Political Discussion

Two great episodes from the podcast Citations Needed

open.spotify.com

Episode 84: How Claims of “Sowing Discord” Are Used to Silence Criticism of Power

Listen to this episode from Citations Needed on Spotify. Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taking to Twitter to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we are told, “plays into the hands of Trump.” Russians are using Black Lives Matter and anti-fracking activists to “sow discord,”...
open.spotify.com

open.spotify.com

Episode 34: What the Hell is Wrong with MSNBC?

Listen to this episode from Citations Needed on Spotify. MSNBC is by far the most influential mainstream media outlet on the American Left. It sets the tone and defines the boundary for what is acceptable discourse among American liberals. But major issues the Left is generally thought to care...
open.spotify.com
 
RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

States are trying to change a system that keeps poor people in jail. The bail industry is blocking them.

An Iowa bail bond company helped stop a reform effort in the state, joining a wave of industry resistance to those trying to alter the often exploitative cash bail system.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
This is one facet of the massive amount of needed reform to our legal (not justice) system that should be more easily fixed than it is. In a cash bail system, bail bondsmen provide a necessary, if unseemly, service. t the same time theirs is a profession we should be working to make obsolete.
 
This is fairly amusing the same group at Columbia University that’s been suing Trump over blocking folks on Twitter is going after AOC for the same reasons.

nypost.com

Free speech group: AOC blocking Twitter users is ‘unconstitutional’

A free speech group slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this week for allegedly blocking users on Twitter because she doesn’t agree with their points of view. Columbia University’s Knight F…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
apple.news

How a Trump tax break to help poor communities became a windfall for the rich — The New York Times

Opportunity zones were created as part of the Trump tax law to lure investment to distressed areas. But much of the money is fueling real-estate developments targeting the affluent.
apple.news apple.news

As if this problem isn't bad enough already, Trumps Tax break is even worse.

It's resulting in huge tax breaks for development in poor neighborhoods. But the development is all for the wealthy. Luxury condos, luxury hotels and even a luxury dog spa.

Virtually no new affordable housing has come out of it and abandoned homes and apartments are now neighboring luxury properties. The poor, mostly minority population of the area is being pushed out. Property values and rent are skyrocketing and unaffordable to those who once called these neighborhoods home. Apartment buildings are going empty as their rent increases and then being sold to be demolished to build a new luxury property.

So not only have these tax breaks not resulted in more affordable housing, they are resulting in the loss of affordable housing that is already out there.
 
Chucktshoes said:
This is fairly amusing the same group at Columbia University that’s been suing Trump over blocking folks on Twitter is going after AOC for the same reasons.

nypost.com

Free speech group: AOC blocking Twitter users is ‘unconstitutional’

A free speech group slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this week for allegedly blocking users on Twitter because she doesn’t agree with their points of view. Columbia University’s Knight F…
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
As it should be. Doesn't matter if they are Dems or Pubs - same rules should apply. If you're an elected official sharing public info on your twitter, I don't think you should be able to block people.

I also believe Ilhan Omar should be investigated.

We HAVE to have consistency. No matter which party is in charge.
 
Chucktshoes said:
That spoiler tag: 🤣🤣🤣

I don’t agree with her judicial philosophy, but you won’t find me grave dancing when she buys it.
Click to expand...
I am so glad you laughed. I thought you might think I was piling on from this morning, I was not. I was just being silly.

But she is my hero. So thank you for not grave dancing - in 50 more years because she isn't going anywhere yet!
 
Teeeee said:
I am so glad you laughed. I thought you might think I was piling on from this morning, I was not. I was just being silly.

But she is my hero. So thank you for not grave dancing - in 50 more years because she isn't going anywhere yet!
Click to expand...
My discomfort with the rockstar adulation of any SCOTUS judge aside, I don’t get the cult of RBG. It seemed to spring whole cloth out of nowhere a few years ago. I just can’t figure it out.
 
Chucktshoes said:
My discomfort with the rockstar adulation of any SCOTUS judge aside, I don’t get the cult of RBG. It seemed to spring whole cloth out of nowhere a few years ago. I just can’t figure it out.
Click to expand...
I think it has do less with substantive judicial philosophy and more with the individual. People appreciate what she has accomplished as a whole and her impressive career. And she’s a spry octogenarian who both young women can and young men should look up to. She’s like a judicial Betty White in the sort of mythology that’s raised around her.
 
Chucktshoes said:
My discomfort with the rockstar adulation of any SCOTUS judge aside, I don’t get the cult of RBG. It seemed to spring whole cloth out of nowhere a few years ago. I just can’t figure it out.
Click to expand...
I went to law school. I had the amazing opportunity to take classes from RBG while studying abroad (20 years ago this summer). My adulation stems from that. Her husband, Marty, also taught a class. He was a brilliant tax attorney. Watching them together was something else. They really were in love.

She's a badass.
 
Teeeee said:
I went to law school. I had the amazing opportunity to take classes from RBG while studying abroad (20 years ago this summer). My adulation stems from that. Her husband, Marty, also taught a class. He was a brilliant tax attorney. Watching them together was something else. They really were in love.

She's a badass.
Click to expand...
And you’ve found your cult leader.

Awesome anecdote!
 
TheMythOfSisyphus said:
I think it has do less with substantive judicial philosophy and more with the individual. People appreciate what she has accomplished as a whole and her impressive career. And she’s a spry octogenarian who both young women can and young men should look up to. She’s like a judicial Betty White in the sort of mythology that’s raised around her.
Click to expand...

Judicial philosophy is something I do pay attention to so maybe that can provide sone insight on why the last line of your post makes me really uncomfortable. I am of the view that the kind of partisan rockstar cult of personality that has grown up around SCOTUS judges only serves to help delegitimize the court in eyes of the masses. Why a decision was handed down becomes less important than who handed it down. It destabilizes the whole conceit of stable and legitimate court. In a time where the faith in the other two branches is near zero, I don’t think we can afford to lose the public’s faith in the SCOTUS. (I think They have a similar idea. Look at the high number of unanimous decisions handed down by the Roberts Court. I don’t think their case selection is accidental.)
Teeeee said:
I went to law school. I had the amazing opportunity to take classes from RBG while studying abroad (20 years ago this summer). My adulation stems from that. Her husband, Marty, also taught a class. He was a brilliant tax attorney. Watching them together was something else. They really were in love.

She's a badass.
Click to expand...
That is much more understandable to me than the general cult of RBG. Of course my discomfort with the idea in general probably has everything to do with my puzzlement at this specific manifestation.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Judicial philosophy is something I do pay attention to so maybe that can provide sone insight on why the last line of your post makes me really uncomfortable. I am of the view that the kind of partisan rockstar cult of personality that has grown up around SCOTUS judges only serves to help delegitimize the court in eyes of the masses. Why a decision was handed down becomes less important than who handed it down. It destabilizes the whole conceit of stable and legitimate court. In a time where the faith in the other two branches is near zero, I don’t think we can afford to lose the public’s faith in the SCOTUS. (I think They have a similar idea. Look at the high number of unanimous decisions handed down by the Roberts Court. I don’t think their case selection is accidental.)

That is much more understandable to me than the general cult of RBG. Of course my discomfort with the idea in general probably has everything to do with my puzzlement at this specific manifestation.
Click to expand...
As much as I love and adore her and will give her any of my organs I can to keep her going, I do agree that the SCOTUS has lost its way. I love rbg because her legal philosophy mirrors mine. I can not tell you how many important cases I read that she had argued herself as attorney or written the opinions on. My favorite SCOTUS case (ultra nerd move here, having a favorite) is her VMI opinion. But it is absolutely a partisan branch now. And it should not be. I have no idea how to correct course. And it all makes me so nervous.
 
Teeeee said:
But it is absolutely a partisan branch now. And it should not be.
Click to expand...
Agree with both sentiments, but has it ever not been? Serious question. My concern is more with the nomination/confirmation process, where partisanship has caused some serious damage.

Edit: it's probably worth disclaiming that I see a difference in political partisanship where the court demonstrates some philosophical leanings, against the more specific partisanship of party loyalty above all else. The latter is clearly unacceptable, period.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Agree with both sentiments, but has it ever not been? Serious question. My concern is more with the nomination/confirmation process, where partisanship has caused some serious damage.

Edit: it's probably worth disclaiming that I see a difference in political partisanship where the court demonstrates some philosophical leanings, against the more specific partisanship of party loyalty above all else. The latter is clearly unacceptable, period.
Click to expand...
I am out of practice on my con law history so I am def not the authority. I do feel that it has not always been this partisan. I do feel that previously the law was applied as opposed to now when the party line is applied. I mean even Scalia was pretty darn consistent in applying the law, political affiliations be damned.
 
Teeeee said:
I am out of practice on my con law history so I am def not the authority. I do feel that it has not always been this partisan. I do feel that previously the law was applied as opposed to now when the party line is applied. I mean even Scalia was pretty darn consistent in applying the law, political affiliations be damned.
Click to expand...
I bet it wouldn’t surprise you that I admired Scalia’s work, would it? 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top