Home The Lodge

Schumer is not impressed

124

Replies

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    He did not believe that the constitution protected personal freedom.

    Just how inane is this statement? Bork didn't support freedom or religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech?
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    Gorsuch did not get the 60.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    And the Senate just went boom, 52-48.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,500 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    And the Senate just went boom, 52-48.

    Harry Reid has just been covered with chicken **** as the flock has come home to roost. Sooner or later it will be the POT's turn. But the big loser is the Senate and its tradition of debate and consensus.

    History will not treat McConnell kindly.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    POT?

    So this has been fun and earth-shaking and "historic" and whatever hysterical and breathless description the media wants to give it, but. . .

    I'm waiting for the next nominee. Then behold the fireworks.

    Ginsburg: 84 years old
    Breyer: 78 years old
    Kennedy: 80 years old.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Just how inane is this statement? Bork didn't support freedom or religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech?

    Freedom in the bedroom? I suppose you are a big supporter of sodomy laws. Without the right to privacy the government can invade your personal life and decisions regarding your family. I do not believe that the only rights that exist are those that are enumerated.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Actually, if I recall correctly,what Bork said was that the Constitution does not protect a generalized right of privacy. Which was (1) absolutely correct and (2) politically unpalatable to the democratic majority.

    Therefore unpalatable to serve.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    If the state of Iowa allowed a vote on the subject, I'd vote for legalized abortion. I'm pro-choice, just not pro-RvW.

    Rights are not subject to a vote.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,500 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    POT?

    Party of Trump, Sir, Party of Trump. :)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Then you are not pro-choice. If you believe that women have a right to make that choice, then it is not up to the states.

    If you're pro- choice, you're not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic.

    <see how this works?>


    Society is complex. Parties are coalitions that attempt to reduce that complexity to something useful. But the people within the coalition are still the same people. I have to make peace with people I don't agree with in order to further policy goals against people I really don't agree with. In short, don't tell me what I believe or don't believe.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Freedom in the bedroom? I suppose you are a big supporter of sodomy laws. Without the right to privacy the government can invade your personal life and decisions regarding your family. I do not believe that the only rights that exist are those that are enumerated.

    Again, the problem with this is that there is no limiting principle. The same unenumerated right that you believe exists to protect your rights in the bedroom protects rapacious corporations. Once you start down this road, there's no logical stopping point, and it certainly won't stop simply because progressive political goals are achieved. Most decisions in a democracy are left to voters. That's the reality.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    Freedom in the bedroom? I suppose you are a big supporter of sodomy laws. Without the right to privacy the government can invade your personal life and decisions regarding your family. I do not believe that the only rights that exist are those that are enumerated.

    As a libertarian Republican, I don't care who you boink or how. It's a question of federalism.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Again, the problem with this is that there is no limiting principle. The same unenumerated right that you believe exists to protect your rights in the bedroom protects rapacious corporations. Once you start down this road, there's no logical stopping point, and it certainly won't stop simply because progressive political goals are achieved. Most decisions in a democracy are left to voters. That's the reality.

    Not if you're comic. Even enumerated rights no longer matter once two people decide to start a business.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    By the way, why can't I be pro-choice without believing it's a woman's G-d given right to have an abortion?
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Yeah, of course its complete incoherence. What else could it be? I support this policy goal. If that means I have to either make up a constitutional right or deny that one exists I will do so.

    (edited to note that I'm not necessarily referring to Comic personally. I've seen the same sentiment expressed in the NYT).
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    ...and Gorsuch is confirmed.

    You really got to ask what Schumer thought he was gaining.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »

    You really got to ask what Schumer thought he was gaining.

    street cred with the base. They are fired up. They want to see Dems fight.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 4,214 Senior Member
    Is there such a thing as a pyrrich defeat?
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Aren't all pyrrhic victories actually defeats? :)

    I have to be honest. I never imagined McConnell's audacious gamble with Merrick Garland would pay off this big. Stunning.
  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,076 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »

    I have to be honest. I never imagined McConnell's audacious gamble with Merrick Garland would pay off this big. Stunning.

    True, but it could come back to bite the Rs in the **** down the road.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    True, but it could come back to bite the Rs in the **** down the road.
    Not as bad as kowtowing to the left would. As evidenced in the past.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Not if you're comic. Even enumerated rights no longer matter once two people decide to start a business.

    Or in Steven's case if you work for someone who wants to tell what they find acceptable. And you only give a **** because of Obama.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Again, the problem with this is that there is no limiting principle. The same unenumerated right that you believe exists to protect your rights in the bedroom protects rapacious corporations. Once you start down this road, there's no logical stopping point, and it certainly won't stop simply because progressive political goals are achieved. Most decisions in a democracy are left to voters. That's the reality.

    Funny how original intent only counts when it serves your side. The founders themselves resisted the Bill of Rights for this very reason. Show me where in the Bill of Rights where corporations are people,
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    If you're pro- choice, you're not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic.

    <see how this works?>


    Society is complex. Parties are coalitions that attempt to reduce that complexity to something useful. But the people within the coalition are still the same people. I have to make peace with people I don't agree with in order to further policy goals against people I really don't agree with. In short, don't tell me what I believe or don't believe.

    My religion should not dictate your rights. See how this works? Rights are designed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Funny how original intent only counts when it serves your side. The founders themselves resisted the Bill of Rights for this very reason. Show me where in the Bill of Rights where corporations are people,

    Go back and read what you wrote here. You're making my point, not yours.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    My religion should not dictate your rights. See how this works? Rights are designed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

    No, I don't see how this works. This is a directly contrary position to your earlier posts.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    How is that directly contrary. My position is that no individuals rights should be curtailed by someone else's religion. The very notion that the sisters of mercy's rights are curtailed by what an insurance company provides is utter ****. That same insurance pays for vasectomies, which is also against their religion. The only reason conservatives care is because of Obama.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,943 Senior Member
    Anyway, I don't want to get to wrapped around the axle with abortion and whatnot, since both sides have compelling policy arguments, and I've always tried to confine my remarks on the board about abortion to the legal regime surrounding it rather than the practice itself. So, now I'll pivot to my favorite piece of results-oriented legal thought:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/opinion/preserving-the-power-of-congress.html

    This editorial, written around the time of the oral arguments in Gonzales v. Raich, argues, rather unbelievably, that the Federal government should continue to have the untrammeled power to regulate interstate commerce, EXCEPT for marijuana. But that's not how it works. Congress either has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the text of the Constitution and attendant caselaw, or it does not. There is no principled or coherent methodology for exempting marijuana from regulation based on either. This is pure results-oriented legal thinking at work.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Go back and read what you wrote here. You're making my point, not yours.

    No I am not, corporations are not people, yet you are okay with that, so who is being contrary? You just think it is fine and dandy for the government to dictate what people do in their private lives, or at least you supported a justice who does. I find the very notion that the government can violate my privacy repugnant and contrary to our founding principles.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 25,524 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't want to get to wrapped around the axle with abortion and whatnot, since both sides have compelling policy arguments, and I've always tried to confine my remarks on the board about abortion to the legal regime surrounding it rather than the practice itself. So, now I'll pivot to my favorite piece of results-oriented legal thought:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/opinion/preserving-the-power-of-congress.html

    This editorial, written around the time of the oral arguments in Gonzales v. Raich, argues, rather unbelievably, that the Federal government should continue to have the untrammeled power to regulate interstate commerce, EXCEPT for marijuana. But that's not how it works. Congress either has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the text of the Constitution and attendant caselaw, or it does not. There is no principled or coherent methodology for exempting marijuana from regulation based on either. This is pure results-oriented legal thinking at work.

    Actually I agree with this, I do not think that the federal government does not have the right to enforce marijuana laws. Even if I think it should be legal.

    Interesting thought though, are the marijuana laws in question interstate or intrastate?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement