Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

General Discussion / Re: Cabin 2.0

« Last post by Jana at Jade House on Today at 05:57:28 pm »

Today 70 years on earth....whoa when did I get OLD.?

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by Roper on Today at 04:01:29 pm »

"Separation of powers" has never been absolute. I find it interesting that a common complaint from the political left is that the executive branch has too much power and should not have a legislative agenda, while a common complaint from the political right is that activist judges do too much legislating from the bench. It's another area where political discourse is driven by party allegiance, and not by a consistent rational application of constitutional principles.

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by Taalcon on Today at 12:07:18 pm »

Quote

The constitution provides that congress makes the laws. And a judge job is to only apply the facts to the existing law.

I agree. However, what I see is when a judge does that and it is not in support of they way they feel it should be, then the judge is labeled an Activist, and when they Do support one's existing feeling of how it should be, they are labelled A Respecter Of The Constitution.

"I want someone who respects the Constitituion" generally means, "I think the constitution should mean this, and I want the Judge to support me."

Using is as a swipe from either side to declare that only THEIR SIDE wants the "Constitution Respecting Judges" and the other side only will give them Activist Judges Who Want To Shred The Constitution" is extremely unhelpful, and not particularly reflective of the reality of things.

I've seen judges who have expressed how they'd LIKE the outcome of something to be, but then when arguing and deciding a case in their official capacity, arguing strongly for (or upholding) an interpretation that is not in line of what they had expressed before was how they would LIKE it to be.

People are regularly 'shocked' when a so-called Conservative judge rules in favor of an outcome that is more popular by the democratic platform, and the same comes when a so-called "liberal activist judge" upholds a position very popular with the Republican platform, against the interests of the Democrat 'view'.

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by pnr on Today at 11:07:04 am »

The constitution provides that congress makes the laws. And a judge job is to only apply the facts to the existing law. Our history shows lots and lots of judges want what they consider to be the right outcome or what they think the law should be (and sometimes they are completely accurately viewing the law as stupid, not enough, not what they meant). The trouble is that judges are not allowed to make it up how they think it should be. They are supposed to only decide how to apply the law that is actually written. We have to have judges who accept and honor their constitutional role to adjudicate what is actually there, not what they want to think the law requires of them. (And when all judges respect that difference, it should force/persuade Congress to pass what they actually mean full throttle.)

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by Roper on May 28, 2020, 08:43:51 pm »

On "Controlling the narrative":

Donald Trump rejects a media process which twists even the most carefully crafted presidential messages to fit the political bias of whichever outlet is reporting. His messages come directly from him, and he says what he thinks. I think this is a Good Thing.

Donald Trump uses that process to verbally abuse and threaten anyone who isn't in lockstep with his own view of the world. I think this is Bad Thing.

Is it more important to present an unedited and unapologetic agenda from the Oval Office? Or is it more important to set an expectation of civil discourse and consideration for the country? Since we don't live in a utopia, we won't have both. Again, I'm unsure which is more valuable. The former intelligence officer in me likes his tweets. They give me a pretty good read on his thinking and direction most of the time. The citizen in me cringes at the way he treats people.

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by Taalcon on May 28, 2020, 04:42:27 pm »

Quote

The one thing that matters the most to me is that he has appointed judges who respect the constitution and their role in the constitutional distribution of power. Being able to do that for another term is probably what will save American constitutional government. This one thing is enough good to vote for him.

I see this a lot, but I've never exactly seen it explained in a way that really amounts more to, "I like the enforced policies these judges seem to support, so that must be 100% in line with what the Constitution framers intended and anticipated, and I don't like the policies that THESE Judges ruling would support, so they must be being Radical Activists From The Bench."

Like, I have seen no evidence that the so-deemed "Bad Judges" do NOT have a very, very high respect for the Constitution, Constitutional Law, or distribution of power. It's far more nuanced than partisans of either side make it out to be, and most of the radical issues they want THEIR SIDE to enforce (on both sides of the aisle) really are far more pipe dreams than anything any competent life-appointed Judiciary would thoughtlessly affirm.

Part of the political drama is to make you think everything relies on THEIR PARTIES Judiciary picks so you can ignore everything else you hate about your candidate. "Okay, you hate this person, you hate everything they stand for, but vote for them, because they will Save The World Through Their Judiciary Picks!" - Nah, I don't think that's the case at all. It's a last-ditch effort to get people to vote for terrible candidates on both sides (and it's shown to be a very, very successful strategy).

I really don't think, one way or another, Abortion is in any way a real election issue. Roe v Wade is settled law with further precedent to reinforce it. It's not going to be overturned by "Conservative Judges".

Left and Right will BOTH use it as an issue to scare people otherwise disinterested citizens into voting for Their Side, for an issue that is not going to be substantially strengthened or weakened by any competent judges. People get so fired up about it, people would vote on it alone, even thought the election really will have nothing to do about it. And again, it works, so they'll keep on doing it.

When a political leader makes BIG SWEEPING STATEMENTS about Protecting The Sanctity of the Most Vulnerable, and then actively works against extending support and assistance for the health and living conditions of the Vulnerable, But Already Born, you can tell that they're looking more for the Riled Up Crowds than actually looking to be devoted for seeking out policy to actually better and protect lives.

It's one of the things that frustrates me most of all.

Quote

3 --- He has protected our freedom to worship (granted not as much as he should have given the anti-Islam rhetoric).

How has he actually done the former, apart from saying the words as he is surrounded by his Evangelical Support Team? This is another statement I see brought up a lot that I don't see actually playing out.

Quote

6 --- His actions appear to be starting to prompt Congress to start actually legislating instead of abrogating its constitutional role to an unelected bureacracy.

Both the house and the senate are and have been regularly legislating. And very little of them are directly in response to something Trump has said or done. Like, not everything they legislate is Big Exciting National News That Can Be Blown Up Into An Exciting Story. C-Span is regularly covering legislative sessions that're just not going to make it to Headline News, and often because of legislation that happens to be quite bipartisan. I don't get this - they aren't just sitting around waiting for the President to act and react in all things, and they didn't do that beforehand either?

Politics / Re: The LIST

« Last post by pnr on May 28, 2020, 04:24:01 pm »

Aside from the seemingly arrogant demand for proof (probably not what OP intended but nevertheless an easy extrapolation of what was asked)

The one thing that matters the most to me is that he has appointed judges who respect the constitution and their role in the constitutional distribution of power. Being able to do that for another term is probably what will save American constitutional government. This one thing is enough good to vote for him.

Beyond that, my list includes

1--- It is good that agencies are rethinking whether all the regulations we live under are really needed for our safety, or just a preference --- the former being the role of government, the latter not.

2 --- It is good to be rethinking the size of government. Why if multiple presidents over many years only needed a 150 member security council, did the president before trump need over 200? (Because I worked for governments a long time, I suspect that that president simply brought his own people in in addition to rather than replacing them. Sometimes that isn't an inappropriate leadership move, but it is is expensive.

3 --- He has protected our freedom to worship (granted not as much as he should have given the anti-Islam rhetoric).

4 --- Even his bad behavior establishes why it is important that federal government be administered in a non-partisan way for the greater good, and his version of that greater good includes God and fundamental inalienable rights. (It isn't that I don't think Biden is routed in that too, it is that Biden is going to get consumed by the socialist outrage that has engulfed our country, whether he likes it or not.)

5--- He has not sacrificed military spending for social programs. (I agree he's not been sufficiently disruptive to address the waste in various government spending, but that kind of disruption is pretty tough in an environment of anti every single word he says, just on the basis that he said it.)

6 --- His actions appear to be starting to prompt Congress to start actually legislating instead of abrogating its constitutional role to an unelected bureacracy.

7 --- His rhetoric in its awfulness and the wall might actually move Congress finally to addressing and resolving the immigration issue in American, which Congress has refused to do over many years because leaders and members have wanted to preserve it as a political issue.

ETA: He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. (I do not agree with his support for Israel movements into the West Bank?)

Politics / The LIST

« Last post by Roper on May 27, 2020, 11:16:41 pm »

Mirkwood's response on another thread prompted this thread.

Quote from: mirkwood on May 27, 2020, 01:18:17 pm

As it turns out, despite his crassness and churlishness, Trump has done a lot of good for this country.

I'm going to say this not to be argumentative, but because I really would like to know how people come to their conclusions:

I'd like to see a list of "Good Things" President Trump has done which help people compared with a list of "Bad Things" he has done which hurt people. In our society's hyper-partisan public discourse it will likely never be fair or accurate. Each side will claim that their interpretation is more valid, and it will devolve into bickering. Maybe we could do better here. Choose a policy area, and compare the good things vs. the bad things which have come out of the Trump administration. Compare them and make a conclusion based on an intellectually honest rationale.

I'll start with human rights:

I'm grateful that President Trump has supported human rights for developing children. I question his sincerity, because he has flip-flopped on abortion based on political expediency, but his actions have been undeniable: He has championed judges which are pro-life. I think that's a Good Thing.

I'm saddened by his misogynistic and racist rhetoric. In addition to his "crass and churlish" talk, he has championed policies which are harmful to people, specifically against children of immigrants. I think this is a Bad Thing.

At this point, I don't believe that one outweighs the other. I would call his record on Human Rights a wash.

What are some intellectually honest evaluations you have?

Politics / Re: A Modest Prediction

« Last post by Roper on May 27, 2020, 10:33:19 pm »

Quote from: Jana at Jade House on May 26, 2020, 11:52:56 pm

Opening the church buildings must be a really complex international challenge. For instance, in the land of Cheese, a church must file a plan with local public health authorities (which makes me very happy that trained folk are in the decision making process) and have it approved. Then, if there is discovered non compliance it is a 4000 euro fine to the organizer, and 395 euro for each individual. That's a whopper of a fine for limited income folks. But hopefully a deterrent to the "It is just a flu-I will not wear a mask- we need to congregate" knuckleheads.

I just received this from my Stake Presidency today:

Because of the size and activity levels of the Church units in our Stake, we will proceed with caution. The Area Presidency has counseled to move slowly and cautiously and get it right. With this in mind, there are several things under consideration at the moment. Some items of consideration are:

● Meeting start times and congregation limits

(Under the State of Utah regulations, religious meetings are exempt from the 50 person limits. Current Church guidelines place a 99 person limit on meetings)

● Logistics around the safe administration of the Sacrament

● Limiting touch points and access to parts of the buildings

● Cleaning the buildings before and after meetings

○ Acquisition of appropriate cleaning supplies (The Church FM has ordered supplies but unfortunately those items are back-ordered until at least mid-June)

● Getting appropriate signage in place to advise members of their responsibilities

We ask for your continued prayers and understanding as we work through these issues. We are working with the bishops and will meet again on June 14th to assess updated guidelines and review ward plans. Until we have appropriate sanitizing supplies and approve ward plans we cannot start Phase I.

So, we might be still doing home church for the next several weeks.