Midterm Elections

[sgip]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

Except there has been 215 years of judicial review...the branches of government are supposed to be co-equal.

Presidents are replaced every 4-8 years...Congresspeople have 2 year terms.  They change all the time.  Their actions are supposed to be checked by the judicial branch.  Yes a single judge can be wrong but that's why you have the appeal process and the Supreme Court.  If the Legislative branches doesn't like what the ruling are, they go back and change the laws.

I don't understand why judges are viewed as somehow less important or right to change or strike down a law than a presidential veto or Congressional vote.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules

The first one is a Constitutional issue and the Supreme Court (in this case California) has the right to interpret laws and adjudicate their constitutionality.  The second example has nothing to do with originalism.

You are also selective in your citations...nearly all of the gains made in the Civil Rights and Women's Right movement have been done through Courts:  Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas....

You also have cases that protect the individual such as Miranda and Gideon.

 

[Perspective]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

I encourage you to read/learn more about this. Few laws can cover a fraction of the factual scenarios that will occur. This is why we have robust long statutes and regulations, but also why we have judges.

You want conservative judges. That's fine. So do I half the time. Just say so. Don't hide behind an originalist theory.

How'd you like the activist judges in Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

I encourage you to read/learn more about this. Few laws can cover a fraction of the factual scenarios that will occur. This is why we have robust long statutes and regulations, but also why we have judges.

You want conservative judges. That's fine. So do I half the time. Just say so. Don't hide behind an originalist theory.

How'd you like the activist judges in Brown v. Board of Education?

United States court system is unique in that an individual can challenge the system and win.  It is the fastest and easiest way for an individual to affect change...that's why those in power want to limit access and changes. 

 

[Happiness]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

Aww man, you had to pour water on Perspective/fortune11/Irvinecommuter's Friday afternoon circle jerk. I was waiting to see how long it would last. Nevertheless, you bring up an often ignored point by liberals who complain the Constitution is a fossil so judges have to change it. There is a mechanism built into the Consitution to change it. Instead of asking what the founding father's thought about abortion, why not amend the Constitution to make abortion an explicit right?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

Aww man, you had to pour water on Perspective/fortune11/Irvinecommuter's Friday afternoon circle jerk. I was waiting to see how long it would last. Nevertheless, you bring up an often ignored point by liberals who complain the Constitution is a fossil so judges have to change it. There is a mechanism built into the Consitution to change it. Instead of asking what the founding father's thought about abortion, why not amend the Constitution to make abortion an explicit right?

This is one of the sillier originalist arguments out there...a constitutional amendment is virtual impossible with 50 states and 300+ million people...a constitutional amendment requires ratification by 75% of the Congress and then 75% of the states. 

Again...the Constitution is not at issue...the constitutionality of certain laws are.

 

[Perspective]

Originalists may be "silly", but there is a process in place to change the law if one believes an amendment is wrong or poorly written. That process is still worth exploring by the elected, not by the appointed. Yes, it's labor intensive and doesn't always work 100% of the time. Tell me.... What does?

Example: Trumpers wanted strict and significant immigration reform. A single judge in Hawaii felt otherwise. That judge was overturned several times by the Supreme Court wasting plenty of time on all sides. It's fair to say that Trumpers want a judge to keep to the original intent of the law as created and not self interpreted things on his own. Judges such as the one in Hawaii will eventually be replaced, and when they are, it's hopefully by someone who reads the print of the law, not makes up an interpretation of law out of thin air.

One could go back to Rose Bird, who refused to enforce the law on Capital Punishment, or the Judge in the Brock Turner case who gave even less than a slap on the wrist than what was intended by real sentencing rules.  It's these kind of judges the Trumpers are wanting out of the system. Can one blame them?

This isn't a debate on immigration, gun control, capital punishment, or mandatory sentencing. It's a debate on courtroom shopping combined with judicial activism - a practice BOTH SIDES use to abuse the law. It's my belief that with more Originalists than Activists on the bench you'll eventually get a better system of law interpretation.

We will soon find out at POTUS and the Senate approve more and more judges.

My .02c

Aww man, you had to pour water on Perspective/fortune11/Irvinecommuter's Friday afternoon circle jerk. I was waiting to see how long it would last. Nevertheless, you bring up an often ignored point by liberals who complain the Constitution is a fossil so judges have to change it. There is a mechanism built into the Consitution to change it. Instead of asking what the founding father's thought about abortion, why not amend the Constitution to make abortion an explicit right?

This is one of the sillier originalist arguments out there...a constitutional amendment is virtual impossible with 50 states and 300+ million people...a constitutional amendment requires ratification by 75% of the Congress and then 75% of the states. 

Again...the Constitution is not at issue...the constitutionality of certain laws are.

Also, it's an argument completely ignored when the result is one conservatives desire.

 

[sgip]

If your argument is solid it will pass.

If your argument isnt,.... that's the beauty of the amendment process.

 

[fortune11]

I will leave it at this

In programing language a recursive function is one which calls upon itself repeatedly in a program.

So to solve the big problem, it uses the same small problem over and over as the solution to an increasingly complex solution

Our country, in a nutshell, is a recursive function

Yes there were founding fathers who were racists, yes we committed genocide, but ultimately we saw the flaws in our sins and tried to fix them again and again and again.  throughout the ages.  doesn't mean we have to gloss over the tragedies of the past.  It also doesnt mean we have to be beholden to a romantic vision of America that was flawed to begin with. 

This is how this country works -- we find flaws and we fix it .  that is the essence of liberalism.  in that sense liberalism is not equal to socialism.  what is happening right now is the function of rolling back progress in the name of some romantic ideal of the past which never was.  Another flaw which applies uniquely to old people -- selective recall of the past. 

Europe is way behind in all this and have always played catchup.  Same for other developing countries. 

People dont realize this but this is the last lurch towards the right before our country overcomes these problems yet again and moves forward.  What happened in California in the 90s when the state moved right before it moved left, is very instructive. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

If your argument is solid it will pass.

If your argument isnt,.... that's the beauty of the amendment process.

No it's not.  Structural hurdles are enormous.  It was hard enough to pass the Civil Rights Act...it would be ridiculous to have to make that into an amendment process.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I will leave it at this

In programing language a recursive function is one which calls upon itself repeatedly in a program.

So to solve the big problem, it uses the same small problem over and over as the solution to an increasingly complex solution

Our country, in a nutshell, is a recursive function

Yes there were founding fathers who were racists, yes we committed genocide, but ultimately we saw the flaws in our sins and tried to fix them again and again and again.  throughout the ages.  doesn't mean we have to gloss over the tragedies of the past.  It also doesnt mean we have to be beholden to a romantic vision of America that was flawed to begin with. 

This is how this country works -- we find flaws and we fix it .  that is the essence of liberalism.  in that sense liberalism is not equal to socialism.  what is happening right now is the function of rolling back progress in the name of some romantic ideal of the past which never was.  Another flaw which applies uniquely to old people -- selective recall of the past. 

Europe is way behind in all this and have always played catchup.  Same for other developing countries. 

People dont realize this but this is the last lurch towards the right before our country overcomes these problems yet again and moves forward.  What happened in California in the 90s when the state moved right before it moved left, is very instructive.

Agree.  I was having some discussions with some Europeans about migrants/refugees and they were adamant that refugees were evil and should be purged from the countries.  I just said to them that they are being short-sighted and depriving themselves of a substantial force to better their country.  United States was build by immigrants and one of the most diverse countries in the world...that is why is it so strong. 

 

[eyephone]

GOP Senators bow to White House on Chinese Telecom Firm ZTE, according to the New York Times

 

[Perspective]

If your argument is solid it will pass.

If your argument isnt,.... that's the beauty of the amendment process.

No it's not.  Structural hurdles are enormous.  It was hard enough to pass the Civil Rights Act...it would be ridiculous to have to make that into an amendment process.

I'd bet, well over a majority of 2018 Republicans would support eliminating the Civil Rights Act. God bless the devoutly religious and racist South!

 

[fortune11]

Every now and then I think about the fact that just six years ago "binders full of women" and "you didn't build that? were what passed for serious controversies ...

 

[Kings]

I will leave it at this

In programing language a recursive function is one which calls upon itself repeatedly in a program.

So to solve the big problem, it uses the same small problem over and over as the solution to an increasingly complex solution

Our country, in a nutshell, is a recursive function

Yes there were founding fathers who were racists, yes we committed genocide, but ultimately we saw the flaws in our sins and tried to fix them again and again and again.  throughout the ages.  doesn't mean we have to gloss over the tragedies of the past.  It also doesnt mean we have to be beholden to a romantic vision of America that was flawed to begin with. 

This is how this country works -- we find flaws and we fix it .  that is the essence of liberalism.  in that sense liberalism is not equal to socialism.  what is happening right now is the function of rolling back progress in the name of some romantic ideal of the past which never was.  Another flaw which applies uniquely to old people -- selective recall of the past. 

Europe is way behind in all this and have always played catchup.  Same for other developing countries. 

People dont realize this but this is the last lurch towards the right before our country overcomes these problems yet again and moves forward.  What happened in California in the 90s when the state moved right before it moved left, is very instructive.

Agree.  I was having some discussions with some Europeans about migrants/refugees and they were adamant that refugees were evil and should be purged from the countries.  I just said to them that they are being short-sighted and depriving themselves of a substantial force to better their country.  United States was build by immigrants and one of the most diverse countries in the world...that is why is it so strong.

america was built by immigrants to the super power that it is today.  i think we can all agree on that.  now that we are a super power, who adds more marginal benefit - an engineer from china or a poor refugee with no marketable skills from central/south america?  one will likely be on welfare for many years to come and the other will be a net positive on our financial system from day 1.  we're at a point where we can't just open our doors to anyone and everyone that comes to our border while we have a line out the door already for people waiting sometimes as much as 10 years and paying their dues to come here legally.  the gravy train ends with trump.

 

[eyephone]

So all Democrats are on welfare? Aren?t there Trump supporters on welfare? I?m better than you argument doesn?t work anymore.

Do you remember the debate to completely end Obamacare. How many GOP congressman got calls from their constituents to keep Obamacare?

 

[irvinebullhousing]

So all Democrats are on welfare? Aren?t there Trump supporters on welfare? I?m better than you argument doesn?t work anymore.

Do you remember the debate to completely end Obamacare. How many GOP congressman got calls from their constituents to keep Obamacare?

Yup, repeal and replace Obamacare was his biggly campaign. Where is it now? Then he scolded FED chair-woman for helping Obama and keep interest rate low to help the democrats. Now he said FED is pushing rate too high and hurt the US economy. What The F*****is all I have to say about Trump and his presidency. Now that the tape recording discussion about the prostitution pay off got recorded. I wonder how the hell they will spins this.

 

[Loco_local]

an engineer from china or a poor refugee with no marketable skills from central/south america?  on

That would depend if the engineer from China is stealing company secrets to send back to China or if the poor refugee instills the value of education and hard work ethic on his children.

 

[Ready2Downsize]

So all Democrats are on welfare? Aren?t there Trump supporters on welfare? I?m better than you argument doesn?t work anymore.

Do you remember the debate to completely end Obamacare. How many GOP congressman got calls from their constituents to keep Obamacare?

Yup, repeal and replace Obamacare was his biggly campaign. Where is it now? Then he scolded FED chair-woman for helping Obama and keep interest rate low to help the democrats. Now he said FED is pushing rate too high and hurt the US economy. What The F*****is all I have to say about Trump and his presidency. Now that the tape recording discussion about the prostitution pay off got recorded. I wonder how the hell they will spins this.

No one will be REQUIRED to have it any more, therefore it has ended for anyone who doesn't want it.

Those on med-I-cal will always get free care, Obama care or not. Now those of us who choose to NOT have crappy insurance that covers little unless you have an exhorbitant oop and doctors you don't want to see (NEVER EVER got the you can see the same doctors...??.. that was an out and out lie from the get go) won't have to have it.

It's so poor at reimbursement, my doctors don't even accept it. AND I can go cash pay and pay LESS than the outrageous copays that Obama care was requiring ON TOP of my ridiculous premiums. My doctors ALL told me they pay WORSE than medicare and lots of doctors don't accept that because it pays so poorly.

AND I can buy my rx's WITHOUT ANY insurance AT ALL for LESS than the copays I was paying, on top of the premiums.

I should have gone self pay years ago..... buy wait...??.. before Obamacare I had good insurance, lower (MUCH) premiums and lower (MUCH) copays and lower (MUCH) meds.

Cheaper for me to pay the penalty, AND the self pay SPECIALIST visits (6+ per year for me and 1 or two for my hubby) AND meds AND labs and now I won't have to pay the penalty.

SO HAPPY I will not be required to pay for that bloated cover nothing expensive ridiculous program thanks to Trump ending the requirement.

And why can I do that? Because the doctors have to pay so much to bill and collect it's cheaper to just get the cash up front and forget dealing with insurance.

And it was SOOOOOOOOOOOO expensive any way that most people could get an exclusion for being too expensive!

 

[irvinebullhousing]

So now that the young and the healthy abandon the mandatory coverage, cost will be much better. Ok, I see how this will help.