Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Well, to make a somewhat extreme and absurd example, some southern churches in the 1800's taught that black people did not have a soul and were therefore really not humans. If that's true, you logically couldn't be guilty of murder if you killed a slave. We didn't let Alabama codify that thinking into law, regardless of the large popular support there was for that thinking in the south. 

Hi Russ: 

That is not an absurd example, it is a great starting point.  If Alabama had codified that sort of abhorrent thinking after 1866, the statute would have been stricken down by the Supreme Court under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment.  It goes without saying, but such a law would have denied a class of people (Blacks) the equal protection of laws generally prohibiting murder and assault without due process.  

What class is being denied life, liberty, or the equal protection of a law when a state passes an abortion regulation?  The heart of the 14th Amendment is that its protections are engaged when state laws are applied unequally to a class of people.  Women could be the class, but where is the equal protection or due process violation?  This question is extremely difficult in the abortion context and was finessed with the right of privacy found in the penumbra of the 14th by Roe v. Wade.  

So, the Constitution is a backstop against any state statute that is unconstitutional.  Subjects that are not in the constitution are reserved to the states.  So we have come full circle.

But

I've been thinking about federalism a lot in this context.  It is clear that since the new deal, the federal government has taken authority over a lot of things that are not in the Constitution.  Education, transportation, environmental regulation, labor, and so on.  Usually, the authority for an agency regulation or federal legislation in these formerly "state law" areas of law is the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.   This makes sense to me.  In the 1780s most commerce was not interstate.  In 2022, virtually all commerce is interstate.   I think that Congress can theoretically pass an abortion statute and cause it to be Constitutionally binding on all 50 states using one technique or another.  Murkowski and Collins have a bill pending now.  The Ds have another.  The big ask is for the R's and D's to pass something.  I do not think they can for many practical and many extremely cynical reasons.  Until they do, it looks like this is left to the states as a practical matter, until Congress can act or the Court is reconstructed over time.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

where to get the lithium to power it:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/business/ford-f-150-lightning-review/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/05/06/lithium-mining-salton-sea-geothermal-ev-battery-energy-fm-orig.cnn-busines/video/playlists/business-fresh-money/

Hi Rod:

That would be so cool to extract lithium from beneath the Salton Sea.  Will California allow it?  I hope so.  I am sure you are familiar with the engineering SNAFU that created the Salton Sea, but if anyone is not, it is an interesting story.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/salton-sea-history

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

OK, last, last word: Democracy was not overrun by the object of the Jan 6 commission. Jim would probably argue that Jan 6th wasn't that close to losing Democracy, and you would probably argue that it had not happened before I voted, but I would argue that you are both wrong and the trajectory towards autocracy (which no intellectually honest person should deny) is what actually mattered <END>

<EDIT> Actually, Richard, you would probably argue that it didn't even happen.

Hi Russ:  Your post is reasonable.  You certainly know where I stand on these sorts of things.

FWIW, TLDR will not be satisfied until you admit that the only reason any rational person would vote against Trump is because his mean tweets were triggering.  Trump's policies and management skills were without equal, right?  Fear of mean tweets is the only possible rational for an anti-Trump vote that comports with TLDR's worldview.  You may as well get it over with.  Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

OK, last, last word: Democracy was not overrun by the object of the Jan 6 commission. Jim would probably argue that Jan 6th wasn't that close to losing Democracy, and you would probably argue that it had not happened before I voted, but I would argue that you are both wrong and the trajectory towards autocracy (which no intellectually honest person should deny) is what actually mattered <END>

<EDIT> Actually, Richard, you would probably argue that it didn't even happen.

Think of Jan 6 as a systemic stress test.  The US system came through intact and nicely.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

BFD.  

You wrote this statement, I didn't:    I measure my vote by what it prevented, not what it caused.

I asked you a very specific question about what we "avoided" when we didn't elect Trump, what voting for Biden "Prevented".

I'll ask again, since you can't come up with a logical answer.   So then, what did it prevent, aside from American prosperity and saving the lives of Afghanis who assisted us?

Feel free to explain, or become Rod.  

Seriously, "BFD"?  The considered opinion of a couple of Secretaries of Defense who worked directly with the man is a strong data point for many rational voters.  Maybe not as strong a data point as an OAN editorial for other voters....

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Trump is a demagogue in every sense of the word. We avoided the continuing erosion of our democratic institutions and the norms and expectations for behavior for our elected officials. It's genuinely shocking how much Trump got away with, and we should all pray that the day that a smart incendiary fire-brand captures power never happens. The guard rails of Democracy survived Trump, but I'm not sure they would if an intelligent inflamer were to capture high office.

Good post.  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"The Court’s decision in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a boon to wealthy candidates. It strikes down an anti-bribery law that limited the amount of money candidates could raise after an election in order to repay loans they made to their own campaign."
"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) manufactured a case to try to overturn that $250,000 limit, and now, the Court has sided with him."
https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
And what was the rationale for the decision from the cons on the court? It restricts "free speech" for political discourse from a candidate! 
HS!
Can you imagine if a liberal candidate tried the same thing and brought it to the cons on the court under a free speech argument. Do you think the cons would have voted for it in that case?...

Yes.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" A new analysis prepared for The New York Times found that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been far more likely to embrace free-speech arguments concerning conservative speech than liberal speech. That is a sharp break from earlier eras."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html

The NYT is trying to fabricate a controversy from nothing.  This is about political speech, not so-called "conservative speech" or "liberal speech."   The Court knows that this opinion benefits the Ds equally.  You do realize I am sure that wealthy D candidates also loan themselves money during the campaign?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Care to expound about that? My bet would be maybe one or two cons would have possibly been swayed by that argument and the rest, led by Clarence, would have been a flat out NO!...

Find me an opinion where Thomas was hostile to political speech.  I do not think there is one.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Find me an opinion where Thomas was hostile to political speech.  I do not think there is one.

Here are some good starting points:


https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1472/reed-v-town-of-gilbert
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/145/mcconnell-v-federal-election-commission
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1504/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

In this one, Thomas stood alone in defense of unsavory political speech:
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1504/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

Bottom line, Clarence Thomas is a free speech champion for all sides and all points of view.  It is certain liberals that have become content-based speech police.  Shame on them.