HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Martin68 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Martin Johnson
Gender: Do not display
Home country: U.S.A.
Current location: Charlottesville, VA
Member since: Tue Jun 8, 2010, 02:30 PM
Number of posts: 20,722

About Me

Martin Johnson Charlottesville, VA

Journal Archives

It's not joke. It's a conspiracy. I don't know if Musk is deluded, a right winger, or a

"libertarian", but bit if he's the latter, we may be in trouble. That could mean he's not a "nut." He may have intelligently figured out how to influence public opinion to his own advantage. I don't think he gives a fig about right or left. He's a capital "C" Capitalist, and all he cares about is profit. This guy could be truly dangerous because he clearly doesn't believe in democracy. If he plans to run for office, or uses his money to influence those who have, he could be the Uber-Trump.

It's not a matter of "throwing money at it." It's a matter of active enforcement with real

consequences for bad behavior. It will require independent oversight so that the police won't be policing themselves. It will require laws that prevent cops that have been fired from immediately getting a job with a different PD in a different state. It will require that police who have been reprimanded or fired will have that on their permanent employment record. It will require that the process of investigating charges and assigning guilt will be open to the public. The police are hiding behind a wall of immunity, non-disclosure, and confidentiality, preventing the public and government officials from having access to the information they need to determine whether a candidate for a position in the police force has a clean record. There are steps that can and must be taken to reform our police departments and hold them to standards that are higher, not lower, than those to which we hold our citizens. Out governors and mayors need to be able to see patterns of misbehavior that should disqualify individuals on the police force from holding a job with law enforcement.

Republicans don't "wonder" That requires "thought" and "knowledge." Like lemmings, they are willing

to blindly follow whoever is their "leader" of the moment off a cliff in their mad drive to assuage the insults they have had to endure as a result of their party's serial failure to govern.

I think this cuts right down to the core of the issue. Are you defending a 32-cell blob of

undifferentiated cells and scoffing at school children being murdered in their classrooms? Are you crucifying women for deciding to postpone childbirth until they have the maturity and means to care for a child? Do you care more about the entirely abstract potential of a small blob of cells to become a baby and survive childbirth than the survival of a woman facing the mortal danger of a medically life-threatening pregnancy?

All these stupid and weak plots that Putin employed have resulted in: nothing.

He thought he could imprison Europe in an energy trap, he thought Trump would give him the US on a platter, he thought he'd install a pro-Russian government in Ukraine within days. The KGB genius is a sham, just like Trump and Elon are shams. They are all narcissistically egomaniacs who believe their own shit. It was really scary for a while, but Russia, Trump, Elon, the Irani theocrats - are all empty shells. It's not over yet, but they are off balance and scared. They'll soon be on the run.

Whistle-blowers and independent watchdogs provide an invaluable service to our country.

However, clandestine intelligence services also play an invaluable role in national security, and we only occasionally find out what they did right and what they did wrong. In 1975 the Church Committee investigated and published a report on improper activity which had a powerful effect on the intelligence agencies, and resulted in establishing new guidelines and regulations within them. As time goes by, such re-adjustments often lapse, or are gradually loosened internally, so it is necessary to constantly keep an eye on actions that are by definition very hard to scrutinize except by employees within the organizations that are willing to sacrifice their careers to alert the nation and Congress that they need to be reigned in.

That said, my point in the post above is that vague suggestions that something was "planned" should be taken with a grain of salt considering that numerous operations are discussed, and most of them never reach the planning stage for logistical, ethical, moral, or pragmatic reasons. One of the strengths of the American military and intelligence services is that people are encouraged to discuss their suggestions frankly in-house, no matter how out of the box they might be, but the vast majority of ideas or suggestions are very quickly dismissed once managers and agency legal services have had a chance to review them (if such a suggestion ever reaches the point where actual planning would begin).

In the interests of full disclosure, my father was a CIA officer, and my family lived in various countries (Cyprus, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Colombia) where he worked within the local embassy to monitor communications and local media for useful information about local politics. When I turned 18 as a high school student in Bogota, he sat me down and for the first time revealed his real occupation. His cover, as is often the case for an officer who not under deep cover, was that he was a foreign service officer.

Originalism is bunk. Liberal lawyers shouldn't fall for it. by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post

Liberal lawyers — and liberal justices, for that matter — risk being caught in an originalism trap. Originalism, the belief that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed at the time it was adopted, is the legal theory that dominates the thinking of this conservative Supreme Court. Given that reality, liberals can’t lightly dismiss conservatives’ insistence that the Constitution should be interpreted based strictly on the original meaning of its text. In the current circumstances, liberal advocates appearing before the court would be remiss not to make an originalist case.

But there’s also little evidence, at least in the highest-profile cases, that it will do them much good. When originalist arguments favor a result the conservative justices dislike, they’re content to ignore them, or to cherry-pick competing originalist interpretations that comport with their underlying inclinations. Originalism doesn’t serve to constrain but to justify. This is not a fair fight — or an honest one...

Originalism is the “no new taxes” of constitutional theory, as easy to understand as it is insipid; there is no similar progressive alternative that can be reduced to a bumper-sticker slogan...

...originalism trends almost inexorably right. As Justice William J. Brennan Jr. explained in a 1985 speech responding to Meese, originalism “in effect establishes a presumption of resolving textual ambiguities against the claim of constitutional right.” Which is precisely why it was taken up by Meese and company. “They embraced originalism because it was conservative,” said Michael Waldman, president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice and author of a forthcoming book on the court. “They didn’t embrace conservatism because it was originalist.”

The shifting forms of originalism — from trying to discern the intent of the document’s framers, or maybe those who ratified it, to hunting for the original meaning of the words they used — suggests the fundamental futility of the enterprise. “For most constitutional provisions, there is no ‘original meaning’ to be discovered,” Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky writes in a new book, “Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism.” Rather, he says, “there is a range of possibilities that allows for exactly the kind of judicial discretion that originalism seeks to eliminate.” The founding-era documents are incomplete and contradictory; there are many constitutional questions for which they supply no answer.

Did the framers of the Constitution or its amendments intend for its meaning to be fixed at that point in time, as they understood it? They certainly didn’t say so. Even more important, they intentionally used broad language that they understood would be interpreted for years to come.“We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding … a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, upholding the establishment of a national bank even though that was not among the express powers the Constitution granted to Congress.

When Scalia described himself as a “fainthearted originalist,” he noted that “in its undiluted form, at least, it is medicine that seems too strong to swallow.” As an example, Scalia cited punishments such as public flogging or branding, which might have been tolerated during the Colonial period. “Even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that these were not cruel and unusual measures in 1791, and even though no prior Supreme Court decision has specifically disapproved them, I doubt whether any federal judge — even among the many who consider themselves originalists — would sustain them against an Eighth Amendment challenge,” Scalia said.

Originalists have come up with arguments to justify the results in Brown, Loving and even Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But it takes no small bit of originalist contortionism to get there. As much as that might make originalists feel better, perhaps a doctrine that requires so much work to arrive at an acceptable result has inherent problems.

Originalism as convenience.. This defect has two aspects: First, the demonstrated willingness of the originalist justices to pick and choose the historical practices and traditions that best support the result they want, narrowing or expanding the relevant period as is most helpful to their cause; second, their tendency to abandon originalist arguments entirely when they turn out to be inconvenient.

The danger of originalism, as Berman wrote years ago, is that it is used “to bolster the popular fable that adjudication can be practiced in something close to an objective and mechanical fashion.” The difference between originalists and non-originalists is that the former pretend otherwise; most likely, they have convinced themselves of it. But conviction, however sincere, does not make a flawed approach legitimate. And the flaws embedded in originalism are magnified by its use, or misuse, by conservative justices and judges focused on a desired outcome.

This brand of originalism isn’t just bunk — it’s rigged, dishonest bunk. The more forcefully liberal lawyers and justices push back on it — the faster they make their way out of the originalism trap — the better.


The problem with that view is based on where religious beliefs collide with science and medical

knowledge. The consensus among scientific and medical professionals is that gender dysphoria is real and has a powerful impact on mental health. By which I mean that they agree that a person's mental health can only be maintained by helping them achieve a condition closer to their own experience of what gender they are, regardless of their genetics and genitalia. The courts have always been a bit behind the latest medical and scientific understanding.

The EPA has to stop ignoring the Clean Water Act. Trump derailed them for 4 years, and it must be

hard to get back on track, but it's time they did. This article is about the Arizona state Department of Environmental Quality, but the EPA is supposed to monitor state environmental decisions. Good to see that someone is contesting the Arizona DEQ's decision in this case. Native Americans have always received the short end of the stick, as have all minorities. The rule of law is supposed to apply equally regardless of race, color or creed.

Xi considers Canada a minor player on the world stage. In other words, Canada is neither a military

threat, nor aserious economic power. Beneath China's notice in the new Chinese World Order. Australia was the first to be designated that inferior status. Xi seems to have a Trumpian disdain of allies that he deems beneath his notice. He will live to regret that.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »