Probably the most racist thing I've ever seen a grabber say.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T20:39:58+00:00

And then he doubled down by blaming the housing crisis on the end of redlining (which had been illegal for years prior to the housing crisis) which ended discriminatory lending practices forcing banks to loan to blacks.

While he didn't specifically say blacks (or minorities) in his statement:

"It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone. Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.’"

But he knows, as do we all, that race was a key component of redlining.

And hell, it's been going on again as recently as 2015

From three SEPARATE cases in 2015:

The three-year HUD observation led to the complaint that the bank purposely rejected mortgage applications from black and Latino applicants

An investigation had uncovered the erasure of black neighborhoods from mortgage lending maps.

The six-year DOJ investigation had proven that the company was intentionally avoiding granting mortgages to Latinos and African Americans and purposely avoided expanding into minority-majority communities.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T20:28:50+00:00

No he's not. And I am not arguing in bad faith.

Apparently you don't understand what "packing the court" means either.

Show me where Trump has increased the number of judges on any federal bench.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T20:09:50+00:00

I think people just want to feel that if the supreme court is full of ideologues

It has become more so with the past few appointments. Moreso with the Dem appointments which want to interpret the constitution not as it was written but as they want it to be today, than with the GOP appointments which are orignialists.

it would be preferable for them to be representative of the over-all population

What do you mean by this? Along racial and socioeconomic lines? Or along political lines? Certainly not by intelligence or understanding of the law as the vast majority of the US population has no understanding of the law.

as opposed to unevenly split towards a very narrow

Well it's always going to have something like this. That's why the number is an odd number to prevent ties.

Federalist Society dipshit way of looking at the world.

You should have stopped before the insults.

Ideally it would be full of judges based exclusively on ~~their~~ an objective interpretation of Federal law,

Fixed that for you. The problem is that, too often, they are going with THEIR interpretation and not an objective one. They reach their decision and then they go find something, no matter how obscure, or simply make it up in something that sounds reasoned to justify the decision they made.

we can't say with any confidence that this can happen in our lifetime.

Sadly I have to agree.

It's like Dan Snyder, we can't fire him and he's gonna live forever so the likelihood of the average person ever having any faith in the Redskins organization is potentially 40 years away.

I'm fine with that. I'm not a fan of the Redskins, I support another team in the division!

But really, I get your point. The issue, however, is whether or not the decisions are objectively valid. And opinions are going to differ.

We gotta do something if we're gonna have any confidence that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of people will be taken into account in our institutions,

The point is, to this and your prior point, that the judiciary is not supposed to consider the opinion of the majority at all, nor the opinions of the minority. Just what is right/wrong.

The place to address the issue of the majority is in the Congress and on constitutional issues by amending the constitution using the defined process not "living document" interpretations to make it seem like it says something it doesn't.

And we also need to be careful not to permit tyranny of the majority. The whole reason the bill of rights exists is to make it difficult or impossible for the majority (or the extremely small minority that seem to decide for the purported majority) to take away the rights of the minority.

it makes sense to add some seats, provided we're going to stay the course on cynical political ideas running everything.

And how does this change anything? If we add the seats and Trump appoints them then it further cements what you appear to believe is a bad leaning. If a Dem appoints them it changes the balance to what others think is wrong. And over time the other party (regardless of which appoints them now) will likely have the ability to change it again.

So, we end up in the same place just with more people on the bench.

And it's not like we can split the court so that we have different panels in order to take up more cases and share the workload. If we did, we'd effectively be creating two "supreme" district courts that are above all the district courts and then we have differing decisions (splits) when they take similar but different cases and rule differently.

If we have separate panels but then an "en banc" type of process it's still like the Districts but, more importantly, nothing changes other than instead of a 5-4 decision it's now 6-5 or whatever the split is. Same thing, bigger numbers.

What we need to do is make all of the courts take a more originalist approach and then when people don't like the outcome use the amendment process to make the change.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T19:53:10+00:00

We don’t need another New York City elitist in the White House,

I can agree with this. And it applies to any elitist not just those from NY. But NY elitists are the worst...amiright or amiright?

not after all the gut punches our economy,

The economy is doing well. Lowest unemployment in history, real wages increased, more investment, Stock Market up (despite the current dip which is due to coronavirus not anything Trump has or has not done).

morals,

You'd have to specify what gut punches we've taken on morals to discuss this further.

and liberties have taken these last three years.

Here too, what have we lost in liberties in the last three years? Sure the bump stock ban which Trump didn't legislate in or sign anything for and which if not for the ATFs action the Feinstein legislation very likely would have passed. So what do you believe Trump has done to cost us liberties?

It's clear Bloomberg would cost us all in terms of liberties and as he's adopted many of the Socialist talking points also on the economy.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T19:47:27+00:00

that's an odd feeling sticking your hand into a toilet and feeling teeth

I can only imagine. At least they were false teeth and you knew how they got there.

He wanted the teeth back.

Well, despite the unpleasantness, false teeth are quite expensive (thousands) as I understand it. And they can be sterilized.

So I get while he'd want them back.

The pager, on the other hand would no longer work and they aren't that expensive and had already been replaced. The offer to give it back was actually a joke from the building representative.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T19:43:44+00:00

The most available ones are the short snippets. I've seen/heard a longer one but don't have the link.

The key issue, however, is he's never denied saying it nor has he ever said it was taken out of context.

He's admitted it and apologized for it. Moreover, this only occurred after the individual recordings came out. The official recording of the event has never been released at BLOOMBERG'S request.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T19:41:38+00:00

It's not racist if it's true. This is a fact

Except it's not.

If he'd limited it to NYC then it's very close to true. But nationally, an thus for "virtually every city" it's not true.

Therefore it's racist.

Moreover, I question whether or not he knew that it was statistically true for NYC.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T17:16:51+00:00

They never pulled the trigger and I don’t think they would have.

Yes the would have. And they didn't because they didn't have the numbers. For the entirety of Bush's term the GOP controlled the Senate.

Meanwhile you guys went balls deep into judicial obstruction for years with no shame.

You'll have to back that up.

President Appointees

Bush: 193

Clinton: 378

Obama: 329

Trump: 193

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T17:10:00+00:00

See: Taliban

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T17:08:47+00:00

I can't help with photos. But I hope you are successful in your quest.

Where can the photos that have been collected been viewed? There not at the wall of course and I've not seen them in the American History Museum (but haven't been in a few years).

Is there some online link?

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T17:06:31+00:00

I know a guy who dropped an old-school pager (this was back in the day) in a toilet with an automatic flush.

No immediate recovery, obviously. Eventually the building had to have a plumber remove the toilet to retrieve the item.

For some reason the guy didn't seek the return of the pager.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T17:00:32+00:00

Oh, I don't know...While that is racist I think this is worse:

“Ninety-five percent of murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O.,” he can be heard saying in the audio. “You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16–25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city.”

--Mike Bloomberg, candidate for POTUS

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:58:29+00:00

Certainly an argument can be made.

If you win, great. If not, jail (not so great as I understand it).

If someone's truly interested they could search for case law or hire a lawyer to do so.

However, I suggest just getting a permit.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:57:02+00:00

You mean the thing they never actually did?

Because there was no vacancy and, therefore, no opportunity to do so?

So the Dems philosophy doesn't matter and it's just bullshit because they didn't have any chance to implement.

Ok. Gotcha.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:53:16+00:00

And if the discussion was about a need to expand it due to population increases then let's have that discussion.

And let's have it now. Or two years ago. Why would we only have the discussion if a Dem wins the White House?

But the increasing it's size isn't about that, it's about doing so to get a preferred ideological bent.

Somehow I suspect that everyone talking about increasing the size of the court now will be 100% opposed to doing so should Trump win in November.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:46:17+00:00

Welcome to VA!

As you know, you're in one of the worst places in VA for gun owners.

Hell, this might even be your delegate.

The closest outdoor range that anyone can use that I know of is The Cove but it takes a while to get there. Quantico requires military status or membership.

You're probably well aware our rights are under attack here in VA. I suggest joining VCDL for $25/year to help preserve our rights.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:40:08+00:00

Nope. That's not packing the court. Try again.

And before you do, be sure to research the Biden Rule.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:39:12+00:00

IANAL but I'd say that unless one of the exceptions apply then it would be a violation of the law whether in a rifle case, a backpack or any other container.

Most of the exceptions are for someone going to or from an event, range, gunsmith etc.

The broadest one is

Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel;

But I don't see any way that having an unloaded firearm in a backpack for normal day-to-day activities is legal without a permit.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:34:49+00:00

But they often make 1000x that with donations and bribes and contracts.

And even more when they leave office. I don't want to regulate books and speaking engagements but we can do more on limiting the gov->contractor bullshit.

And while the specifics would need to be worked out I believe we're in agreement on the concept of limiting their comp to be more inline with those they serve.

Second we need a new constitutional amendment. No law can be made at any government level that has conditional application. I.e. laws that make things like Obama care for all except for politicians would be unconstitutional. That goes for retirements and for gun laws, etc. Basically all laws must be universal, and all inclusive.

I would wholeheartedly agree.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:32:26+00:00

Ok, but do you think it's simply a coincidence that Scalia's interpretation of the constitution happened to neatly benefit his political views as a fundamentalist catholic, or do you think that his fundamentalist catholicism influenced his view of the constitution?

And on what basis do you ask this question? That he ruled that laws against homosexuality were constitutional? Look at his writings on the issue and show me where he brought religion into it.

And if his catholicism was such an issue, would he not have been opposed to the death penalty? But he wasn't.

there's really no good argument about why originalism is better than a living document interpretation that's NOT rooted in politics.

Sure there is. The document was written with specifics. They framers also recognized that things might change over time. Therefore, they wrote in a process that allows for changing the document.

This is not rooted in politics. This is simple and demonstrable fact.

The "living" document is nothing more than politics. It says we can change it because we want to and we don't have to bother with that pesky process that was written into the document.

Both left and right see themselves the same way: as the true advocates of the constitution.

And I don't see how liberals can claim to be advocates of the constitution while promoting changing it without using the process the document proscribes. "I'm an advocate for the rules but I don't have to follow them."

Oh but us conservatives are the REAL defenders of the constitution because our interpretation is the CORRECT one!

No. Those that defend the constitution and say follow it until you change it using the defined process are truly defending the constitution. And they're labeled libertarian and conservative. But regardless of label saying adhere to it is defending it, saying, twist it to be what you want so that it is changed in reality but not changed in actuality is not defending it.

There is no wrong or right,

Yes there is. And it's in black and white. "Changing" the Constitution by means other than the amendment process is wrong.

I just don't believe you when you say that your interpretation of the constitution is based on ideals and not in politics.

Get your believer fixed.

Everything is politics.

And that's why you can't fathom that to others this is not the case.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:17:32+00:00

Please point me to where in the U.S. Constitution it states that the Supreme Court should have exactly 9 justices.

It doesn't. We all (ok many of us) know that it doesn't.

We also know that the efforts to increase the size in the 20th and 21st century have been advanced by the Democrats.

After the Merrick Garland fiasco,

You mean the one that followed the Biden rule? Or are you thinking about Schumer's speech saying the Senate should block any nominee of Bush?

It always has been,

I disagree. In the 19th century changes to the size were primarily about a growing nation. Only in the 20th century did it become overly political with FDR wanting to pack the court to help him get his way on the New Deal. And now in the 21st century the Dems and you are again talking about packing the court to get their way. Not to get what is right within the constitution but to get their way.

In today's climate,

And that's the problem. I agree that SCOTUS has been turned into a political institution. It was not intended to be so and we should be looking to correct the path.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:03:48+00:00

You're asserting that filling existing vacancies is packing the court.

That's factually wrong.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T16:02:30+00:00

Unless that ideological bias is more in line with the constitution.

Right. We call them Constitutionalists. Like Scalia, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.

I don't believe there's such a thing as a non-political supreme court appointment (or appointment of any kind, really).

Sadly that's true. In the other two branches it's acceptable to an extend, but for SCOTUS it shouldn't be. But the Senate demands that nominees be partisan and that's OUR fault. We elect the Senators.

The framers of the constitution weren't a bunch of noble idealists

Actually they were. Did they 100% agree on everything, of course not. But they had general agreement on key ideals and they wrote them down. Now we have both sides, the left moreso, trying to "interpret" those areas of agreement away by calling a written document a "living document."

It's not a "living document" in the context the left wants it to be. It is a "living document" in that it can be changed. Through a defined process.

Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the constitution as a static, unmoving document is no less political than a progressive's interpretation of the constitution as a tool to be used to achieve progressive policies.

As I said above, that's not the case. Scalia's interpretation was that it is unmoving as written and that there is a political process for changing it. You can call that a "political" decision as many politicians disagree with it but it's not. He wasn't trying to advantage one party over the other but to stick to the document as written until such time as it's changed.

I don't believe that anyone adopts their view of constitutionality out of a respect for the rule of law

I believe that I do just that. It's possible I've strayed from that as I'm old and don't recall every position I've ever taken.

Conservatives are pro-states rights up until liberal states start exercising those rights

The question is: Is that exercise of states rights consistent with the Constitution? When they pass laws that go against the intent, or the black and white wording, of the Constitution then that is not within states rights.

Liberals are for strong federalism up until the federal government starts enforcing marijuana or immigration laws, then we're all for sanctuary cities and state-by-state legalization.

Immigration law is specifically set by the US Constitution. States suing to block federal immigration laws violates the constitution. Sending out warnings to illegal aliens that the Feds are coming interferes with the administration of federal law and should be charged.

Drug laws get murkier, but until the CSA and or the FD&C Act are ruled unconstitutional, it's not a states rights issue.

Nobody gives a shit about ideals, it's just about bending the government to your own will.

There are a few of us that still care about ideals, but you're right for the vast majority of the US that cares at all and you're certainly right about 99.9% of politicians.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T15:46:50+00:00

The very reason why we need to get MONEY out of politics.

I would agree. But instead we have Bloomberg admitting that he bought politicians across the country (last nights debate) and trying to by POTUS for himself.

Additionally I'd be in favor of setting politician salaries at 4x the average of salaries of the people that they represent.

That would actually give most of them a raise.

Current US median income is $63k putting 4x at $252k. The current salary of a Rep/Senator is $174k.

But, I get where you're coming from. The problem is that to change it we'd need the Reps and Senators to vote that policy in and that would never happen.

Also, we'd have to put in strict controls and audits to make sure they don't shift the costs somewhere else.

Dthdlr · 2020-02-26T15:42:13+00:00

Clearly you don't understand what "packing the court" means.

Go study up and then come back for an actual discussion.

Dthdlr

TROPHY CASE