Suppose the particular law puts limits on political spending and restricts spending by corporations. Congress passes it because they are listening to all the people. Then, the SC overrides it, because they decide that congress can’t put limits on political spending, due to their vision of the first amendment.
1 Like
Of course. I understand this. However, if poor people were truly upset with that decision, they would elect people who’d change the law so that it passed court scrutiny. Or they’d amend the constitution to allow the law.
The SCOTUS only seems to have so much power because congress is so log jammed. Plus, a good percentage of poor people support these rulings.
I did understand what you were saying, that how I know you misrepresented what Twig said.
“Legislating from the bench”. I’m aware of the idea, and it does have an impact on how laws are interpreted and enforced. It might be a distinction without a difference to you, but I disagree that SCOTUS passes laws.
You know the demographic breakdown of who in the democratic base supports socialism? Amazing. Why didn’t you just post that information first? Why did you fist only allude to what you are “seeing”?
Also this isn’t what you said. Here is the direct quote:
I don’t see how any reader would possibly make the leap that “the world you are seeing” means the “known demographic breakdown of the democratic base”. I also don’t know how that could have been what you meant unless you were trying to make the weakest argument possible.
I also doubt you have any information about what portions of the democratic base support socialism and what portions don’t.
1 Like
Moderating:
Reminder: Please don’t attack other posters. Don’t say they are lying. Don’t say they are trolling. Don’t say they are bad people.
Comment on the content, not on the contributor.
2 Likes
I think you are missing something – people who grew up poor and stay poor sometimes have socialist leanings. People who grew up poor and are now rich tend to think that it’s due to their own virtue, and anyone else could do it with similar virtue, and they tend to be very bitter about government taking away stuff that they’ve EARNED, DAMMIT and giving it to people who are still poor because they are less virtuous.
Whereas people who grew up rich are often aware of how much that helped them, and how many extra chances they had because of where they started out, and are more inclined to support government aid for people who have less than they have. Not always, but it’s pretty common. More common than “people who started poor and are now succeeding as actuaries” having socialist leanings.
2 Likes
Interesting POV. At first I was in the “I pulled myself up” camp but as I began to learn more I realized that many of my opportunities came from taxpayers. Pell Grants and the like. I also began to see that while I had a crowd of people encouraging me, many did not or do not.
Know better, do better. Not my words, but words that now shape how I want to be.
3 Likes
I was not wrong because I never once said that there are no poor SCOTUS justices, and I never believed that. In fact, I said almost the exact polar opposite because I pointed out that Sotomayor came from a modest background in this thread.
I had not mentioned in this thread, but was certainly well aware as much was made of it when he was confirmed, that Thomas had a scholarship for minorities to attend college. (It’s been a while, but my recollection was that he opposed the existence of such scholarships, despite having taken advantage of one himself.)
I finally got around to reading this article and I am really confused. Can someone read this and create a timeline of ages and events for me? Is there just a lot of typos in here or should this article get cross-posted in the Innumeracy thread?
I recall thinking the article was poorly written too.
As far as I can tell, and ages may be slightly off due to rounding / not knowing when in the year birthdays fall:
2008: 18 year old male kidnaps & forcibly rapes 12 year old female; female is pregnant from encounter
2009: rape victim gives birth, rapist pleads guilty and is sentenced to 2 years. Serves 6.5 months and is released.
2010: rapist rapes another child
2011ish: rapist sentenced to 5-15 years for second rape
2015ish: rapist released after serving 4 years of a 5-15 year sentence
2017: first rape victim applies for public assistance, somehow bringing herself to the attention of an idiot judge. Idiot judge discloses her whereabouts to her rapist, ordered the rapist’s name be added to kid’s birth certificate, and orders rape victim to live within 100 miles of rapist. From what I can tell this did not require the rape victim to move, but it restricts her future ability to move.
2017: victim speaks out and CBS News picks up the story
2019: Mother Jones writes about it, mostly talking about what happened “a year ago when X was Y years old” but the dates/ages seem to be from the 2017 CBS News article.
2021: Yahoo writes about it, failing to update the 2017 ages to present, presenting a very disjointed narrative.
2022: Yahoo article posted on GoActuary
3 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
What the hell is your problem with me?
Nothing. Just noting a distinct posting style. I didnt even read it thoroughly, just the length and mannerism.
You are one of our more awesome posters.
Oh, sorry, it seemed like a dig. I might be on edge from earlier occurrences in this thread, partially subsequently deleted. Appreciate the kudos.
Do note that you might also get ribbed occasionally.
It was an extremely thorough post, exactly what a321 was looking for.
Minor update you wouldn’t have known: Yahoo bumps last year’s article near the top of their feed due to the overturn of Roe.
1 Like
The variation in the Republicans response to the two questions really stands out. Inconsistent?
2 Likes
I could see many Republicans calling themselves pro-life, but still not wanting government control of the issue.
2 Likes
yeah, there are a lot of people who describe themselves as personally pro-life, but not in favor of laws restricting access to (some subset, maybe any) abortions.
Yup. I think there are a lot more reasonable pro-lifers than one may surmise.