seems to me to risk the entire framework. After all, if the right to bear arms can be ignored, so can 5th or 1st Amendment rights. If my property rights have no value on grounds of equality, how do you then protect your right to religious expression, or lack thereof?
But then, as Rabbit and Proud assure me, I’m just a no-nothing carpenter who dropped out of law school. And as Lee assures me, I don’t understand history. Still, for all that I don’t know anything this is how I see it.
Re 55
Murder as I used it is a moral term, not a legal one. Unfortunately for them and for society women have the ‘right’ to terminate pregancies in this country at almost any time for almost any reason. They are acting within the law, so legal sanctions don’t apply.
Were abortion made illegal the nightmare scenario is back alley abortions with women dying in the process. No-one, pro-choice or pro-life, wants this. I submit that it need not be the case though. Since Roe advances in contraceptives make unplanned pregancy largely a matter of personal choice. Why have an abortion when simply protecting against pregancy would seem a better solution for everyone? There’s even a medication to prevent conception after sex. What you present is a red herring similar to the rape/incest abortions. Statistically insignificant, these produce enormous emotional impetus for the vastly greater numbers of abortions provided as a form of contraceptive. In the same vein the pre-Roe illegal abortion argument provides good emotional cover for an obsolete argument.
Re 54
Hate? Despise? What you don’t seem to understand is that I simply don’t care what you feel about me. Want to discuss issues? Fine. Want to trade personal insults for your juvenile entertainment? No, thanks very much.
“Since Roe advances in contraceptives make unplanned pregancy largely a matter of personal choice. Why have an abortion when simply protecting against pregancy would seem a better solution for everyone?”
So you are now in favor of birth control methods that kill zygotes, like IUDs or the Pill. Tell me, Lost, how is that any different than abortion?
Lost said
The courts have decided that a man growing corn on his own land to feed his own family violated a law against selling corn.
>> Which ruling is that? The monsanto case? That’s a corporation vs a farmer. Seems you are on the side of the progressives trying to stop the corporation instead of the the conservatives who never say no to any corporation.
The courts decided that the murder of unborn babies was fine, as stopping it violated the privacy rights of the mother.
>> Seems you would be on the side of the progressives advocating strongly for birth control and sex ed so women won’t get pregnant in the first place, so it’s as rare as possible., instead of on the side of the conservatives who want to withhold access to eduction, birth control and abortion.
The courts have decided that every time I enter a federal building or fly in an airplane, or take a photo in the wrong place I can be illegally searched.
>> Seems you are on the side of the progressives who is trying to curb that sort of abuse in the name of privacy, in stead of conservatives who are in favor of that because fear is good for law and order conformity.
Point is, courts aren’t infallible.
>> Exactly, Look at the corporate person hood case. We agree!
Don’t believe me? Look at how Brown changed the view of equal treatment under the law, overturning Plessy.
>> The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas has been credited with much significance. For some, it signaled the start of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, while for others, it represented the fall of segregation
>> The court realized they were wrong.
Lost, I’m amazed at how progressive you are, when you break it down, point by point.
“What you don’t seem to understand is that I simply don’t care what you feel about me.”
Then you won’t mind if I continue telling you what I think of you. Although for some reason, you need to repeatedly tell me that you don’t care. Odd.
Re 60
“The courts have decided that a man growing corn on his own land to feed his own family violated a law against selling corn.”
Wickard V Filburn, in which not engaging in a market was construed as commerce.
This was an individual against FDR rules attempting to regulate the wheat market nationwide and stabilize prices. A progressive president decided that how a man grew crops on his own land was somehow federal jurisdiction. Due to his continuing anti-Constitutional threat to pack the court if they sided against him, he won. And of course the Commerce Clause is now construed to mean whatever the hell the sitting president wants it to, comrade.
Actually, I am on the side of sexual education and contraceptives available to young women. With their parents consent if they are minors, of course.
As for the Patriot Act, 2 onerous provisions of it have been re-authorized under Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Additionally, Obamas justice department is attempting to force real time access for law enforcement to social networking and Blackberry type communications without warrants. What was that about progressives and the 4th Amendment? See, this is why rigorous interpretation of the Constitution is so necessary. Without it basic rights disappear, and the value of our citizenship with them.
I assume you’re referencing Citizens United, in which the Roberts Court, while not making errors in point of law, did in point of discretion. That particular aspect of law wasn’t contested in the Citizens United case, and should not have been considered by the Court on it’s own initiative.
RE 61
Generally you remind me of the adult conversations on the old Peanuts television specials. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
But if it amuses you, by all means have fun. It’s moderately eccentric in you, but that’s your outlook, not mine.
I did not know about Wickard V Filburn. On it’s face, it’s as messed up as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission!
Again, Lost, you are a progressive and did not know it.
Additionally, Obamas justice department is attempting to force real time access for law enforcement to social networking and Blackberry type communications without warrants. What was that about progressives and the 4th Amendment?
Funny, when Obama wants to spy without warrants, I think of him as acting republican, acting like bush. If you took a poll here, I bet you would not find a progressive in favor of warrantless wiretaps.
And has been said over and over, Obama is hardly progressive. If he was, he wouldn’t have taken single payer off the table and we’d have card check by now.
If Dennis Kucinich were prez and putting that shit, then I think you could put progressives to task.
64
Filburn is also the legal grandfather which supporters believe allows for Obamas mandatory purchase of health insurance, interestingly.
As for pot? I could care less if someone smokes it, pursuant to all the limits we apply to the consumption of alchohol. Personal recreational drug use is not necessarily, in my mind, legitimately a matter for the criminal law. Stoned and operating a crane or motor vehicle? That may be a criminal matter. Stoned while watching ‘The Big Lebowski?’ In my mind that’s a personal choice, not a criminal one. There is a whole field of law called consensual crime. Usually the definition is one or more adults consensually engaging in an act which doesn’t directly impact others. Again, not in my opinion a police or court matter.
@52
I’m not saying that courts don’t make mistakes or that I agree with every ruling they’ve made (I certainly don’t), but there’s absolutely no basis to say that the Constitution prevents the federal government from establishing programs that provide for the welfare of citizens. This comment was an attempt to make this argument about the extent of the Commerce Clause. That’s not what you were initially challenging. You were challenging the validity of the Commerce Clause, not merely the extent.
I think a good argument can be made that the Commerce Clause has been taken to too far of an extreme, but that doesn’t mean that the Commerce Clause should be invalid. Or that the federal government can’t establish programs that provide for the general welfare.
“Actually, I am on the side of sexual education and contraceptives available to young women. With their parents consent if they are minors, of course.”
Whether it’s death by UID or death by abortion, the zygote is killed. And Knowing this you feel justified in spewing your venom at the late Dr. Tiller while letting women who murder zygotes off the hook. Would you care to explain how this makes a lick of sense?
“Generally you remind me of the adult conversations on the old Peanuts television specials. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.”
And you’re above tossing out insults, Lost? Hypocrite.
Lee,
I suppose I gave that impression. I firmly believe that the Constitution clearly authorizes federal oversight of interrstate commerce. And for good reason. A pound of apples in Massachusetts should weigh the same as one in Washington, and a dollar in Michigan should be valued at parity in Hawaii. Infrastructure to convey goods from one state to another are clearly in the national interest. Nationhood would be impossible without a bare standard of common law and interests in commerce.
It just seems to me that the Commerce Clause, like the Elastic, has limits far more strict than have been applied in the past 80 years, if only in the interests of preservation of the rest of the Constitution.
So I take it that you’re good with a woman murdering her kids but when a doctor does it for her, you birth a goat over it. Hypocrite.
Geez, all that venom you spewed towards the late Dr. Tiller for being a murderer of little baby zygotes and now you say that you want to give women a pass for doing the same? What’s the matter, Lost? Are you struggling to come up with an answer that condemns physicians while keeping your daughters off death row? Good luck with that.
Steve, Steve, Steve,
I answered you at 57, only you were too obsessed with your taking points to notice. Keep up, Stevie Boy.
As for Tiller, pulling the pieces of a dismembered baby out of a woman is not the act of a doctor. It is the act of a psychopath.
lost: “Point is, courts aren’t infallible. Don’t believe me? Look at how Brown changed the view of equal treatment under the law, overturning Plessy.”
lost, are you suggesting that Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or merely saying that Brown’s overturning of Plessy, which was one of the most clear changes of direction in American jurisprudence, shows that the Plessy Court was wrong and judges make mistakes?
Lost @57 (I’d do the triple name thing or a “Lostie Boy”, but that’s dumbfuck shit)
“Why have an abortion when simply protecting against pregancy would seem a better solution for everyone? There’s even a medication to prevent conception after sex.”
So let’s get this straight. According to you, when a woman uses a UID or a pill to kill a zygote, that’s OK. But when a physician does the deed by performing an abortion, it’s murder.
You’re just about the dumbest dumbfuck on the entire planet.
Proud,
“Lost, are you suggesting that Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, or merely saying that Brown’s overturning of Plessy, which was one of the most clear changes of direction in American jurisprudence, shows that the Plessy Court was wrong and judges make mistakes?”
Obviously the latter. Stare decisis isn’t a suicide pact. It doesn’t immutably oblige us to follow the errors of the past just because that’s the way a court once decided. It does make change difficult, and should. But accepting manifest injustice on the basis of precedent seems a poor way to go legally and socially. I didn’t finish law school, but did read an admirable lecture on precedent from a book called the Bramble Bush, by Llewellyn. He has a chapter on the precedent. In it he discusses how precedent establishes the stability without which law would be meaningless. At the same time, in the right hands, it allows for flexibility within the law without which it would become anachronistic. I believe you’re an attorney, and have both better literary and infinitely better practical knowledge of this. I only mention it because it’s the tool I used to approach the topic.
Steve,
“You’re just about the dumbest dumbfuck on the entire planet.”
I’ve got an early morning client meeting. In light of that, I’ll wish you a pleasant evening as well.
“I’ve got an early morning client meeting.”
Shorter Lost, “I have no answer.”
I figured as much.
lost
I’m pleased that you don’t believe that Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided. Let me point out, however, that Plessy was decided in 1896. Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Which Court should have had better access to what the Constitution’s authors were thinking–those deciphering its meaning 5 generations after it was written (Plessy) or those who were 8 generations after (Brown)? Wouldn’t you think that those closer in time would have gotten it right?
That is the problem with “strict constructionalists,” with those who adhere to “original intent.” No one could possibly figure out what was on the minds of all, a partisan group of people, who drafted the Constitution. Not fucking possible. In any event, John Marshall resolved the issue just a few years (1804) after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution by saying the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution means. That is the way it is. Fallible humans with all their weaknesses, not time-traveling mind readers, determine our constitutional limits. The most irritating aspect of the TeaFascists is their claim to be “constitutional conservatives.” Most of them would not know the difference between the Constitution and a roll of cheap asswipe. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court (now the Roberts Court) says what the Constitution means. Not Sharron Angle, not Sarah Palin, not you, not me. Citizens United is the law of the land. According to the only people on earth who have any authority about saying what the Constitution means.