Random Politics & Religion #21

Again... and I guess you don't get this for some reason... there are not an unprecedented amount of leaks going on... leaks are not a new issue... obama was one of the ones to attempt to crack down on them harder than anyone before him... but please keep making trump out to be the victim like none other before him lol...

there are not an unprecedented amount of leaks going on...

lol, Comey stated he didn't believe the Russians hacked our voting machines. But its nice how you try to dismiss everything else. And the investigations continue.

Smart people often say stupid things. #MistakesHappen. But it takes a certain special orientation to repeat obviously false and ridiculous statements over and over. That’s a talent peculiar to politicians.

This talent is frequently on display during Supreme Court confirmation fights. Since the 1970s, every nominee from a Republican president has been attacked, among other things, as hostile to women’s rights and civil rights.

That includes Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter — justices who often have been as zealous as any in finding, creating and expanding rights for women and minorities. Constantly being wrong, however, doesn’t prevent the same trope being trotted out as soon as the next nominee is announced.

Opening statements from Democratic senators during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch didn’t disappoint in absurdly trying to paint the nominee as a tool of corporate America and an enemy of “the little guy.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, wasted no time in lashing out before Gorsuch had a chance to utter a single word: “A pattern jumps out at me. ... You consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people.”

Likewise, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., weighed in with more of the same: “I fear confirming you would guarantee more ... decisions that continue to favor powerful corporate interests over the rights of average Americans.”

A newer attack line for liberal critics is that a judicial nominee favors big interests, employers, people with money — anyone in conflict with the little guy. Sen. Ted Kennedy, scion of wealth and privilege, used that line against nominee Sam Alito, a man whose background, family and experience gave him ample affinity with ordinary life and people.

Kennedy’s successor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has reached for the same trick in attacking Gorsuch. She claims he “has sided with employers who deny wages,” “sided with employers who denied retirement benefits to their workers,” and “sided with big insurance companies against disabled workers.”

Despite the cartoon-version descriptions of a judge who "has sided" with the wrong people, the judge’s job isn’t to choose David vs. Goliath, to stand up for the little guy, to smack down the big guy.

The way little guys get protected isn’t to have a judge who votes on his or her gut sympathies. Instead, it’s to have a legal system that functions according to rules, legitimately enacted by constitutionally appropriate bodies and procedures, enforced in principled, predictable ways by judges who read the law carefully and apply it as written, no matter what the judge feels about the people on either side of the case.

Despots want judges who make decisions based on who is helped or hurt. Making decisions on the basis of principles, fixed in law and knowable in advance, is the exact opposite — and the essence of the rule of law. As Justice Antonin Scalia often said, a judge who’s always happy with who wins and loses is doing something wrong.

Beyond having the wrong goal for judging, there’s a bit of flimflam in Warren’s attack. Of course, among the thousands of cases Gorsuch has voted on, he inevitably has decided for employers, and against them; for corporations, and against them; for insurance companies, and against them. But he hasn’t decided consistently or inappropriately for or against anyone, any group, or any class.

That’s evident in the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voting Gorsuch a unanimous well-qualified rating, its highest. Having served on that body, I can attest that its members take their task seriously and look critically at every possible issue that could affect a judge’s qualifications. Any hint of impropriety would be inconsistent with the top rating.

The “wrong side” argument also mistakenly assumes that a rule that helps one group necessarily hurts another, big guys or little guys. That is completely wrong. For instance, adherence to fixed, clear rules on contracts helps rich investors such as Warren Buffett — and also helps poor investors whose life savings go into the same sort of funds.

Constant, unsubstantiated and ill-considered assertions of judicial misbehavior have become part of the standard attack on nominees. But the claim that Gorsuch has sided with the wrong sort of litigant is so patently misguided, so obviously wrong and so at odds with the essence of the rule of law, that even aspiring political stars should consider taking it out of the arsenal.

Any recommendations for shows/movies to watch on Netflix doing a free trial ?

Any recommendations for shows/movies to watch on Netflix doing a free trial ?

Yeah, either subscribe to Hulu or Amazon.

Eh I'm liking Netflix so far Hulu seems kinda meh but I'll give it a try !

Daredevil S1 and 2.

Stranger Things

Narcos

Definitely don't watch Iron Fist.

Twin Peaks

The FBI doesnt agree with you, the investigation is said to have begun in june I believe, so its unrelated to the election results.

Stranger Things

Narcos

If the police are watching a crack house, and happen to see me entering several times, they are not spying on me specifically.

So if the government was spying on the Russians, and Trump kept contacting them, it doesn't mean they were spying on Trump. Simple really.

If the police are watching a crack house, and happen to see me entering several times, they are not spying on me specifically.

So if the government was spying on the Russians, and Trump kept contacting them, it doesn't mean they were spying on Trump. Simple really.

Twin Peaks is coming to Showtime right ? I guess I should watch the original first though.

...
Lest any Trump supporter hope the feds were through with him after the election, Comey relieved them of that illusion, too. The FBI, he said, was continuing to investigate “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Translation: The bureau is conducting an open-ended counterintelligence investigation into whether any of Trump’s associates collluded with the Russians. The FBI generally does not open an investigation, much less continue one, unless there’s evidence of a possible crime. And unlike criminal investigations, which generally require indictments from grand juries at some point, the FBI’s counterintelligence probe of Russian subversion and Trump’s associates could remain open for months, even years. Comey also said the FBI will conduct “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

The upshot: Barring some unforeseen development, the Trump White House will feel the drip, drip, drip of the bureau’s multiple probes for its entire time in office. No doubt the leaks have just begun.

The president might be wise to negotiate a resignation before he’s fatally wounded. Comey and Rogers slashed him so badly on Monday, with their emphatic eviscerations of his infamous tweets claiming President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, that his credibility on any issue, outside his adoring legions of cult-like fans, has been nearly destroyed. At some point, the Republicans may see their own salvation lies in deserting him for Vice President Mike Pence....