in2herbs
in2herbs's JournalDoes anyone know this piece?
There was a song my mother made me practice growing up. Because of the tempo I think it was a waltz. I’ve been trying to identify it and haven’t been able to despite scouring literally hundreds of pages of sheet music and listening to hours and hours of waltzes via You Tube. If anyone on DU can help to identify it I would be very appreciative. Here is what I remember of what the beginning sounded like:
Play middle C and E together, then play D and F together, then play E and G together, then play D sharp and F sharp together, then back to E and G. Repeat D sharp and F sharp and E and G two more times.
I can hear more of it in my head but can’t find the key combination to it on the piano.
Thanks.
Re: Roe: I haven't heard this question discussed here or elsewhere so I'm presenting portions
of a legal summary that addresses the question below.
QUESTION: What if the five USSC justices can’t agree on a single rationale for overturning Roe in their pursuit to overturn Roe? Is new precedent established and, if so, which Justice’s opinion becomes the new precedent for lower courts to follow?
MY NOTE: Everything that appears in quotes in this post has been taken from an article titled "What Happens When Five Supreme Court Justices Can’t Agree?” written by Kevin M. Lewis, Legislative Attorney for an organization called Congressional Research Service. The link to the entire article is here: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10113.pdf
“The Supreme Court has stated that “when a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” That seemingly simple rule, however, is not always so simple to apply in practice. For example, it is not self-evident how should courts identify which Justice’s opinion rests on the “narrowest grounds.” If the opinion resting on the “narrowest grounds” only garnered a single Justice’s vote, does that opinion have precedential effect even when every other Justice on the Court disagrees with it?”
“If, instead, the rationale advanced by the plurality opinion does not overlap with that advanced by the concurring opinion, such that no opinion serves as “a logical subset of other, broader opinions,” the various opinions lack precedential effect and “only the specific result [of the case] is binding on lower federal courts.”
MY NOTE: In one cited case the dissenting opinion of one justice became the direction for the lower courts based on this narrowest grounds concept.
The following is a 6/4/2018 update about the court’s self-imposed rationale quandary. “UPDATE, 6/4/2018: On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hughes. The Court ultimately deemed it “unnecessary” to decide which opinion governs when no single opinion enjoys a majority and instead decided the case on alternative grounds. Thus, the underlying circuit split concerning the Marks rule remains unresolved, and guidance from the Supreme Court regarding “the proper application of Marks” will have to await a future case.”
MY FINAL THOUGHT: It appears that the USSC must give specific guidance in Dobbs for the lower courts to follow if they want uniform compliance by the lower courts to uphold their decisions overturning Roe. This means that they can no longer leave Marks unaddressed. Otherwise their Dobbs decision will amount to nothing more than a proclamation, and a non-binding one at that.
IS ADDING MORE SENATORS A SOLUTION WORTH CONSIDERING?
I am sure this idea has appeared here and elsewhere, but I have not read about it, so I’m putting it out here: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SENATORS based on the population figures in the official census conducted every ten years to allocate members to the House of Representatives.
There’s an excellent article in the Atlantic by Eric W. Orts which includes a pdf discussing a three-part path for how the Senate can increase the number of senators under the Voting Rights Act. No Constitutional amendment needed. According to Mr. Orts: “Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.”
Here are a few excerpts from the article and its pdf attachment.
The article appeared in the Atlantic and was written by Eric W. Orts. The link to the Atlantic article is: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/
The pdf within the Atlantic article is at this link: https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Senate.Democracy.12.7.18.final_.pdf
Here are some excerpts from the pdf:
“The unequal representation created by the original one state, two senators rule violates principles of voting rights found in the Voting Rights Amendments of the Constitution (including the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments).”
*****
“Congress, acting within its proper scope of constitutional authority under the Voting Rights Amendments, should enact a statute reforming the allocation of senators to the states. The legislation abolishes the rule of one state, two senators. It allocates senators to the states in a manner that both respects the original commitment to federalism (allocating at least one senator to each state) and the rights of American citizens to participate on an equal basis in their political democracy (allocating a greater number of senators to more populous states).”
*******
END.
My Comment: The pdf sets out a three-part process to accomplish this and argues that the Electoral College would better represent the population by adding more Senators. This is the proposition I am putting my support to for creating the changes we need to protect US.
Good morning to all. The purchase of a used grand piano is on my shopping list and am
asking for the opinion of anyone in this group about a Samick SG-185 grand piano. It is for sale by a dealer. I haven't played in 50 years so I'm not in need of a Steinway, although that would be nice, but the price is a bit much. I don't want one with player discs or other gadgets. I just want a plain, good sounding grand piano that also doubles as a piece of living room furniture. I listened to the dealer play this piano on a short sale video and it sounded good. I think he said the year built was 1999. I can find out for sure if that's important. He said it was a wet sand casting and spruce board. I've done as much on-line research as I can find on this piano but there's not a lot available, so I'm turning to this group.
I'll be off line for about an hour but appreciate all responses, suggestions, and cautionary tales you can share, including brands I should stay away from. The dealer is a third generation piano dealer in the valley.
Thanks.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHome country: USA
Current location: AZ
Member since: Sat Jun 23, 2018, 02:32 PM
Number of posts: 2,945
