TakeYouToTasker

I oppose a nanny state that forces individuals to go to school as strongly as I oppose a welfare state which forces me to take care of able bodied adults.

I believe that the nomination will be Warren for two reasons, both of them designed to help Bernie Sanders: 1) Warren's nomination, and the subsequent Republican blockage, will be stacks of red meat for Sanders supporters, who will be able to frame it, quite clearly and cleanly, as a Constitutional attack on regular working class Americans. 2) It will strengthen Warrens own credentials as an eventual running mate for Sanders.

Debtors' prison never went away in regards to debt to the government, or associated with the government.

It will be Liz Warren.

Overrated: Jeff Wright Underrated: Mark Pike

No... That would be another poor example.

No, it did not. Conceptually, "separate but equal" provides equal protection to all under the law. An argument could be made that in many instances "equal" didn't actually rise to the standard of equal, and improvements must be made to ensure true equality of accomodations; and that would have been within the proper purview of the Court.

The Constitution says what it says, not what 9 lawyers in black robes wish it said. The purpose of the 14th was not to confer social rights on black Americans. We know this because of the history. No reasonable person could argue that the Amendment, ratified in 1868, pre-Jim Crow, which contains no prohibitions of segregation, intended otherwise. The argument that Brown was correctly decided is both a moral and politically expedient one rather than one based on origional intent. I'm of the belief that the moral outcome of Brown was the proper one, however I also believe that process and guiding structure are much more important to the long term health and stability of a society based on laws than individual outcomes are. When you corrupt the fabric of law by interjecting political expedience, you've lost consistency, and when you lose consistency you lose legitimacy.

They were creating law. I'm not sure how you can state otherwise, given that the 14th Amendment was written and then existed durring a period of time when black Americans didn't enjoy social rights. A backwards interpretation of the 14th which would confer social rights on black Americans, which clearly goes against the observable history surrounding it, grants meaning that the authors and ratifiers never intended.

Scalia has gone back and forth on Brown v Board; he has stated that while he would have dissented on Brown, that he personally felt segregation was a moral wrong but that it wasn't the role of the Court to create law. He has also stated that he would have voted with the majority.

I lack intimate knowledge, but have heard that to be the case of Kolbachar. 16 or 20 years ago, this would have been an almost obvious strategy for an outgoing lame-duck President. However, In this political environment I don't believe there is a non-contentious nominee. Any vote to confirm someone with a well documented liberal legislative agenda would almost certainly result in a challenge from the right for the voter's office. Any Republican Senator who wants to keep their job would be obligated to reject that sort of nomination.

No it isn't.

That's largely because there is a large portion of the politically active segment of the population who believe individual outcomes are more important than structure, consistency, and process. For them the Court is essentially a Super-Senate.

She's also a Native American woman!

A racial argument will be made for McNabb. Given the times, he gets in. Kevin Greene is third on the all-time sack list. Third. How do you leave him out? Of course Romo has a case, but he lacks the racial element which pushes McNabb over the top. Taylor was one of the best of his era at his position for an extended period, and was still dominate in his down years. He's a clear inductee.

Liz Warren has no financial competence. She's a hard left ideologue, whom if her preferences were enacted, would plunge the country into destitute poverty and war. But, if President Obama were to nominate from the Senate, she should be his obvious choice.

No. To much of a history on issues current to the Court. This wouldn't work to the left's advantage because it would present a clear issues based opposition. If he goes this route, given the clear transparency of this type of nomination, he goes Liz Warren.

Demonstrate that this has ever come close to happening; then explain in great detail why setting the precedent for government being able to restrict political speech is a good thing in a free and democratic society.

Radio, television, and print adds are hardly "screaming to drown out others". Further, one purchasing such a medium for their speech does not prohibit anyone else from from doing exactly the same thing. We all have the equal right to speak. Campaign finance laws simply serve to censor political speech that the left doesn't like.

I think arguments can be made for Light and McNabb, but I think you've made a reasonable assessment of the guys there should be zero argument over. LT and Taylor should be first ballot guys. Dawkins should get in on his second attempt.

That's not judicial activism. What is it, exactly, you believe the purpose of the Court is? To rubber stamp new law? The purpose of the Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of law, not the popularity of law. And Scalia was correct in his opinion on campaign finance as speech and voters rights. I'd yet to hear any logical Constitutional argument opposing. Perhaps you'll care to make one?

I'm not at all interested in assigning you a strawman argument. I'm interested in the topic.

I'd love to have this discussion. I won't impose it on you, so if you're interested, please start the thread.

No, this is you projecting for the purposes of making political expedience, providing yourself with a quick and easy way to disregard the positions of people you'd rather not have to argue with on merits. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty. Blue collar working class people: restaurant workers, factory and warehouse workers, other general unskilled laborers. The shortage of truck drivers is caused largely by two factors: new federal regulations, and a reaction to the financial crisis which drove drivers into other careers. Using that single industry as an example of the need to import waves of 3rd world immigrants is asinine. Further, the likelihood that uneducated unskilled immigrants workers would meet DOT requirements is approaching null. A further saturation of the unskilled labor market is going to get rid of some nebulous "bottleneck in an economy" which is currently suffering from the worst labor participation rate since the 1970's? Think that through. Donald Trump is a sensationalist who has thrived by saying bombastic and inflammatory things. He was speaking to headlines recent to the time of his statements, in which illegal immigrants whom were living in sanctuary cities had committed rape and murder. In the same speech he went on to say that not all illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers. He also has, in fact, stated that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs.. No, this is you projecting again, making the same intellectually dishonest argument. It's easier for you to simply name people voicing real concerns as racist so that you can dismiss them without debating them on their merits. No, they don't. Unskilled, uneducated, Third world immigrants consume services and are a net drain on the tax base. Also, how can you make claims both that illegal immigrants won't take middle class jobs and that they'll be net tax payers simultainiously? No, you made, as you always do, charges of racism rather than debate the merits of an argument and addressing the real and legitimate concerns of a massive portion of the electorate. I simply pointed out that you were being intellectually dishonest, as you usually are. It's not that you are wrong "in my opinion", it's that you are objectively and intentionally wrong for the sole purpose of political expediency.

Yes, because you consistently do things like equate hate with nativism and xenophobia. You very well know that most people, regardless of their political beliefs, don't hate immigrants. The xenophobic nativist streak running through both major parties in the country is fueled by a worsening economic footing, a shrinking middle class, and a dearth of job and wage security for most of blue collar America, all while they see their taxes rising to cover the costs of an expanding welfare state bureaucracy. Blue collar working America sees these trends, and at the same time sees massive immigration of third world immigrants coming here whom they know will both saturate the blue collar job market, further depressing wages and increasing job scarcity; and who will consume tax dollar funded welfare provisions. They don't hate immigrants. They are afraid for their own economic wellbeing, and have come to the realization that neither major party, or anyone in the Beltway is looking out for them or their interests. But, you, knowing all of this, quickly slap on a label of "hate" because you're incapable of intellectual honesty, and would rather paint people with your broad brush of lies because it's politically expedient for you.