Jump to content

Justice Kennedy Retires, July 31.


Recommended Posts

 

Just relying on the statistical number of 37%, I will get into your flawed use of the percentage in a moment, doesnt support your claim of most.

 

37% is pretty close to a majority already all by itself. In order for those who don't understand the full ramifications of Roe to not constitute a majority, 78% of the remaining people would have to be fully aware. Are you going to make an argument that the country is split so starkly between people who are either totally ignorant or totally informed?

 

 

 

 

37% is pretty close to a majority already all by itself.

But 37% is not a majority, which is devastating to your claims about the "majority."

 

 

In order for those who don't understand the full ramifications of Roe to not constitute a majority, 78% of the remaining people would have to be fully aware.

More nebulous phrases, which only complicate your argument and certainly do not facilitate in making your point. What does the mystery phrase of "full ramifications" mean?

 

Regardless, the fact remains you have cited to no evidence a "majority...do not understand the full ramifications of Roe."

 

 

Are you going to make an argument that the country is split so starkly between people who are either totally ignorant or totally informed?

No, because I am not inclined to make speculative arguments regarding whether some significant number of the population possesses some specific knowledge. Neither am I predisposed to make claims that some significant segment of the population is lacking in or possesses some specific knowledge without proper evidentiary support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey Fozzie, it might be a little too early, but I have your new avatar picked out (assuming you don't think it's so awesome that you want to use it whichever way it goes, anyway)....    

How are the Dems going to stop it? Unless the Republicans want to keep it as a campaign issue, it's going to be done before the midterms. Even if it isn't resolved before then, I wouldn't want to bet

Speaking of majorities, both the Washington Post and NY Times have come out with articles about how Democrats are finding it near impossible to get anything going on Kavanaugh and he'll probably sail

I stand by my statement and believe that that I've sufficiently backed it up with corroborating evidence.

A data point isnt sufficient evidence for a majority.

So, you didnt corroborate your speculative statement with evidence, not any sufficient evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so. I believe it's more than sufficient for a good faith discussion.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

I am not accusing you of arguing or presenting a discussion in bad faith. Unless I am living on another planet, 37% is not a majority, and in the context here, does not reflect a majority. Hence, invoking 37% data point and relying on that data point to make a conclusion about a majority just defies common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it defies common sense to suggest that almost 4 out of 5 of the remaining population would be able to articulate what Roe said and what it means. As I said, I believe I provided ample evidence to stipulate the correctness of the statement for a good-faith casual discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it defies common sense to suggest that almost 4 out of 5 of the remaining population would be able to articulate what Roe said and what it means. As I said, I believe I provided ample evidence to stipulate the correctness of the statement for a good-faith casual discussion.

Where are you getting this 4 out of 5? Thirty seven percent man is the only concrete fact you cited for your conclusion, and 37% isnt a majority. Im not relying upon non-majority numbers to make conclusions about the majoriry, you are, and that does defy

common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Where are you getting this 4 out of 5?

 

37% don't know that Roe is about abortion at all. My original post was that people didn't understand how radical Roe was and showed that it legalized abortion through birth. So you need less than 14 of the remaining 62% not understanding that Roe effectively legalizes abortion all the way until birth to constitute a majority.

 

Simple arithmetic: 14 ÷ 62 = 22.5%

 

So, the proportion who could correctly express that would have to be a little more than 77.5%. Which I rounded up to "almost 4 out of 5". An unrealistically high figure.

 

Additionally when 63% say they agree with Roe, but only only about 12% agree with the outcome of legalized abortion all the way through birth it either means that Americans have become proficient at separating legal decisions from their preferred policy outcome for this single topic (cue laughter), or there is a major disconnect in understanding at play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where are you getting this 4 out of 5?

37% don't know that Roe is about abortion at all. My original post was that people didn't understand how radical Roe was and showed that it legalized abortion through birth. So you need less than 14 of the remaining 62% not understanding that Roe effectively legalizes abortion all the way until birth to constitute a majority.

 

Simple arithmetic: 14 ÷ 62 = 22.5%

 

So, the proportion who could correctly express that would have to be a little more than 77.5%. Which I rounded up to "almost 4 out of 5". An unrealistically high figure.

 

Additionally when 63% say they agree with Roe, but only only about 12% agree with the outcome of legalized abortion all the way through birth it either means that Americans have become proficient at separating legal decisions from their preferred policy outcome for this single topic (cue laughter), or there is a major disconnect in understanding at play.

An unrealistically high figure according to you. There hasnt been any data point cited by you to support your contention the number isnt that high.

 

And once again, when talking about the majority, you have data points which are less than 50 percent.

 

You are speculating at this point, same as before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of majorities, both the Washington Post and NY Times have come out with articles about how Democrats are finding it near impossible to get anything going on Kavanaugh and he'll probably sail through with relative ease.

 

The problem Democrats have here is the opposite of what Republicans have had for many years. Democrat politicians are aware that the courts are an area from which they can get the policies they want through without opposition. Democrats have long been the party more interested in moving the ball forward than protecting seats. See healthcare for an example. But still, they'd like to avoid messy votes if they can. Controlling courts and agencies is a perfect means for implementing policy without actually having to vote on stuff.

 

However, Democrat rank and file voters don't get particularly excited about it. It's generally technical stuff and they're used to getting their way just as a matter of course.

 

Republican voters, on the other hand, do get excited about it because they've seen, time and again, courts take a subject out of the hands of citizens (though they still haven't quite learned that lesson about government agencies). It is a major motivator among the Republican base.

 

But conversely, until recently anyway, Republican politicians didn't want to fight as hard as Democrats on the subject. Republican presidents threw away half a dozen opportunities to reshape the courts to avoid controversy. I mean, at one point Republican presidents had nominated 8 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court and the courts remained firmly in the left's hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of majorities, both the Washington Post and NY Times have come out with articles about how Democrats are finding it near impossible to get anything going on Kavanaugh and he'll probably sail through with relative ease.

 

The problem Democrats have here is the opposite of what Republicans have had for many years. Democrat politicians are aware that the courts are an area from which they can get the policies they want through without opposition. Democrats have long been the party more interested in moving the ball forward than protecting seats. See healthcare for an example. But still, they'd like to avoid messy votes if they can. Controlling courts and agencies is a perfect means for implementing policy without actually having to vote on stuff.

 

However, Democrat rank and file voters don't get particularly excited about it. It's generally technical stuff and they're used to getting their way just as a matter of course.

 

Republican voters, on the other hand, do get excited about it because they've seen, time and again, courts take a subject out of the hands of citizens (though they still haven't quite learned that lesson about government agencies). It is a major motivator among the Republican base.

 

But conversely, until recently anyway, Republican politicians didn't want to fight as hard as Democrats on the subject. Republican presidents threw away half a dozen opportunities to reshape the courts to avoid controversy. I mean, at one point Republican presidents had nominated 8 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court and the courts remained firmly in the left's hands.

The problem of appointing conservative snowflakes to the Court dates back to Eisemhowers appointment of a Republican to the Court, Earl Warren. Earl Warren arguably presided over one of the most activist Supreme Courts. Years after his appointment, Eisenhower lamented they it was one of the dumbest things he had done, and Warren mockingly said, in reference to Eisenhower, Hes no lawyer.

 

Reagan also suffered the appointment of ostensible conservatives to the Court to only discover they were liberals and moderates in sheeps clothing.

 

So, Bush 43, perceptive of weak conservatives appointed to the Court, began looking for nominees whose profile suggested it was unlikely theyd transform into a liberal or moderate, like so many Republican nominees before.

 

And you are correct, the Dems learned, from the Earl Warren era, the Court and federal judiciary can drive, ignite, instigate, facilitates, change in societal views, public policy, practice, and law. The Republicans, late to realize this fact, have now come to their senses, and seek replicate what Dems and libs did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Day One of the hearings is in the books. Democrats letting the crazies run around in the hearing and focusing on procedural nonsense that won't move anyone. Looks like the reports were right and they don't have anything and have basically given up, but are still shouting out of obligation to please their base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Spam, I'm not going to be nice about this. I know you like to find petty little crap on Twitter and post it to "poke the bear". But in that post you, a teacher, used the corpse of a student to make a bald and utterly disingenuous political smear. This is disgusting. You really need to check moral compass right because your political compass is leading you very much astray.

 

A stranger approached Kavanaugh while his back was turned and literally 3 seconds after Kavanaugh turns around, security got between them and ushered a confused Kavanaugh out the door.

 

This is political cynicism at its ugliest and cannot be justified from any angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw the video my first thought was how he was suppose to know that was the father of a Parkland victim if that's the story you're going to roll with. Then I saw that he was on CNN and MSNBC. How did they know he was the father of a Parkland victim? Did the go after him to get on TV? Did he seek them out? Disingenuous either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh is really just the Plan A nominee: intentionally radical and far right. If he gets in, great, but the person the Trump Admin really wants is the Plan B candidate, who is less radical and really the one they want. So, if/when Kavanaugh is rejected, they can put forward the Plan B person...someone the opposition is more receptive to, and it looks like the Trump Admin is compromising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that Kavanaugh wasn't the furthest right of the candidates selected. Also he's more moderate than Scalia.

 

Come on Spam, spin is making the assumption that Kavanaugh not only knew who the guy was, but intentionality decided not to shake his hand. There is nothing in that video that makes that argument hold up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Except that Kavanaugh wasn't the furthest right of the candidates selected. Also he's more moderate than Scalia.

 

Come on Spam, spin is making the assumption that Kavanaugh not only knew who the guy was, but intentionality decided not to shake his hand. There is nothing in that video that makes that argument hold up.

Do you have a link to a list, because I haven't seen one?

 

And BTW, my observation is neither good nor bad. Just seems to make sense in a negotiation to start off way extreme, then walk back a bit to settle on what you really want (or as much as you can get).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Except that Kavanaugh wasn't the furthest right of the candidates selected. Also he's more moderate than Scalia.

 

Come on Spam, spin is making the assumption that Kavanaugh not only knew who the guy was, but intentionality decided not to shake his hand. There is nothing in that video that makes that argument hold up.

Do you have a link to a list, because I haven't seen one?

 

And BTW, my observation is neither good nor bad. Just seems to make sense in a negotiation to start off way extreme, then walk back a bit to settle on what you really want (or as much as you can get).

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-top-candidates-to-be-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-2018-07-05
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh is really just the Plan A nominee: intentionally radical and far right. If he gets in, great, but the person the Trump Admin really wants is the Plan B candidate, who is less radical and really the one they want. So, if/when Kavanaugh is rejected, they can put forward the Plan B person...someone the opposition is more receptive to, and it looks like the Trump Admin is compromising.

Nah. Kavanaugh is pretty much the poster boy for a safe conservative nominee in the same vein as Roberts a dozen years ago. He's the one you go to for a non-messy confirmation battle where you know what you've got and his credentials can't be questioned. If you go back through the field of Republican primary challengers in 2016, the majority would likely have picked Kavanaugh for one of two seats they needed to fill. And likely all but Rand Paul would have at least had him on their short list. Whether it's president Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, or Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh would at least be under serious consideration.

 

That a nominee as vanilla as Kavanaugh is getting the circus treatment tells you that any Trump nominee would be getting the same. There is no Plan B that Democrats would settle down for. Not anyone acceptable anyway.

 

He introduced himself to the guy. No amount of spin is going to make the sting better or worse. So whatever, Poe. The whole things a circus.

3 seconds is not enough time to introduce yourself, tell your backstory, have the other person comprehend, and for that person to make a conscious decision to snub you. Particularly not in a chaotic situation where Kavanaugh was focused on something else and security was getting between them and trying to lead him away.

 

Only a rank partisan would accept your spin. Which is basically that Kavanaugh suddenly acted completely out of character and decided to snub the father of a murder victim while in the middle of a job interview where his complete and total goal is to do and say nothing controversial.

 

Using a dead student to make a cheap political smear is gross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...