[anarchist23]

Donald Trump likes to work just like his father. lol

[One Degree]

I think the people complaining about this have never had the pleasure of having their workday evaluated by an efficiency expert.
I had the pleasure when it was a fad in education. There is no reason most of us could not condense an 8 hour work day to 3 hours.
I always enjoyed making jobs as efficient as possible. Why not get it done and do something else?

[Heisenberg]

‘Precedent’ was intended to create stability through consistency. It was not intended to be twisted by lawyers to change course

Please provide examples of lawyers "twisting precedent to change course". Lawyers make arguments in court. They do not make legal decisions.

Judicial review was intended to correct inconsistencies in our laws. It was not intended to be used for the courts to override every legislative decision.

Courts do not "override every legislative decision". They interpret the law according to the US constitution. If Republican lawmakers are crafting unconstitutional laws, that is on them, not the judiciary.

I find it curious you throw individual freedom into a foundation that had little to do with it.

The common law system is the foundation of freedom in English, and by extension, American society. The whole point is that an independent judiciary ruling according to precedent cannot be turned into an instrument of arbitrary rule. By its nature, it was not crafted from above, like Napoleonic Civil Law, but grew over many centuries.

It is another example of distortion. We wanted to respect the individual, not make him superior to the community.

This is just another one of your stock phrases that you include in every post. It means nothing. This time you're back on to "community rights" being king, but in a few posts you'll be pining for "individual rights" again when it suits you. Just wait.

[Pants-of-dog]

And the promise that you say is illegal stands. But it is the case, at least in this instance, where the Supreme Court in recent years has agreed with President Trump and allows for the regulation of naturalization and entrance into the country.

The travel ban is only considered constitutional because he specifically backed off from his campaign promise.

You could also look at the Naturalization Act of 1790 to get a more clear idea of what our Founding Fathers intended to be the base stock of the country. Of course, that is now irrelevant, and I am open to your basic arguments from good faith that "we are a growing ,magnificent people, etc.," but you have to admit, at the very least, that this has been a massive departure from the vision.

To me, this ultimately means that if you are no longer obliged to follow certain things from the past, why should I be?

If you can pick & choose, why can't I?

Why shouldn't we all pick and choose, and why shouldn't we all set what precedents we want, and why shouldn't it just be "may the best man wins?"

Why is it that you get to do what you want, but I am still forced to play with one hand behind my back, and that I am the one crippled by some legacy that no one follows anymore?

This all seems like irrelevant victim narrative.

[One Degree]

Please provide examples of lawyers "twisting precedent to change course". Lawyers make arguments in court. They do not make legal decisions.

Sealioning? If you are unaware of it, it would be a waste of time to give you examples.

Courts do not "override every legislative decision". They interpret the law according to the US constitution. If Republican lawmakers are crafting unconstitutional laws, that is on them, not the judiciary.

Nitpicking. Obviously I did not expect to be taken literally.
It is pretty clear a lot of liberal judges recently were interpreting the law for political benefit and not to be true to the constitution. That is why they will be overturned now.

The common law system is the foundation of freedom in English, and by extension, American society. The whole point is that an independent judiciary ruling according to precedent cannot be turned into an instrument of arbitrary rule. By its nature, it was not crafted from above, like Napoleonic Civil Law, but grew over many centuries.

It obviously is not impossible as I just pointed out. Why do you think both parties want to pack the courts?
Based upon your idealistic reasoning there would be no reason to do so.

This is just another one of your stock phrases that you include in every post. It means nothing. This time you're back on to "community rights" being king, but in a few posts you'll be pining for "individual rights" again when it suits you. Just wait.

Ofcourse I will. Community rights does not exclude individual rights. It is also not my phrase. I borrowed it from a very well written book by a liberal campaign manager who wanted to understand the conservative position. He is also the one who said conservatives fully understand liberals but liberals have no clue what conservatives stand for.

[Heisenberg]

Sealioning? If you are unaware of it, it would be a waste of time to give you examples.

Asking once for an example of something is not sealioning.

Nitpicking. Obviously I did not expect to be taken literally.
It is pretty clear a lot of liberal judges recently were interpreting the law for political benefit and not to be true to the constitution. That is why they will be overturned now.

Disagreeing with some court decisions is not a good reason for abandoning the concept of judicial review, or overturning the whole idea of legal precedent.

It obviously is not impossible as I just pointed out.

You didn't point anything out; you said you disagreed with some unnamed liberal judges and then accused me of "sealioning" for asking for an example. None of this is an example of "arbitrary rule by decree".

The problem here is that courts are supposed to be independent of, and to some extent a thorn in the side of, the government. Presidents aren't meant to just do whatever they please via executive order, since the USA is a constitutional republic and not an absolute monarchy.

Based upon your idealistic reasoning there would be no reason to do so.

Do you just have some vocab machine that spits out stock phrases? I'm explaining the history of common law systems, and how by their nature they prevent arbitrary rule by decree. What is "idealistic" about that?

This is why having a discussion with you is impossible. You can't state a case beyond some vague-yet-absolute statement, and then accuse everyone of being "idealistic" when they express the slightest disagreement.

[One Degree]

Asking once for an example of something is not sealioning.


Disagreeing with some court decisions is not a good reason for abandoning the concept of judicial review, or overturning the whole idea of legal precedent.


You didn't point anything out; you said you disagreed with some unnamed liberal judges and then accused me of "sealioning" for asking for an example. None of this is an example of "arbitrary rule by decree".

The problem here is that courts are supposed to be independent of, and to some extent a thorn in the side of, the government. Presidents aren't meant to just do whatever they please via executive order, since the USA is a constitutional republic and not an absolute monarchy.


Do you just have some vocab machine that spits out stock phrases? I'm explaining the history of common law systems, and how by their nature they prevent arbitrary rule by decree. What is "idealistic" about that?

This is why having a discussion with you is impossible. You can't state a case beyond some vague-yet-absolute statement, and then accuse everyone of being "idealistic" when they express the slightest disagreement.

All of your arguments are based upon textbook descriptions of the way things are suppose to be. My arguments are based upon what they actually are doing today. It is very clearly your idealism vs my realism. This is the basis of differences between liberals and conservatives.
They dismiss our concerns by quoting idealism. We dismiss their concerns by quoting realism. They say “this is the way it should be” and we say “I don’t give a shit about your utopia because that is not how real life works.”

[Heisenberg]

1. I'm not a liberal.
2. Your "realism" is an excuse for an absolute lack of any principle. Literally everything seems to be too difficult to work in your view, whether it's expecting the president to act within the law, or expecting police officers not to shoot people for backchat.

In this case, I am apparently "idealistic" for explaining to you that legal precedent is a cornerstone of the American legal system (which it is), and that simply abolishing it will not fix the world.

Get back to me when you've learned how to argue, rather than simply accusing everyone you don't agree with of being "idealistic".

[One Degree]

1. I'm not a liberal.

I actually caught this common mistake of mine and immediately corrected it. You must have read my post immediately.

2. Your "realism" is an excuse for an absolute lack of any principle. Literally everything seems to be too difficult to work in your view, whether it's expecting the president to act within the law, or expecting police officers not to shoot people for backchat.

No, I have strong principles, but apparently you think I should have your ‘superior’ ones?

In this case, I am apparently "idealistic" for explaining to you that legal precedent is a cornerstone of the American legal system (which it is), and that simply abolishing it will not fix the world.

Not just idealistic but also condescending to believe I needed your lesson.
I argued these things were abused today to deliberately accomplish things different than their intent. You do realize this is exactly what lawyers are trained to do. Legal precedent should be used as an advisor. Today it is given more importance than it should. It should not be the sole basis for making a decision. Doing so, as is often done today violates ‘the greater good’.

Get back to me when you've learned how to argue, rather than simply accusing everyone you don't agree with of being "idealistic".

Get back to me when you are willing to offer something else then.
Why do you not respond to my ‘realistic’ questions if you are not insisting the debate be on idealistic grounds?
Why do both parties pack the courts if they are incapable of being untrue to their calling?

[Oxymandias]

@One Degree

I don’t know of any other way to explain it to you. @Albert added a lot of detail. Hopefully that helps. You just seem to have a very different perception of what has been going on.
Trump has been taking careful steps in a plan. The people, then the courts, firings, control of the party, and now every Republican politician wants to be seen as a Trump supporter.

He just chooses people he likes and agrees with impulsively. This less demonstrates Trump's ingenuity and more displays how utterly broken the American political system is. Republicans have always supported Trump because Trump is the perfect figurehead for the establishment. Albert's posts don't address this at all. He doesn't address any of my points.

[One Degree]

@One Degree



He just chooses people he likes and agrees with impulsively. This less demonstrates Trump's ingenuity and more displays how utterly broken the American political system is. Republicans have always supported Trump because Trump is the perfect figurehead for the establishment. Albert's posts don't address this at all. He doesn't address any of my points.

Do you think the American establishment is anti globalist, anti immigration, anti political correctness, anti taxes, etc.?
They hate everything about Trump’s policies because they are an all front battle against the power of international corporations in the US. They benefit from globalist policies and organizations that override US control of them.
I am not even saying he is deliberately anti business, but his pet policies are.

[Heisenberg]

No, I have strong principles, but apparently you think I should have your ‘superior’ ones?

Oh, you do? What are they? Depending on the post, you are in favour of "community rights" or "individual rights", apparently based on which one leads to the more absurd logical conclusion. There is also no abuse of power that you won't jump to defend, whether it's violent police officers or a president blatantly trying to trample on your country's constitution.

I argued these things were abused today to deliberately accomplish things different than their intent.

You stated this as fact and then when I asked for an example, accused me of "sealioning". Saying you "argued" the point is putting it strongly, to say the least.

Legal precedent should be used as an advisor. Today it is given more importance than it should.

Legal precedent is binding in common law. You think I was being "condescending" in explaining these things to you, but clearly you don't understand them at all. The importance of legal precedent has not changed recently. It only appears that way because Trump is trying to flat out ignore it, and the courts are stopping him from doing that.

You keep accusing me of being "idealistic" but you are the one who is calling for overriding the rule of law to suit your own ends. My position is by far the more "realistic" one, since I recognise that lawmakers in a democratic, law-based system have to operate within those constraints rather than ruling by decree.

Why do both parties pack the courts if they are incapable of being untrue to their calling?

They "pack the courts" with judges who adhere to their legal philosophy. This does not mean the judges do not respect the rule of law, the principle of an independent judiciary, or how common law legal systems work. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Oxymandias]

@One Degree

Do you think the American establishment is anti globalist, anti immigration, anti political correctness, anti taxes, etc.?

Yes. A state's goal is to maximize the wealth of itself while enriching the status quo. Trump is the status quo.

They hate everything about Trump’s policies because they are an all front battle against the power of international corporations in the US. They benefit from globalist policies and organizations that override US control of them.

Smaller businesses and tech companies suffer under Trump's policies. Big businesses do not. Big businesses are the ones who form the establishment, not Google or Amazon.

I am not even saying he is deliberately anti business, but his pet policies are.

Being anti-taxation and appealing to the upper class are not examples of his policies being "anti-business".

[One Degree]

@Heisenberg

One Degree wrote:
No, I have strong principles, but apparently you think I should have your ‘superior’ ones?

You replied...

Oh, you do? What are they? Depending on the post, you are in favour of "community rights" or "individual rights", apparently based on which one leads to the more absurd logical conclusion. There is also no abuse of power that you won't jump to defend, whether it's violent police officers or a president blatantly trying to trample on your country's constitution.

No, I will not try to quote all my principles to you.
Individual rights come from the community (govt). It is the only place they can come from, therefore the majority opinion of the community decides and overrides individual rights. The only way that is reversed in people’s thinking is by talking about imaginary rights (rights they don’t legally have) as if this requires them to be legal rights. This is a logical fallacy based upon conflation. Somehow, we have accepted this fallacy as truth. A conflict between idealism and reality.
Fear of police officers is an irrational fear as anyone who has studied the statistics seriously knows. You can not expect every police officer to never screw up. That is an absurd reason to be afraid.
Obviously, the President has not violated the constitution or the Democrats would not hesitate to charge him with it. They and the courts both can overrule him.

One Degree wrote:
I argued these things were abused today to deliberately accomplish things different than their intent.

You replied...

You stated this as fact and then when I asked for an example, accused me of "sealioning". Saying you "argued" the point is putting it strongly, to say the least.

It was a preemptive ‘sea lioning’ comment. Like a couple above, you did not expect me to answer because the answer is obvious and would be a waste of my time. You could then bring it up again as you are now doing.

One Degree wrote:
Legal precedent should be used as an advisor. Today it is given more importance than it should.

You replied...

Legal precedent is binding in common law. You think I was being "condescending" in explaining these things to you, but clearly you don't understand them at all. The importance of legal precedent has not changed recently. It only appears that way because Trump is trying to flat out ignore it, and the courts are stopping him from doing that.

I bolded the ‘should’ in my comment, so you can see your accusations are baseless. The intent of our constitution to make our laws changeable and contemporary is quite clear. Strict legal precedent is in conflict with the intentions of our founders and the document they left us. That is why I argue they should be considered ‘advisory’.

You keep accusing me of being "idealistic" but you are the one who is calling for overriding the rule of law to suit your own ends. My position is by far the more "realistic" one, since I recognise that lawmakers in a democratic, law-based system have to operate within those constraints rather than ruling by decree.

A political debate requires discussion of overriding our laws. There would be no reason for debate without it.
Your faith in lawyers and lawmakers is admirable, but extremely naive.

One Degree wrote:
Why do both parties pack the courts if they are incapable of being untrue to their calling?

You said...

They "pack the courts" with judges who adhere to their legal philosophy. This does not mean the judges do not respect the rule of law, the principle of an independent judiciary, or how common law legal systems work. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Replacing ‘political philosophy’ with ‘legal philosophy’ to make your argument is quite transparent. They obviously are expected to place high emphasis on their politics and that is not in keeping with the standards you insist they go by. The Kavanaugh hearing alone makes your argument unsupportable.

[One Degree]

@One Degree



Yes. A state's goal is to maximize the wealth of itself while enriching the status quo. Trump is the status quo.



Smaller businesses and tech companies suffer under Trump's policies. Big businesses do not. Big businesses are the ones who form the establishment, not Google or Amazon.



Being anti-taxation and appealing to the upper class are not examples of his policies being "anti-business".

Walmart, google, and amazon are about as big of businesses as there are.
You are probably unfamiliar with how consolidated businesses have become in the US. Many businesses you may think of as smaller are just subsidiaries.
Don’t you wonder why so many of these big businesses have came out politically against Trump? Why would they do that if he is one of them? Do you think it is because of their morality?

[Heisenberg]

The intent of our constitution to make our laws changeable and contemporary is quite clear. Strict legal precedent is in conflict with the intentions of our founders and the document they left us.

Legal precedent does not conflict with changing laws through legislation, at all. Legislatures are free to change laws. Precedent simply ensures they are interpreted consistently and in line with the constitution.

You keep accusing me of being "condescending", but it's abundantly clear you have a paper-thin grasp on this topic, so I don't know what you expect.

A political debate requires discussion of overriding our laws. There would be no reason for debate without it.

This is a strange remark. Changing laws through the proper legislative channels is not "overriding" them. "Overriding" laws is the throwing out the rulebook altogether, which for some reason you think Trump should be allowed to do, but would absolutely raise hell about were it a Democrat (or probably anyone else, for that matter).

Your faith in lawyers and lawmakers is admirable, but extremely naive.

I have no faith in lawyers or lawmakers. That is precisely why I advocate a system based on the rule of law to restrain them, rather than "let them do whatever the fuck they want", which is what you are calling for.

Replacing ‘political philosophy’ with ‘legal philosophy’ to make your argument is quite transparent.

No, a legal philosophy is different from a political philosophy. Of course, it has political implications, but it is not the simple ideological check box you appear to think it is. Read up on judicial interpretation.

[One Degree]

Legal precedent does not conflict with changing laws through legislation, at all. Legislatures are free to change laws. Precedent simply ensures they are interpreted consistently and in line with the constitution.

Yes, it does. Legal precedent will be used to argue if a law is constitutional. Both sides will pick precedents that support their position. The court will decide who has the best precedents. The judges political leanings enter in making this decision. They decide and their records of their rulings indicate political bias is a deciding factor.

You keep accusing me of being "condescending", but it's abundantly clear you have a paper-thin grasp on this topic, so I don't know what you expect.

I only recall once. My feelings weren’t hurt. just making a point. Your view of my knowledge is irrelevant.

This is a strange remark. Changing laws through the proper legislative channels is not "overriding" them. "Overriding" laws is the throwing out the rulebook altogether, which for some reason you think Trump should be allowed to do, but would absolutely raise hell about were it a Democrat (or probably anyone else, for that

Changing a law is overriding the current law. I have never suggested Trump should do anything illegal. That is pure fabrication on your part.

I have no faith in lawyers or lawmakers. That is precisely why I advocate a system based on the rule of law to restrain them, rather than "let them do whatever the fuck they want", which is what you are calling for.

Another fabrication. I never suggested any such thing.

No, a legal philosophy is different from a political philosophy. Of course, it has political implications, but it is not the simple ideological check box you appear to think it is. Read up on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation]judicial interpretation.[/url

Since you are a scholar on the subject, then why do you seem unaware that ‘precedent’ is one of the factors in legal philosophy and debate?

Edit: @Heisenberg Please also explain why you think the congressmen were so interested in Kavanaugh’s position on it?

[One Degree]

@Oxymandias
I just ran across this news story and thought it applicable to our discussion. Wall Street is heavily backing Democrats in the midterms. This is a CBS article and states Wall Street backs candidates it believes will reciprocate.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-stree ... -congress/

[Oxymandias]

@One Degree

Don’t you wonder why so many of these big businesses have came out politically against Trump? Why would they do that if he is one of them? Do you think it is because of their morality?

Because they initially had no idea what Trump was advocating for or what policies he would actually put out. He was unpredictable during his campaign, that's why they disliked him. During his presidency however, many big businesses are supporting him because now they know Trump is merely just the status quo turned up to 100%.

I just ran across this news story and thought it applicable to our discussion. Wall Street is heavily backing Democrats in the midterms. This is a CBS article and states Wall Street backs candidates it believes will reciprocate.

Democratics are irrelevant to a discussion about Trump given that both the Republican and Democratic Party have the same interests.

[One Degree]

@One Degree



Because they initially had no idea what Trump was advocating for or what policies he would actually put out. He was unpredictable during his campaign, that's why they disliked him. During his presidency however, many big businesses are supporting him because now they know Trump is merely just the status quo turned up to 100%.



Democratics are irrelevant to a discussion about Trump given that both the Republican and Democratic Party have the same interests.

Yes, both parties had the same interests which is why Wall Street has backed them 50/50 until this year. Trump is now the Republican Party so Wall Street finds fewer Republicans that will help them. There are still plenty who will, but Trump draining the swamp reduced their numbers.
The supporting more democrats reflects this. Immigration alone is cause for big businesses to be against him. They are who has prevented anything being done before.