"The Economist" - Trumping the Law

From the Economist: Lexington - Trumping the law

AKA - "Know thine enemy ..."

Excerpt:

Conservative lawyers are among the president’s biggest enablers.

ADDRESSING over 2,000 conservative lawyers and friends at a banquet in central Washington, DC, last week, Neil Gorsuch was in jocular form. “If you’re going to have a meeting of a secret organisation, maybe don’t have it in the middle of Union Station!” quipped the newest Supreme Court judge.

The reason many worry about the Federalist Society, the legal organisation whose annual bunfight Justice Gorsuch was addressing, is not because it is shadowy, but because its influence is vast, brazen and part of a wider politicising of the last branch of American democracy to succumb to partisanship. His speech suggested those worries are if anything underplayed.

Founded in the early 1980s, as a riposte to the legal profession’s liberal mainstream, the Federalist Society has had a hand in the past three Republican Supreme Court appointments—starting with its frosty response to George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers and promotion of Samuel Alito in her place. Yet its role in Mr Gorsuch’s elevation is much greater.

As the youngest conservative justice, he [Gorsuch] is the first to have been a beneficiary of its now-ubiquitous legal networks throughout his career.

The prospect of more ideological and active conservative judges is not intrinsically bad. The federal courts look stronger for including a range of legal philosophies. The problem is that conservatives are not striving for balance, but conquest. That is the logic of Mr Gorsuch’s divisive rhetoric.

Click to expand...

All of which will legally set-back American law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) into a hard conservative mold. (Or "mould" if one prefers.)

There is only one contravening force, and it seems to be awakening. It the Dem left-of-center philosophy. With an accent more on "philosophy" than "left". Which is goodness. Howzzat.

The political philosophies in America is not as hardened into party-camps as is the case in Europe. Americans are known to traverse the political divide when voting (from Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left.)

Which is what happened in the illegitimate last PotUS election. Despite the upsurge of the far-Right in support of our illicit president, the Hillary managed to win the popular-vote. Which was snatched from her by the hideously non-democratic Electoral College (which must go*) ...

*And since it is a mistake of the Constitution, that mistake must be made right (not "Right") by making the Electoral College vote a strict reflection of the popular-vote across the nation.

Conservatives are like members of an historical society, such as in any large city. For example, if the historical society of Boston deems an old building historical, you are not allowed modify or destroy the building, due to someone's philosophical tastes, preferring Art Deco. Those who acquire the building; accept the law of the land, are required to preserve it in the context of his original historical time. Conservatives are preservationists and they don't allow modernization which tend to benefits developers. For example, the Democrats used deep state games in an attempt to overthrown a legally elected president. This is not preservation of traditions but a form of art deco.

As a far as the Electoral College, this is also a historical structure at the conceptual level. The idea of the Constitution was to decentralize the government and give states and therefore people more rights. If the popular vote was the only thing that mattered, then smaller states would lose rights, and the elected and more centralized government, could start to favor only the most populous states.

For example, all you need to win the popular vote would be about the 10 most popular states. The other 40 are not needed. Say this happened and the President decided to pay back California for its votes, by annexing parts of Nevada, under the guise of an extended two state national park. This is art deco in an historical district that is not art deco. The 10 biggest states could use the Central Government composed of 10 states, to gobble up the smaller states, until there are only 10. They could institute national building restrictions, based on local fauna and flora, that impacts the smaller 40 states, to limit population growth. The electoral college limited the power of the larger states, and gives more power to smaller states, to avoid such centralized problems. Preservationists will not allow such deviation from original intent of conceptual construction.

The irony is the left has no problem enforcing the historical preservation of things. Go to historical Groton Massachusetts, and try to paint your house a color that is not whitewash; original intent. However, the same people are not able to extrapolate the rules of material things, to the rules of conceptual construction, that used thoughts and ideas as wood and mortar.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Lexington - Trumping the law

AKA - "Know thine enemy ..."

Excerpt:



All of which will legally set-back American law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) into a hard conservative mold. (Or "mould" if one prefers.)

There is only one contravening force, and it seems to be awakening. It the Dem left-of-center philosophy. With an accent more on "philosophy" than "left". Which is goodness. Howzzat.

The political philosophies in America is not as hardened into party-camps as is the case in Europe. Americans are known to traverse the political divide when voting (from Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left.)

Which is what happened in the illegitimate last PotUS election. Despite the upsurge of the far-Right in support of our illicit president, the Hillary managed to win the popular-vote. Which was snatched from her by the hideously non-democratic Electoral College (which must go*) ...

*And since it is a mistake of the Constitution, that mistake must be made right (not "Right") by making the Electoral College vote a strict reflection of the popular-vote across the nation.

Click to expand...

The latest Supreme Court ruling...and the part Gorsuch played in it...pretty much kicks to the curb the lamentations of this article. Perhaps they should have waited a few months before writing it, eh?

Anyway, Lafayette, regarding your crying...maybe you should just get over Hillary's loss and move on. The Electoral College worked as it was intended to work by the Founding Fathers.

Mycroft said:

The latest Supreme Court ruling...and the part Gorsuch played in it...pretty much kicks to the curb the lamentations of this article.

Click to expand...

This is a debate-forum. Do you understand what that means?

It means that if you make a remark, you substantiate it!

I'm waiting ...

Mycroft said:

Perhaps they should have waited a few months before writing it, eh?

Click to expand...

What in heaven's name does this mean?

Be specific!

Mycroft said:

Anyway, Lafayette, regarding your crying...maybe you should just get over Hillary's loss and move on. The Electoral College worked as it was intended to work by the Founding Fathers.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, the Founding Fathers lowered themselves in abject stoopidity just to rush out a Constitution. And now because our history is cast-in-concrete, so is our future.

In the matter of electing a PotUS, the Constitution has made a horrible mistake in creating an Electoral College that is not the least bit democratic in nature.

And if you cannot understand what is meant by a "democracy" or the "will of the people", then you need a Civics lesson.

Shame on you ...

Lafayette said:

This is a debate-forum. Do you understand what that means?

It means that if you make a remark, you substantiate it!

I'm waiting ...



What in heaven's name does this mean?

Be specific!



Oh yes, the Founding Fathers lowered themselves in abject stoopidity just to rush out a Constitution. And now because our history is cast-in-concrete, so is our future.

In the matter of electing a PotUS, the Constitution has made a horrible mistake in creating an Electoral College that is not the least bit democratic in nature.

And if you cannot understand what is meant by a "democracy" or the "will of the people", then you need a Civics lesson.

Shame on you ...

Click to expand...

Oh...I'm sorry. I assumed you were aware of current events. My mistake.

Never mind on the Gorsuch thing, then.

On the electoral college thing...well...if you really don't like it, change the Constitution. Have fun with that.

Mycroft said:

Oh...I'm sorry. I assumed you were aware of current events. My mistake. Never mind on the Gorsuch thing, then. On the electoral college thing...well...if you really don't like it, change the Constitution. Have fun with that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thing-this and thing-that.

Some people do not understand the negative effect that the third-arm of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) has had on this country. In the hands of confirmed Rightwingers, the nation's Top Judiciary is taking yet another turn for the worst.

We are already The MOST Developed Nation with the worst Income Disparity on earth. And the likelihood is that we shall remain that way. Until WATTS-TWO happens across the nation. (See Watts-One here.)

Can't happen? Read history and how exactly the same happened to Rome, which triggered its own downfall. The "barbarians" then (as the Romans called them) were the Gothic Tribes that sacked Rome and put-down the Roman Empire. Our end will come not from the outside but from the inside. Because we cannot understand that Income Disparity is like a cancer that eats-away one's faith in the economic system, so it prompts a people to destroy it.

The people must obtain their "fair share".

Lafayette said:

Yeah, thing-this and thing-that.

Some people do not understand the negative effect that the third-arm of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) has had on this country. In the hands of confirmed Rightwingers, the nation's Top Judiciary is taking yet another turn for the worst.

We are already The MOST Developed Nation with the worst Income Disparity on earth. And the likelihood is that we shall remain that way. Until WATTS-TWO happens across the nation. (See Watts-One here.)

Can't happen? Read history and how exactly the same happened to Rome, which triggered its own downfall. The "barbarians" then (as the Romans called them) were the Gothic Tribes that sacked Rome and put-down the Roman Empire. Our end will come not from the outside but from the inside. Because we cannot understand that Income Disparity is like a cancer that eats-away one's faith in the economic system, so it prompts a people to destroy it.

The people must obtain their "fair share".

Click to expand...

Watts had nothing to do with income disparity.

btw, Trump is doing things to deal with income disparity even though that's not his main intention.

Mycroft said:

Watts had nothing to do with income disparity.

btw, Trump is doing things to deal with income disparity even though that's not his main intention.

Click to expand...

On YOUR planet. Not on mine.

Trump is an accidental PotUS and anything he does is accidental - unless he sees it first on Fox News (that he watches all day long) ...

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Lexington - Trumping the law

AKA - "Know thine enemy ..."

Excerpt:



All of which will legally set-back American law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) into a hard conservative mold. (Or "mould" if one prefers.)

There is only one contravening force, and it seems to be awakening. It the Dem left-of-center philosophy. With an accent more on "philosophy" than "left". Which is goodness. Howzzat.

The political philosophies in America is not as hardened into party-camps as is the case in Europe. Americans are known to traverse the political divide when voting (from Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left.)

Which is what happened in the illegitimate last PotUS election. Despite the upsurge of the far-Right in support of our illicit president, the Hillary managed to win the popular-vote. Which was snatched from her by the hideously non-democratic Electoral College (which must go*) ...

*And since it is a mistake of the Constitution, that mistake must be made right (not "Right") by making the Electoral College vote a strict reflection of the popular-vote across the nation.

Click to expand...

YOu continue to show your ignorance with the constitution and history in general.

when it came time for voting matters a popular vote was a heavy favorite, however there was a lot of protests from smaller states more so in the south that a popular vote would
not be fair to them and that any president wouldn't care about their concerns since the only thing that matters in a popular vote is large urban area's.

the electoral college is a compromise of that and has worked for 200 some years.

the electoral college makes every state important not just large urban area's whose values do not always reflect the rest of the nation.

So each state conducts their own popular vote to see which electors are chosen to support a candidate.
A state has the right to distribute their electors anyway they see fit.

So a state can give all their electors to the winner, they can divide their electors based on % won. they can even give their electors to whoever wins the popular vote.
whoever it is up to each state as a whole to determine how to distribute their electors.

There is no reason that NY, CA and TX should get to determine who is president and no one else gets a say in the matter.

Mycroft said:

Oh...I'm sorry. I assumed you were aware of current events. My mistake.

Never mind on the Gorsuch thing, then.

On the electoral college thing...well...if you really don't like it, change the Constitution. Have fun with that.

Click to expand...

The electoral college has a purpose and it showed what it was designed and put in place in the last election.

Lafayette said:

From the Economist: Lexington - Trumping the law

AKA - "Know thine enemy ..."

Excerpt:



All of which will legally set-back American law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) into a hard conservative mold. (Or "mould" if one prefers.)

There is only one contravening force, and it seems to be awakening. It the Dem left-of-center philosophy. With an accent more on "philosophy" than "left". Which is goodness. Howzzat.

The political philosophies in America is not as hardened into party-camps as is the case in Europe. Americans are known to traverse the political divide when voting (from Left-to-Right and Right-to-Left.)

Which is what happened in the illegitimate last PotUS election. Despite the upsurge of the far-Right in support of our illicit president, the Hillary managed to win the popular-vote. Which was snatched from her by the hideously non-democratic Electoral College (which must go*) ...

*And since it is a mistake of the Constitution, that mistake must be made right (not "Right") by making the Electoral College vote a strict reflection of the popular-vote across the nation.

Click to expand...

Every word of your quote about the Federalist Society is utter nonsense. Of course, so is what you yourself said about the "illegitimacy" of the last election.

Harshaw said:

Every word of your quote about the Federalist Society is utter nonsense. Of course, so is what you yourself said about the "illegitimacy" of the last election.

Click to expand...

Sez you.

Without the slightest demonstration of underlying facts substantiating that opinion. (Perhaps because said facts do not exist?)

Try harder ...

Lafayette said:

Sez you.

Without the slightest demonstration of underlying facts substantiating that opinion. (Perhaps because said facts do not exist?)

Try harder ...

Click to expand...

It is the burden of those making the claims to present the evidence. Neither your source, nor you, provided any.

The claims made about the Federalist society are unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your claim about the election being "illegitimate" is unsubstantiated lunacy.

ludin said:

...when it came time for voting matters a popular vote was a heavy favorite, however there was a lot of protests from smaller states more so in the south that a popular vote wouldnot be fair to them and that any president wouldn't care about their concerns since the only thing that matters in a popular vote is large urban area's.

the electoral college is a compromise of that and has worked for 200 some years.

the electoral college makes every state important not just large urban area's whose values do not always reflect the rest of the nation.

So each state conducts their own popular vote to see which electors are chosen to support a candidate.
A state has the right to distribute their electors anyway they see fit.

Click to expand...

So what?

The nation is electing the Executive head of government for the entire population of the country. Not just states. State-wise prejudices (base on population size) are unreal and wholly unacceptable as valid reasons for a perfectly useless Electoral College*.

So useless, in fact, that any country even remotely comparable to the US economically does not employ the method. Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu. Wow, what great company the US is in ... !

*Besides, if your argument was the least bit reasonable, why not have an Electoral College in each state for Governors? (Answer the question!)

Lafayette said:

So what?

The nation is electing the Executive head of government for the entire population of the country. Not just states. State-wise prejudices (base on population size) are unreal and wholly unacceptable as valid reasons for a perfectly useless Electoral College*.

So useless, in fact, that any country even remotely comparable to the US economically does not employ the method. Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu. Wow, what great company the US is in ... !

*Besides, if your argument was the least bit reasonable, why not have an Electoral College in each state for Governors? (Answer the question!)

Click to expand...

It isn't useless and serve a purpose and that purpose was seen n the last election.
Why CA cast more votes than 34 other states.

Those states would have had their votes nullified by 1 state. That is what the electoral college was designed to prevent.

Now that doesn't stop CA from giving their votes to who wins the popular vote but that is. It smart either.

For instance is 70% of CA votes for one guy but the other guy wins the popular vote then the state just nullified 70% of their voters vote.

They could split the votes between the winning percentage.

Because other people do something different doesn't make them right and US wrong.

if states wanted to have an electoral college for gov's they could.
Just a matter of proposing that to the state legislature.

They are allowed to design their own method.

However the president is a bit different. A popular vote would mean he only has to appeal to the mass urban sector. He can ignore the rest of the country. So should they not have a say as president or should NY and CA be the only people to decide?

ludin said:

It isn't useless and serve a purpose and that purpose was seen n the last election.
Why CA cast more votes than 34 other states.

Those states would have had their votes nullified by 1 state. That is what the electoral college was designed to prevent.

Click to expand...

Rubbish!

Nullified = make legally null and void; invalidate.

Some people are born thick and NEVER take a course in Civics. The popular-vote is the ONLY VOTE credential in a True Democracy.

What the US has been doing since 1812 is to warp the sense of the National Vote for its Executive.

If that's the way you want to live, no amount of logic will help. You are condemned by ignorance and the will to manipulate the True Meaning of democracy in order to obtain perverse objectives ...

Lafayette said:

Rubbish!

Nullified = make legally null and void; invalidate.

Click to expand...

Yep and that pretty much happened. Clinton won by about 2 million votes or so.
that happens to be when NY and CA totals got turned in. up until that point
Trump was winning the popular vote. 2 states over turned the rest of the people that had
voted. that is exactly what the EC prevents.

It also shows why campaigning in states is important. HIllary never went to WI and she only made 1 trip to PA and to MI.
Trump made tons of trips to those states. He rallied people to vote for him. for the popular vote i am not going to those states at
all except made PA.

i am going to CA, NY, FL , TX and PA and that is it. The rest of the nation is not important.

Some people are born thick and NEVER take a course in Civics. The popular-vote is the ONLY VOTE credential in a True Democracy.

Click to expand...

We know you haven't taken courses.

What the US has been doing since 1812 is to warp the sense of the National Vote for its Executive.

Click to expand...

Not really. As i said states can assign their votes anyway they want to. that includes giving them over
to people who win the popular vote.

If that's the way you want to live, no amount of logic will help. You are condemned by ignorance and the will to manipulate the True Meaning of democracy in order to obtain perverse objectives ...

Click to expand...

You calling anyone ignorant when you have 0 clue what you are talking about is amazing.
we are not a democracy the fact you don't know this pretty much sums up that you have never taken a civics class.

ludin said:

The rest of the nation is not important.

Click to expand...

Hairbrained commentary from yet another Right-winger who does not understand that a democracy is based upon the volition of the voters as expressed in the Popular-Vote. And any other process is a mockery to the essence of the meaning of "democracy".

The voting method employed to elect the nation's Legislature should not be any different from that used to elect the Executive.

If you cannot understand that simple thesis, then there is no hope for you and all the others who believe that "tweaking a fundamental voting-right" that is unfair is OK as long as it gives the results intended.

Donald Dork is a pseudo-PotUS. Enjoy .... !

Lafayette said:

Hairbrained commentary from yet another Right-winger who does not understand that a democracy is based upon the volition of the voters as expressed in the Popular-Vote. And any other process is a mockery to the essence of the meaning of "democracy".

The voting method employed to elect the nation's Legislature should not be any different from that used to elect the Executive.

If you cannot understand that simple thesis, then there is no hope for you and all the others who believe that "tweaking a fundamental voting-right" that is unfair is OK as long as it gives the results intended.

Donald Dork is a pseudo-PotUS. Enjoy .... !

Click to expand...

You dishonset quoting of me is just that and why you lose have a nice day. remember this is a debate forum.
you might want to try and actually do that be addressing what people actually say, but you can't and never do.

We are not a democracy you should have learned this in 5th grade history class.

No Trump is actually President of the United states. He won the election per the constitutional guidelines.
if you have an issue with who your state distributes their reps you should contact your local government
and ask them to change it.

ludin said:

No Trump is actually President of the United states. He won the election per the constitutional guidelines.
if you have an issue with who your state distributes their reps you should contact your local government
and ask them to change it.

Click to expand...

You really need to brush-up on your comprehension of the written English language ...

Lafayette said:

You really need to brush-up on your comprehension of the written English language ...

Click to expand...

again your lack of an actual argument is seen here.
remember this is a debate forum you should try debating for once.

ludin said:

again your lack of an actual argument is seen here.
remember this is a debate forum you should try debating for once.

Click to expand...

You're really hurting, aren't you?

BRAIN-DEAD

ludin said:

However the president is a bit different. A popular vote would mean he only has to appeal to the mass urban sector. He can ignore the rest of the country. So should they not have a say as president or should NY and CA be the only people to decide?

Click to expand...

The popular-vote conducted either at the state or Federal level is the foundation-stone of any democracy. It is sheer lunacy to want to "change" that vote because of so-called "errors in representational value" that the popular-vote "might" cause state-to-state. The election of the PotUS IS NATIONAL IN NATURE AND IRREGARDLESS OF STATE POPULATIONS!

There were some in Congress at the turn of the 19th century that were indeed concerned about the "quality of an electoral vote". At the time, yes, most Americans were ignorant farmer colonials. Decent people, but not all that smart and many from the jails of British prisons.

So, this "malignancy" of an Electoral College was thought-up and passed as the 12th Amendment to confront and resolve that "problem". That "problem" is no longer as acute today as it was then. But, from this debate-forum it is abundantly clear that far too many have had too little or no Civics education whatsoever.

Moreover, the fallacy of the Electoral College is clearly evident.

Here's how: Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained - excerpt:

It’s a patchwork Frankenstein’s monster of a system, which in the best of times merely ensures millions of Americans’ votes are irrelevant to the outcome because they don’t live in competitive states, and in the worst of times could be vulnerable to a major crisis.

Amazingly enough, though, nothing in the Constitution gives American voters the right to choose their president. That power is reserved for those 538 actual people who will meet in their respective states this Monday — the electors. It's up to the states to decide how to appoint them.

Despite the oddness and unfairness of this system, its defenders argue that it ordinarily “works” just fine. States award electors based on the outcome of the popular vote in the state. Those electors almost always end up voting the way they’re expected to. And the winner of the national popular vote is usually also the winner in the Electoral College.

So rather simply trying to win the most actual votes in the country, a presidential campaign must try to put together a map of state victories that will amass more than 270 electoral votes. That’s the simplified version.

What’s happening under the hood, though, is more complicated. When people go to the polls to vote for a presidential candidate, what they are actually doing is voting for each party’s nominated slate of electors in their respective states (or, in the case of Maine and Nebraska, in congressional districts too).

So when Donald Trump won the state of Alaska, the practical effect was that the Republican Party’s nominated elector slate there — former Gov. Sean Parnell, Jacqueline Tupou, and Carolyn Leman — officially became Alaska’s three electors.

This process repeated itself across the country, resulting in the selection of the Electoral College ... (In the modern era, this ceremonial occasion has been a formality that reiterates an outcome known well in advance.)

The swing states’ dominance is a consequence of the fact that almost every state chooses to allot all its electoral votes to whoever comes in first place statewide, regardless of his or her margin of victory.

That is, it doesn’t matter whether Clinton wins New York by a 30 percent margin or a 10 percent margin, since she’ll get the same amount of electoral votes either way. But the difference between winning Florida by 0.1 percent and losing it by 0.1 percent is crucial, since 29 electoral votes could flip.

Naturally, then, when the general election comes around, candidates ignore every noncompetitive state — meaning the vast majority of the country — and pour .their resources into the few that tend to swing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. That’s the best strategy for reaching that magic number, 270.

Click to expand...

And if the contrivance of an Electoral College seems "fair" to anyone, then they are evidently brain-dead.
Which is why the US is the only developed country on earth to employ it ...