Landmark SCOTUS Ruling On Affirmative Action

[AU9377 5,025]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I will say Justice Jackson’s dissent is alarming. She espouses a dangerous theory of judicial reasoning. It has very little to do, at best, with legal analysis; and all to do with building a self-perceived social consensus. That is not the role of a judge. Granted, I would hope no such theory ever surfaces in a majority opinion. 

She should have made an effort to base her argument on a government's compelling interest in affirmative action programs and less on sounding angry. That was my take anyway.

[GoAU 1,600]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

The time Clarence Thomas said affirmative action was ‘critical’ for society

By Timothy Bella

 

Four decades before…..

 

Love the ironies. 😉

Hmm, so opinions are a lifetime thing?  My opinion on a lot of things has changed in 40 years.  Some haven’t - some days a still like desert before dinner…..

[homersapien 11,428]

22 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Hmm, so opinions are a lifetime thing?  My opinion on a lot of things has changed in 40 years.  Some haven’t - some days a still like desert before dinner…..

I'd say basic values and character are pretty much a lifetime thing.  Opinions may change, but only at the margins. 

Thomas is WAY to consistent with his ultra-conservatism for me to respect.  He's too radical.

Edited July 1, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

I think I know what your saying, but don’t “conservative” and “radical” seem mutually exclusive?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I think I know what your saying, but don’t “conservative” and “radical” seem mutually exclusive?

That’s why modern conservatives aren’t conservatives and true conservatives are never Trump.

[GoAU 1,600]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s why modern conservatives aren’t conservatives and true conservatives are never Trump.

So where do you think modern conservatives are different from what you define as “true conservatives”?   Application of the Constitution from an “Originalist” perspective isn’t a new idea at all.   I’m just curious as to what you think changed.   I’d prefer just not throwing the name “Trump” without stating the actual principals / policies you are referring to.  It’s clear Trumps personality is very polarizing.  However, when you refer to conservatives as a whole clearly you’re talking about more than his personality.  There are plenty of conservatives that could do without his personality, but tolerate it as either the “lesser of two evils” or, just to be honest, enjoy the way he enraged liberals.   

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

So where do you think modern conservatives are different from what you define as “true conservatives”?   Application of the Constitution from an “Originalist” perspective isn’t a new idea at all.   I’m just curious as to what you think changed.   I’d prefer just not throwing the name “Trump” without stating the actual principals / policies you are referring to.  It’s clear Trumps personality is very polarizing.  However, when you refer to conservatives as a whole clearly you’re talking about more than his personality.  There are plenty of conservatives that could do without his personality, but tolerate it as either the “lesser of two evils” or, just to be honest, enjoy the way he enraged liberals.   

Conservatives historically have been wary of rapid changes in policy or approach that cause significant disruption to the status quo. They tend to opt for gradual and incremental change. Thus, they understand that longstanding precedent has established norms that should be approached with caution. For example, they might opt for reasonable restrictions on abortion but be wary of dramatic ones. They also tie decisions to longstanding principles and are thus predictable and not given to the whims of a charismatic leader. They value alliances and relationships. They aren’t populists, in fact, they are very wary of them. I see Eisenhower as a traditional conservative. True conservatives aren’t motivated by enraging liberals. That’s pure tribalism and folks who say they don’t like Trump, but just want to enrage liberals are fooling themselves.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Conservatives historically have been wary of rapid changes in policy or approach that cause significant disruption to the status quo. They tend to opt for gradual and incremental change. Thus, they understand that longstanding precedent has established norms that should be approached with caution. For example, they might opt for reasonable restrictions on abortion but be wary of dramatic ones. They also tie decisions to longstanding principles and are thus predictable and not given to the whims of a charismatic leader. They value alliances and relationships

You have this part correct.

 

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s pure tribalism and folks who say they don’t like Trump, but just want to enrage liberals are fooling themselves.

This is where your assumptions fall apart.  The Democrats have been, in the time of Eisenhower, were just to the left of center and most of the country were divided between small policy differences.  The conservatives at that time was a *go along to get along* type of attitude.  In 1945 George Orwell famously said “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”  That saying really didn’t take hold for conservatives until recently.  The left, as opposed to the Democratic Party, is like a teenager that has manipulated their parents into believing they are wise beyond their years.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party in recent years has succumbed to this belief.

So, enraging the liberals (left) is not the goal, but a byproduct of resisting the utter foolishness that the left has subjected the conservatives to.  Who, in their right mind, would believe a male child could believe and be encouraged to believe he could, through puberty blockers and surgery, become a female child?  This is what George Orwell warned us about the intelligentsia.  Conservatives step back and say no one could possibly believe this and the left say that it’s true and you have to believe what we say.  So when you say we want to enrage liberals, it’s hard not to when the liberals are enraged when they are confronted.

This engaging the liberals on matters like this is not a Trump byproduct, it is conservatives knowing a line has been crossed and normality is what we seek.  Trump has just given the left a scapegoat that conservatives have to overcome.

The difference in conservative values and the liberal foolishness is shown in the consenting view of Clarence Thomas as opposed to the dissenting view  of Brown-Jackson.

Michigan is discussing a 5 year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for anyone that makes someone uncomfortable with their speech.  You will conform or we will hurt you.

Michigan's Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a number of bills last week increasing penalties for hate crimes as part of a package of legislation that would alter the state's Ethnic Intimidation Act.

Introduced in April, House Bill 4474 would expand the definition of hate crimes by protecting classes of sex, sexual orientation, age, gender identity or physical or mental disabilities, and other “actual or perceived characteristics of another Individual.” Religion, ethnicity, and race are protected under Michigan's current law from 1988.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michigan-cracks-down-hate-crimes-with-bill

 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You have this part correct.

 

This is where your assumptions fall apart.  The Democrats have been, in the time of Eisenhower, were just to the left of center and most of the country were divided between small policy differences.  The conservatives at that time was a *go along to get along* type of attitude.  In 1945 George Orwell famously said “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”  That saying really didn’t take hold for conservatives until recently.  The left, as opposed to the Democratic Party, is like a teenager that has manipulated their parents into believing they are wise beyond their years.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party in recent years has succumbed to this belief.

So, enraging the liberals (left) is not the goal, but a byproduct of resisting the utter foolishness that the left has subjected the conservatives to.  Who, in their right mind, would believe a male child could believe and be encouraged to believe he could, through puberty blockers and surgery, become a female child?  This is what George Orwell warned us about the intelligentsia.  Conservatives step back and say no one could possibly believe this and the left say that it’s true and you have to believe what we say.  So when you say we want to enrage liberals, it’s hard not to when the liberals are enraged when they are confronted.

This engaging the liberals on matters like this is not a Trump byproduct, it is conservatives knowing a line has been crossed and normality is what we seek.  Trump has just given the left a scapegoat that conservatives have to overcome.

The difference in conservative values and the liberal foolishness is shown in the consenting view of Clarence Thomas as opposed to the dissenting view  of Brown-Jackson.

Michigan is discussing a 5 year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for anyone that makes someone uncomfortable with their speech.  You will conform or we will hurt you.

Michigan's Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a number of bills last week increasing penalties for hate crimes as part of a package of legislation that would alter the state's Ethnic Intimidation Act.

Introduced in April, House Bill 4474 would expand the definition of hate crimes by protecting classes of sex, sexual orientation, age, gender identity or physical or mental disabilities, and other “actual or perceived characteristics of another Individual.” Religion, ethnicity, and race are protected under Michigan's current law from 1988.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michigan-cracks-down-hate-crimes-with-bill

 

Watch a Trump rally. Read his tweets. Not a lot of policy. It’s mostly owning the libs. If it were policy, other Republicans would be doing better than Trump in the polls. But tell yourself what you need to.

[homersapien 11,428]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

I think I know what your saying, but don’t “conservative” and “radical” seem mutually exclusive?

Conservatives value and respect the constitution and our rule of law.  Radical "conservatives" (aka MAGAs) don't.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Watch a Trump rally. Read his tweets. Not a lot of policy. It’s mostly owning the libs. If it were policy, other Republicans would be doing better than Trump in the polls. But tell yourself what you need to.

Why would I want to watch a Trump rally, I’ve seen his act.  The other republicans have to wait until his act is no longer relevant, that may never come, but there is hope.  The point is conservatives are not tied to Trump even though you paint it that way.

[homersapien 11,428]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s why modern conservatives aren’t conservatives and true conservatives are never Trump.

Liz Cheney speaks to this very eloquently:

Liz Cheney is a good illustration for my comments on an earlier thread in which I said I generally  value character and values more than policy  proposals.

I may or may not agree with her on policy issues, but I would never rule out voting for her on the basis of values and character.  She is eligible for my vote.

[homersapien 11,428]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

So where do you think modern conservatives are different from what you define as “true conservatives”?   Application of the Constitution from an “Originalist” perspective isn’t a new idea at all.   I’m just curious as to what you think changed.   I’d prefer just not throwing the name “Trump” without stating the actual principals / policies you are referring to.  It’s clear Trumps personality is very polarizing.  However, when you refer to conservatives as a whole clearly you’re talking about more than his personality.  There are plenty of conservatives that could do without his personality, but tolerate it as either the “lesser of two evils” or, just to be honest, enjoy the way he enraged liberals.   

Good grief man.

How about refusing to accept the results of a fair and legal election followed by an insurrectionist attempt to overthrow the results of that election? 

Just for starters.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

39 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Watch a Trump rally. Read his tweets. Not a lot of policy. It’s mostly owning the libs. If it were policy, other Republicans would be doing better than Trump in the polls. But tell yourself what you need to.

Apparently, he thinks "owning the libs" is a legitimate criteria to define conservatism:

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

.....There are plenty of conservatives that could do without his personality, but tolerate it as either the “lesser of two evils” or, just to be honest, enjoy the way he enraged liberals.   

Which makes your case.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why would I want to watch a Trump rally, I’ve seen his act.  The other republicans have to wait until his act is no longer relevant, that may never come, but there is hope.  The point is conservatives are not tied to Trump even though you paint it that way.

Polls clearly demonstrate most are tied to Trump and folks who act similarly. If it were policy there are other choices folks aren’t making. Don’t blame me for reality.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

The 2 party only, no term limits,  watch only the news that you agree with environments has screwed up/ radicalized what a democrat and republican is beyond recognition. It’s a mess that almost needs a reboot. When one party can now produce an aoc and the other mtg, we’ve come off the rails.  As for trump -  banana republic populist autocrat stuff I wouldn’t have believed a 1st world country could elect .

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Polls clearly demonstrate most are tied to Trump and folks who act similarly. If it were policy there are other choices folks aren’t making. Don’t blame me for reality.

I’m blaming you for a myopic view of conservatives.  The polls you’re referencing are about Republicans and they are polls that reflects today’s thoughts.  Let’s see where we are next year at this time.

Edited July 2, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

When one party can now produce an aoc and the other mtg, we’ve come off the rails.

I couldn’t help it:

 

This made me laugh.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m blaming you for a myopic view of conservatives.  The polls you’re referencing are about Republicans and they are polls that reflects today’s thoughts.  Let’s see where we are next year at this time.

I’m myopic for seeing what’s been in front of me for 7 years instead of seeing the speculative future you hope for that reflects what Republicans truly want? Aren’t you essentially saying these Republicans choosing Trump are being irrational because he doesn’t offer what they truly want?

[aubaseball 2,648]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good grief man.

How about refusing to accept the results of a fair and legal election followed by an insurrectionist attempt to overthrow the results of that election? 

Just for starters.

 

Again with this fair and legal crap.   States changed their voting rules to accommodate Covid without going through the proper process that had occurred for a 100 years.   Was it really a legal election?   Insurrection?   Fine call it what you will.   Do you really believe the people that was in there was really capable of overthrowing the government?   Ole horns guy was escorted around the capitol by capitol police?   Was an overthrow really taking place ?   A disruption was happening but the ability of that group to overthrow the government was laughable.   The members of congress were escorted away and the process was going to continue once the building was clear.  There was never a doubt that Biden was going to be voted in by the House and Senate.     

[TexasTiger 13,000]

5 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Again with this fair and legal crap.   States changed their voting rules to accommodate Covid without going through the proper process that had occurred for a 100 years.   Was it really a legal election?   Insurrection?   Fine call it what you will.   Do you really believe the people that was in there was really capable of overthrowing the government?   Ole horns guy was escorted around the capitol by capitol police?   Was an overthrow really taking place ?   A disruption was happening but the ability of that group to overthrow the government was laughable.   The members of congress were escorted away and the process was going to continue once the building was clear.  There was never a doubt that Biden was going to be voted in by the House and Senate.     

You’re focusing on the clowns. Look at the oath keepers. You’re seeing what you want, ignoring what you don’t want to see.

[aubaseball 2,648]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re focusing on the clowns. Look at the oath keepers. You’re seeing what you want, ignoring what you don’t want to see.

Please.   That group of misfits couldn’t overthrow a Boy Scout meeting 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

17 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Please.   That group of misfits couldn’t overthrow a Boy Scout meeting 

It’s about intent. Their’s and Trump’s. You want to ignore the obvious because you don’t care. Or perhaps you’re disappointed they’re incompetent.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

The Jan 6 spin of it was all a msnbc conspiracy exaggeration  - just a few nutty guys that got  a little out of control narrative is simply amazing.   Hannity would be proud. Obviously they wouldn’t have overthrown the gov - but it was thousands, people died, they violently took control of   the capital - dear lord they built a friggin gallows. The goal with  handling crazies is to try to keep them from … being crazy. Not weaponizing and unleashing them. As trump bragged in 2016 - he could tell his supporters to shoot someone, and they’d do it.

[LPTiger 5,173]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The Jan 6 spin of it was all a msnbc conspiracy exaggeration  - just a few nutty guys that got  a little out of control narrative is simply amazing.   Hannity would be proud. Obviously they wouldn’t have overthrown the gov - but it was thousands, people died, they violently took control of   the capital - dear lord they built a friggin gallows. The goal with  handling crazies is to try to keep them from … being crazy. Not weaponizing and unleashing them. As trump bragged in 2016 - he could tell his supporters to shoot someone, and they’d do it.

Does Pelosi bear any blame for what happened on that day?  The Chief of the Capitol Police asked for National Guard troops on Jan. 3.   On one hand you have 100's of idiots who have not been elected to run our country and on the other you have the Speaker of the House who was elected and won the speakership and as a result was responsible for security.   If the Guard had been present would Jan. 6 even be a thing?