SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

rmax
Posts: 5976
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:31 am

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

RT and Ken Livingstone?!!!
It would have been very funny had been a Rory Bremner sketch from circa 1992

Alan
Topic Author
Posts: 9548
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Ken Livingstone:
Chaos in White House is not just about Trump, but flawed US political system ... When the Constitution was drawn up, it was determined that no president should have the sort of powers which the old King of England possessed ...
Hmm ... I've heard that critique before:

ISayMoo
Posts: 1082
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 8:30 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

RT and Ken Livingstone?!!!
The man's gotta make a living somehow...

ISayMoo
Posts: 1082
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 8:30 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Ultimately, what keeps the rights and liberties alive is the will of the people. UK has an omni-powerful Parliament which is not checked by any written Constitution or Supreme Court, but yet on the balance, the UK is no less free a country than the US.

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

The Supreme Court in [I[Brown[/I] reached the right result but applied the wrong analysis. Rather than flatly rejecting Plessy's faulty reasoning as a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation, the Court opened a Pandora's box of judicial activism moored in sociology and psycho-analysis.
Plessy was a 19th century case about a louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for whites and non-whites, and again the justices twisted the Constitution to arrive at the result they wanted.
The problem a lot of people have with Brown is the faulty logic in the opinion. As you say, the Court invented constitutional rights. If they'd just said that Plessy was wrongly decided, that would have been fine.
You should mention your sources, but I was able to track it down (Mark Levin).

In any event, I think this supports my point that both conservatives and liberals are more "outcome based" on Supreme Court decisions than they care to admit. Conservatives who don't like Roe say there is nothing about abortion rights in the Constitution. If they do like Brown, like Mark Levin and you, they say there is nothing about segregation rights in the Constitution and contrary precedents were wrong to find such rights. Liberals are more likely to find various rights. But, in the end, it is the outcome that really matters to both sides -- and there is always some legal argument to dress it up.

Fine. Separation of powers has always been an ideal often violated in practice --- some issues are just so contentious that we need the Court to make the law. Hopefully, if it's good law, it tends to last.
We're not on the same page.
It's not that we "say there is nothing about segregation rights in the Constitution and contrary precedents were wrong to find such rights," rather we say that the fourteenth amendment forbids states making laws requiring segregation and therefore Plessy was wrongly decided.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The fourteenth amendment, as written, would seem to not forbid segregation per se, but rather to forbid states making laws requiring segregation. Plessy was about railroad cars in Louisiana, and by a strict reading, if the railroad company had decided by itself to have separate-but-equal accommodation, then the fourteenth amendment would have been silent, but the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring separate-but-equal accommodation, and that did violate the fourteenth amendment.

I'm with chuck grassley on this: during the kavanaugh hearing, he said
As I see it and I expect many of my colleagues will agree, the role of the judge is to apply the law as written even if the legal result is not one the judge personally likes. Justice Scalia has often been quoted because he was fond of saying, if a judge always likes the outcome of the cases he decides, he is probably doing something wrong. I don't want judges who always reach a liberal result or conservative result. I want a judge who rules the law the way the law requires. Judges must leave law making to the Congress, the elected representatives of the people. Judges and justices have lifetime appointments. They can't be voted out of office if they legislate, whereas if Congress legislates something the people don't like, then you can vote them out of office. That's why they're to interpret the law and not make law.
In Plessy, the justices decided the outcome they wanted and twisted the law to reach that outcome

Alan
Topic Author
Posts: 9548
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Fair enough and a clear position.

bearish
Posts: 3778
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Meanwhile, after sending an Orthodox Jew to tell the Palestinians how to behave and moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the Trump swamp completely and utterly closed the door to any (however unrealistic) hopes of Middle East peacemaking by shutting down the de facto Palestinian embassy in DC. I guess the new year had to be celebrated with a bang!

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

and we all know you like to celebrate the new year with a bang

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Cuchulainn
Posts: 57041
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

hopefully he's actually been to Ireland
I think we all remember when Obama was appointing large contributors to ambassadorships
Obama nominee for ambassador to Argentina says he's NEVER been to the country
'Mr. Mamet have you been to Argentina,' asked Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio during the Californian's confirmation hearing.
'I haven't had the opportunity yet to be there,' he admitted, ashen-faced.
President Obama's A-list campaign fundraisers are turning out to be B-list ambassador nominees

rmax
Posts: 5976
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:31 am

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

hopefully he's actually been to Ireland
I think we all remember when Obama was appointing large contributors to ambassadorships
Obama nominee for ambassador to Argentina says he's NEVER been to the country
'Mr. Mamet have you been to Argentina,' asked Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio during the Californian's confirmation hearing.
'I haven't had the opportunity yet to be there,' he admitted, ashen-faced.
President Obama's A-list campaign fundraisers are turning out to be B-list ambassador nominees
Do you need to have gone to country before being Ambassador there?

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

hopefully he's actually been to Ireland
I think we all remember when Obama was appointing large contributors to ambassadorships
Obama nominee for ambassador to Argentina says he's NEVER been to the country
'Mr. Mamet have you been to Argentina,' asked Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio during the Californian's confirmation hearing.
'I haven't had the opportunity yet to be there,' he admitted, ashen-faced.
President Obama's A-list campaign fundraisers are turning out to be B-list ambassador nominees
Do you need to have gone to country before being Ambassador there?
it helps to have some familiarity

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

back to the kavanaugh hearings
You Can’t Bribe Susan Collins

it's behind a paywall but googling the title got me in for free

susan collins, the rino from maine, is under pressure to vote no
A crowdfunding website is trying to strong-arm Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, by giving more than $1 million to her 2020 opponent—unless she opposes Judge Kavanaugh. Donors are asked to make a financial pledge and then enter their credit-card information. As of Tuesday afternoon, 37,425 people had put down$1,041,878.
The fine print makes clear the quid pro quo: “Your card will only be charged if Senator Susan Collins votes for Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.” To avoid the money bomb, all Ms. Collins must do is vote “no.”
(snip)
“I have had three attorneys tell me that they think it is a clear violation of the federal law on bribery,” Ms. Collins says. “Actually, two told me that; one told me it’s extortion.”
there have been threats of violence
Another pressure tactic, one Ms. Collins says she finds “incredibly offensive,” is “the out-of-state voicemails being left on the answering machines of my state offices.” Many of the messages are profane. “In one case—and we are going to turn this over to the police, but unfortunately, of course, the person didn’t leave a name or number—but they actually threatened to rape one of my young female staffers.”
nyt
Interest Groups Turn Up Pressure on Senators Before Kavanaugh Vote
The frustration has boiled over at points. Annie Clark, a spokeswoman for Ms. Collins, provided The New York Times with copies of a letter and multiple voice mail messages addressed to the senator using vulgar language and outright threats. One caller told a 25-year-old female staff member at one of Ms. Collins’s Maine offices that he hoped she would be raped and impregnated.
so that she'll have to have an abortion?

ppauper
Posts: 69069
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm