|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
So Trump is right and the system is rigged?
While they certainly provide a greater social net than the US, political scientists don't describe Scandinavian countries as socialist. Think Ikea. Huge difference inthe scale of government control.
1. I don't know of any Supreme Court Justices who have no judicial experience, or no actual legal experience. Chief Justice Warren had only a few years worth, but he did have some. I only checked the justices from the last hundred years from this list, so if there was one in the 1700s or 1800s, let me know. Most of the Supreme Court's case load is death penalty review, and federal statutory construction. The sexy constitutional stuff is what makes the press.
2. I've only read two of Judge Posner's books, but I agree he is Supreme Court material. He was (is still?) an adjunct professor at U Chicago (or as they term it a Senior Lecturer). Judge Posner has 35 years of experience as an appellate judge, which alone qualifies him. Not sure what you're trying to say. President Obama was an adjunct professor (part time, non tenured, ect). That was clear in my original post.
As for President Obama being "qualified", as stated above there are no actual qualifications. It will never happen, but hey, I may be wrong -- look at President/ Chief Justice Taft.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Congrats. Ability to make choices good.
1. President Obama has little legal experience actually practicing law. Has he ever practiced law inside an actual courtroom? All the current justices have had a great deal of actual courtroom experience.
2. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago as an adjunct(Wikipedia lists his final title as Senior Lecturer), but I don't think that going to be high on the list of qualifications.
3. Why would he go from the presidency to being an Associate Justice? His boss would be Chief Justice Roberts.
4. A President H. Clinton would want to put her own stamp on the Supreme Court.
Again, it may be private funding meetings or something similar, not health related. But H. Clinton is having far less rallies than President Obama during the same period during 2012. See this website for his schedule. Of course, President Obama wasn't a CEO, just the President of the United States.
I do think comments like she looks tired, or he sounds unhinged are within the bounds of appropriate political commentary. I don't think lay people, or even medical doctors, should pseudo diagnose people they have never examined with alleged physical or mental issues.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.
And this isn't even the usual political/corporate corruption kind of thing, where you have subordinates convicted right and left, but can't quite get the evidence to prove the head figure was guilty. She doesn't have people taking the fall for her.
Whether or not it is more or less than other presidential candidates (I wouldn't even think there's a fair way to measure), the Clintons are certainly associated with people who have criminal records. Did they take a dive for the Clintons, unknown and never proven.
Sant Chatwal, as one example.
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: I want to go from 15-20 year old banged up particle board to something moderately more classy.
I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.
But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.
Not having sufficient places to vote and long lines are legitimate concerns. I've had to wait two hours to vote, I can't imagine doing that when having to pick up kids, get to work, ect.
FYI, compulsory voting has been required in Australia since 1924. It works for the most part. You either vote (more precisely show up, you don't actually have to vote), or mail an excuse form, or pay a small fine. In these days of absentee voting, and early voting, it would work wonders to get everybody voting.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I admit to being lazy and not checking. Still, do you agree that people shouldn't be on the voting lists in two states at the same time?
EDIT: OK now checked, they do look a little nutso so disregard.
And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.
That's easier. Fine people who neither vote or file an excuse card, similar to jury duty.
@ Orfamay Quest
At least you moved from "not a trace" to not worth it (if I understand you correctly, not trying to put words in your mouth). I wonder how many people would be caught if we actually looked for voter fraud by requiring ID for voting, like most of the industrialzed world.
I do see the point that non ID fraud is possibly (likely?) a bigger source of voting fraud.
Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades.
Cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate. And the structural issues vs individual fraud issues is a fair point especially in light of cost vs benefit."There hasn't been a trace if it in decades" were going to have to disagree on.
See ABC's reporting here.
captain yesterday wrote:
Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.
Can't agree with this one despite hearing it a lot. People are paid to get voters to the voting both. Some people are going to take advantage of the situation to get paid, just like tax fraud by identity theft, only easier. Proof of voter registration by ID to prevent fraud is required by almost every EU member, for example.
Now, discrimination is evil, and requiring proof the voter is a voter absolutely shouldn't be done in a discrimatory fashion. But claiming voter fraud doesn't exist only serves to disenfranchise voters.
So how do you make make voter fraud less likely without disenfranchising people? I have no problem with registration, in fact I think it is a necessity to prevent voter fraud. How do we get there without disenfranchisement?
Free I.D.'s to every living citizen of voting age?
People motivated by distaste for the other side may result in increased turnout. People with distaste for both may lead to lower turnout (or less likely - increased 3rd party turnout).
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Theodore Roosevelt was kind of a hawk like Clinton, and had the fun bonus of being super-duper racist. If you're going to bring someone back who did lots of good and also tons of bad, you might as well bring back Nixon and have done.
They brought Nixon back as president in Futurama with reasonably good results.
Or to make it a bipartisan critcism, "not Bush" was all Kerry had in '04, also not resulting in a win. In each case, an exageration.
Still, I think most people on both sides of the politcal spectrum would like to actually hear ideas of what will be done, instead of the constant belittling of the other side which has become our political discourse.
I don't understand the all or nothing part. Why wouldn't the UK make deals similar to the US, trade with minimal tariffs>, and no real control over the US sovereignty> Also, I have a hard time seeing the UE pushing TIPP with the US, and leaving out the separated UK.
Of coarse, with the nominees of both major American political parties stating free trade may not be so free in the future, you could make an argument tariffs may soon rise, and TIPP won't be passed any time soon. Even so, Germany sales a lot of cars to the UK, so tariffs aren't going to be too high.
Mirror Universe Feiya:
Mirror Universe Feiya CR 4
----- Defense -----
----- Offense -----
----- Tactics -----
----- Statistics -----
----- Special Abilities -----
Inner Sea World Guide - 25 ("Aquatic elves are identical to normal elves, save that they have the aquatic subtype, the amphibious special quality, a swim speed of 30 feet, and replace the standard elf weapon familiarity with proficiency with rapiers, short swords, tridents, and any weapon with the word “elven” in its name.")
Elves of Golarion - 13
PFS 2-13 Murder on the Throaty Mermaid - 5-7
AP 56 Raiders of the Fever Sea - 59
Well well well. Now, let's see how everyone likes his replacement. If it's Donald Trump making the nomination, many many many people will suddenly find Scalia laudable who did not before.
If Trump is elected, we'll get a HUGE new justice.If Sanders is elected we'll get a huuuge new justice.
Whether you agree with his opinions or not, Justice Scalia was a brilliant and consistent jurist. I've seen very liberal lawyers who argued in front of him state he was brilliant. He had a dark and wicked sense of humor from what I've seen on TV, and unfortunately, this type of humor is always misconstrued by the other side (of whatever side you're on- sarcasm is never approved of by any who disagree, bipartisan and beyond politics).