[Morgoth]

worry, on 03 October 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

NYT just published an article today, coincidentally enough, on the very subject of elected judges: http://www.nytimes.c...hn-roberts.html

Luckily it's still the first week of the month, so I haven't exhausted my 10 free articles or whatever. Anyway, the gist of it is that yes indeed, being subject to elections affects the behavior of judges, predominantly by making them harsher in criminal matters and less likely to risk their necks on the frontiers of social justice (like gay rights) than non-elected counterparts. In addition -- in case that alone might not seem like a causal link -- it also seems that the closer one is to the election, the more this harshness increases (it might still be worth reading the article, which is more eloquent about this than I am).

So while I get HD's point about the hierarchy of courts, I wouldn't discount the toll on people's lives that judicial elections cause even in low level courts.

Oh for sure. Electing judges is a crazy practice. But from what I understood of HD's post, federal judges are not elected but appointed.

[worry]

Yah that's true. I'm not disagreeing with him re: federal courts as the top dogs, but I do think state & local courts have plenty of power and ability, and demonstrate it on a daily basis as they affect people's lives.

[HoosierDaddy]

worry, on 04 October 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

Yah that's true. I'm not disagreeing with him re: federal courts as the top dogs, but I do think state & local courts have plenty of power and ability, and demonstrate it on a daily basis as they affect people's lives.

I don't disagree with their affect on individuals and even groups' lives, but I was and am thinking big picture here. In the end it doesn't matter what they say if a Fed Circuit or SCOTUS disagrees.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 October 2016 - 11:40 PM

[Vengeance]

High Geek of Crawfish, on 05 October 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

Putting IB on hold(since I'm getting my ass whooped) to see a bit of Pence.

Holy shit just on opening statement I'm giving that to Pence! I've never listened to Kaine but he sounded index card like a motherfucker. Pence is fluid and chill.

Did the debate actually start? Or are you early scoring it like the GOP did?

[worry]

Pence's answers are awful, Kaine's answers are okay-to-good...a little too much "I can't believe Pence would defend Donald's ____insert horrible plan____". I mean it's true, but it's repetitive/formulaic in a way that's not helping.

[HoosierDaddy]

Ask any Hoosier about Pence who isn't a hardcore tea-party or hardcore conservative Christian.

GOT TO GO.

[HoosierDaddy]

High Geek of Crawfish, on 05 October 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

It's going on now and like I said just on opening statement Kaine was shit Pence was bombdiggity.

I'm still giving it currently to him.

BK, stop smoking whatever it is you are. It's fair to be biased, but.... come on. Pence can't defend Trump and his own record is shit.

[worry]

Pence is literally trying to paint HRC as an ally of Russia right now. Does anyone in the world believe that HRC is more closely aligned with Putin than Trump is?? This campaign is like the ultimate in "I'm rubber, you're glue" arguments.

[Silencer]

What you can see here is the reason Trump is doing as well as he is:


Irrational hate of Hillary Clinton
And
A lack of concern for the message, just the way it's delivered.

BK doesn't care what gets said, just as long as it *sounds* good. Because you know, fuck policies and actual records of behaviour or beliefs.

[worry]

While I'm not fond of Kaine's formulaic answers & naked strategy like I said above, Pence keeps trying and failing to Christie-vs.-Rubio him because he's like the Uber Politician.

[worry]

Holy crap. They were given the softest possible softball question about faith (this social issue section has been AWFUL, not a single question about LGBT rights), and Pence is voluntarily making an anti-abortion case. I cannot believe he just did that.

[worry]

Sorry to triple post, but Pence just said "You whipped out that Mexican thing again." I predict this is gonna be the quote of the night, and you're gonna hear it a million times in the next 24 hours.

[worry]

This is real, as in it actually exists, and was broadcast by a major news network in October 2016.

[worry]

That does not compute. This might be the least funny person I've ever seen -- and I've watched multiple Jeff Dunham specials. But that's beside the point. Ultimately what it says is that FOX, which famously has an average prime time viewer age of 68, just isn't interested in evolving. Roger Ailes was a problem, but he wasn't the problem. Every last one of these creeps is rotten inside like a jack-o-lantern two weeks after Halloween.

[Tsundoku]

Heh, there's already a reaction at The Atlantic:

(hint: they're not fans)

http://www.theatlant...arnival/503081/

[Imperial Historian]

That video is impressively offensive.

[QuickTidal]

Blindingly offensive. Like on a level that really bothers me.

The best bit of that whole thing is the last guy who obviously was having none of it and sassed him for mispronouncing what he asked him to say in Chinese.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 06 October 2016 - 06:57 PM

[worry]

Yeah I suppose my point in posting it was that -- as awful as FOX is on the regular -- this is a step beyond. It's the stupid, crass, nakedly unapologetic racism that you see at Trump rallies. That the right still insists no longer exists (milquetoast moderates and liberals who thought it was merely at the harmless fringes have hopefully gotten a wake-up call by now). A whole team of professionals thought this was perfectly fine to air.

[Andorion]

Oh my.

And that is not satire? That was an actual news event?

Also did anyone else think that the elderly people simply didn't care?

[worry]

It was shock humor, but not satire. The premise was "Chinese people, am I right?"