The LGBTQ2s+ - When will it stop expanding?

[lar3ryca]

Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:

2SLGBTQIA+

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

--
Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 24/06/2022 6:11 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>
> 2SLGBTQIA+
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

No, because anyone who hasn't correctly memorised them will be
pilloried as being whateverphobic to those they get wrong.

I note that H continues to be absent, thus showing the gender
activists' continued intolerance to the vast majority of people.
Bloody hypocrites.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-24 17:11:38 +0000, lar3ryca said:

> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>
> 2SLGBTQIA+
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

LGBTQ OK, but the others, no idea

> Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?

Maybe the same person who decided to give a Japanese car a name
(Corolla) that Japanese people can't pronounce.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <t94r8b$bkj$1...@dont-email.me>, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>
>2SLGBTQIA+
>
>Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

None of those are genders.

"2S" is only a thing in Canada, it's an indigenous religion thing.
Usually it comes last rather than first.

(Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning,
intersex, asexual, and a plus for "everything else".)

I am of two minds whether it actually makes sense to lump all of these
things together: on the one hand, it's a clear category error, but on
the other hand, we all do have one thing in common, which is not
complying with socially-enforced norms of gender expression.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-24 17:22:34 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

> On 24/06/2022 6:11 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
>> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>>
>> 2SLGBTQIA+
>>
>> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?
>
> No, because anyone who hasn't correctly memorised them will be
> pilloried as being whateverphobic to those they get wrong.
>
> I note that H continues to be absent, thus showing the gender
> activists' continued intolerance to the vast majority of people. Bloody
> hypocrites.

Maybe S stands for Straight. A few weeks ago we were sent a
questionnaire from some company on behalf of the Biochemical Society,
as part of its Commitment to Inclusivity. One of the questions referred
to sexual preference (or gender preference as they insisted on calling
it). None of your business, I was tempted to say, but I didn't. They
gave a list of options, of which "Straight" was one. My wife didn't
know what that meant, so I explained. Beginning with S allowed them to
put it well down the alphabetical list, as if it was an afterthought to
cope with weirdos like you and me.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 24/06/2022 7:36 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-06-24 17:22:34 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>
>> On 24/06/2022 6:11 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
>>> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>>>
>>> 2SLGBTQIA+
>>>
>>> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?
>>
>> No, because anyone who hasn't correctly memorised them will be
>> pilloried as being whateverphobic to those they get wrong.
>>
>> I note that H continues to be absent, thus showing the gender
>> activists' continued intolerance to the vast majority of
>> people. Bloody hypocrites.
>
> Maybe S stands for Straight.

Whatever that means. But if so, surely we only need two letters?
S and B, for Straight and Bent.

> A few weeks ago we were sent a
> questionnaire from some company on behalf of the Biochemical
> Society, as part of its Commitment to Inclusivity. One of the
> questions referred to sexual preference (or gender preference as
> they insisted on calling it). None of your business, I was
> tempted to say, but I didn't.

That's precisely what I'd have said.

> They gave a list of options, of
> which "Straight" was one. My wife didn't know what that meant, so
> I explained. Beginning with S allowed them to put it well down
> the alphabetical list, as if it was an afterthought to cope with
> weirdos like you and me.

Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
of course, is by design.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
>of course, is by design.

"The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence. The minority
does not.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Well, it's good to see that mixed gender marriages are being tolerated.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 24/06/2022 8:02 pm, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
>> of course, is by design.
>
> "The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
> impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence.

Rubbish.

> The minority
> does not.

Neither does the majority. I'm in the majority and I don't have
any access to any levers whatsoever except, like everyone else
who bothers to register, the odd vote every few years (which
shows that I'm generally in the minority even when I'm in the
majority.

All this "levers of power" nonsense is just that - nonsense,
because the very few people who do have access to those levers
are invariably *other people*.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:02:04 PM UTC-4, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> >Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
> >of course, is by design.
>
> "The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
> impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence. The minority
> does not.

You will never be able to explain that to Heathfield, let alone
convince him of it. Or, apparently, Cornish-Bowden, either.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:16:22 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 24/06/2022 8:02 pm, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
> >> of course, is by design.
> >
> > "The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
> > impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence.
> Rubbish.
>
> > The minority
> > does not.
>
> Neither does the majority. I'm in the majority and I don't have
> any access to any levers whatsoever except, like everyone else
> who bothers to register, the odd vote every few years (which
> shows that I'm generally in the minority even when I'm in the
> majority.
>
> All this "levers of power" nonsense is just that - nonsense,
> because the very few people who do have access to those levers
> are invariably *other people*.

Q.E.D.

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:23:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-06-24 17:11:38 +0000, lar3ryca said:
>
>> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>>
>> 2SLGBTQIA+
>>
>> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?
>
>LGBTQ OK, but the others, no idea

LGB OK, but the others, no idea

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-24 19:02:00 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:

> In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
>> of course, is by design.
>
> "The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
> impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence. The minority
> does not.

Surely you can't be so out of touch with events in your country that
you haven't heard about the Supreme Court's decision to impose the will
of the minority on the majority over abortion.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:02:00 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
>>of course, is by design.
>
>"The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
>impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence. The minority
>does not.
>

How do you apply the above to the Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs v
Jackson? The ruling is contrary to the majority of the citizens of
the US. The only majority in control of the levers of power was the
majority in the nine people making the decision.

When it come to power to operate the levers, the word "majority" has
no meaning unless you identify "Which majority?". The majority of
American citizens are in favor of gun controls, the ability of two
people of the same sex to marry each other, and the right of a woman
to obtain an abortion.

The majority of 6 out of 9 has just pulled the lever to "Off" on one
of those issues, and they are reaching for the levers of the other two
with the same intent.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[J. J. Lodder]

Perhaps 'Human' would do, if there is any free choice left,

Jan

[Tony Cooper]

In which Court does the majority control the levers? The Court of
Public Opinion or the Court of Nine?

The latter just pulled the lever on Dobbs v Jackson. What portends
for Baker v Nelson?

[Lewis]

In message <jhma8e...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> Maybe the same person who decided to give a Japanese car a name
> (Corolla) that Japanese people can't pronounce.

Is the Corolla sold IN JAPAN?



--
I draw the line at 7 unreturned phone calls.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:57:23 PM UTC-6, Lewis wrote:
> In message <jhma8e...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > Maybe the same person who decided to give a Japanese car a name
> > (Corolla) that Japanese people can't pronounce.

> Is the Corolla sold IN JAPAN?

Yes, at Toyota Corolla Stores, according to Wikipedia. The Japanese
Wikipedia gives the Japanese name as トヨタカローラてん,
which Google Translate romanizes as Toyotakarōra-ten.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Anders D. Nygaard]

It was reported here as 5 to 3 with one abstention.

Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
similar majority.

/Anders, Denmark

[CDB]

On 6/24/2022 2:36 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Richard Heathfield said:
>> lar3ryca wrote:

>>> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:

>>> 2SLGBTQIA+

>>> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

>> No, because anyone who hasn't correctly memorised them will be
>> pilloried as being whateverphobic to those they get wrong.

>> I note that H continues to be absent, thus showing the gender
>> activists' continued intolerance to the vast majority of people.
>> Bloody hypocrites.

> Maybe S stands for Straight. A few weeks ago we were sent a
> questionnaire from some company on behalf of the Biochemical Society,
> as part of its Commitment to Inclusivity. One of the questions
> referred to sexual preference (or gender preference as they insisted
> on calling it). None of your business, I was tempted to say, but I
> didn't. They gave a list of options, of which "Straight" was one. My
> wife didn't know what that meant, so I explained. Beginning with S
> allowed them to put it well down the alphabetical list, as if it was
> an afterthought to cope with weirdos like you and me.

The approved initialism here is LGBTQ2S+, of which the "2S", a nod to
the reconciliation movement beloved of the Prince of Wales (this just
in), stands for "two-spirit".

We haven't got to "IA" yet, so dunno. The "+" is supposed to cover
anything we have left out, but stay tuned.

[CDB]

On 6/24/2022 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield said:

Well, yes. If the string were meant to include the whole population,
there would be no need for its comfort.

As my mother once explained in response to my childish question, "Every
day is Children's Day".

[CDB]

On 6/24/2022 4:40 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>> Richard Heathfield said:
>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:

>>>> 2SLGBTQIA+

>>>> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

>>> No, because anyone who hasn't correctly memorised them will be
>>> pilloried as being whateverphobic to those they get wrong.

>>> I note that H continues to be absent, thus showing the gender
>>> activists' continued intolerance to the vast majority of people.
>>> Bloody hypocrites.

>> Maybe S stands for Straight. A few weeks ago we were sent a
>> questionnaire from some company on behalf of the Biochemical
>> Society, as part of its Commitment to Inclusivity. One of the
>> questions referred to sexual preference (or gender preference as
>> they insisted on calling it). None of your business, I was tempted
>> to say, but I didn't. They gave a list of options, of which
>> "Straight" was one. My wife didn't know what that meant, so I
>> explained. Beginning with S allowed them to put it well down the
>> alphabetical list, as if it was an afterthought to cope with
>> weirdos like you and me.

> Perhaps 'Human' would do, if there is any free choice left,

And you're willing to own up about it. Check out Quinn's Margaret
Atwood sig.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 6:11:55 AM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 24-06-2022 kl. 22:40 skrev Tony Cooper:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:02:00 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> > (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <t9516k$mvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Odd how "inclusive" effectively excludes the majority. But that,
> >>> of course, is by design.
> >>
> >> "The majority" has complete access to all the levers of power to
> >> impose its will on the minority, by threat of violence. The minority
> >> does not.
> >>
> >
> > How do you apply the above to the Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs v
> > Jackson? The ruling is contrary to the majority of the citizens of
> > the US. The only majority in control of the levers of power was the
> > majority in the nine people making the decision.
> >
> > When it come to power to operate the levers, the word "majority" has
> > no meaning unless you identify "Which majority?". The majority of
> > American citizens are in favor of gun controls, the ability of two
> > people of the same sex to marry each other, and the right of a woman
> > to obtain an abortion.
> >
> > The majority of 6 out of 9 has just pulled the lever to "Off" on one
> > of those issues, and they are reaching for the levers of the other two
> > with the same intent.
> It was reported here as 5 to 3 with one abstention.

Someone evidently doesn't know what "abstention" means.

The five who had signed the leaked draft issued the opinion.

The three liberals issued a brilliant, blisterijg dissent (Jutice
Breyer's last hurrah, it would seem.

Chief Justice Roberts issued a separate opinion, concurring
in part (the Mississippi law restiicting abortion to 15 weeks
was ok, which was the only thing they were asked to decide),
but the overruling of Roe and Casey was entirely wrong.

That is hardly "abstaining."

> Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
> in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.

Nothing to do with abortion. That was the Senate's vote on the
minuscule "compromise" on gun limitation that accomplishes
almost nothing in that area.

> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
> similar majority.

You need to learn what the issues are. And, there has to be a
case that has worked its way up through all the levels of the
judiciary, probably starting at a county court, then through the
state courts, then through the federal courts.

[Quinn C]

* Garrett Wollman:

> In article <t94r8b$bkj$1...@dont-email.me>, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>>
>>2SLGBTQIA+
>>
>>Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?
>
> None of those are genders.
>
> "2S" is only a thing in Canada, it's an indigenous religion thing.
> Usually it comes last rather than first.

I've never heard it characterized as "religious". It's an umbrella term
for indigenous non-binary identities, which differ in detail from
culture to culture. Much historical information about them is lost, too.

In Canada, often first after the classic LGBTQ, so, LGBTQ2S+, or
LGBTQ2SIA+.

> (Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning,
> intersex, asexual, and a plus for "everything else".)
>
> I am of two minds whether it actually makes sense to lump all of these
> things together: on the one hand, it's a clear category error, but on
> the other hand, we all do have one thing in common, which is not
> complying with socially-enforced norms of gender expression.

Simpler umbrella terms are "queer" and "GSM" (gender and sexual
minorities). The latter puts your last thought into focus.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke

[Hibou]

Le 24/06/2022 à 18:11, lar3ryca a écrit :
>
> Today, on the news, I saw the gender list, shown as:
>
> 2SLGBTQIA+
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what they all stand for?

It's beyond me - especially since lesbian, for example, isn't a gender,
but a sexual orientation.

Perhaps it would be simpler to collapse the whole thing into a wildcard
character, such as *.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:11:50 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
>in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
>But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
>similar majority.

It doesn't work the way I think you think it works.

The 65/33 vote refers to the Senate's vote on a gun control bill.

I wouldn't say that bill's intent reflects the majority of the
American public's view. It's a compromise that provides some of what
the majority wants, but not enough to truly reflect what the majority
wants.

Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is not obligated to rule on any case brought to
them. Many cases are brought to that level but never ruled on by the
Supreme Court.

By the time the case is brought before the Supreme Court, the balance
in the Court can change. Based on the current political climate in
the US, there's no indication that it will change, though.

While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:40:50 AM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:11:50 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
> >in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.

> >But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
> >similar majority.

> It doesn't work the way I think you think it works.
>
> The 65/33 vote refers to the Senate's vote on a gun control bill.
>
> I wouldn't say that bill's intent reflects the majority of the
> American public's view. It's a compromise that provides some of what
> the majority wants, but not enough to truly reflect what the majority
> wants.
>
> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels.

No, if a court at one level rules that it's constitutional, the losing party
can appeal and keep the process going up to the Supreme Court.

> Eventually, it can
> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
>
> The Supreme Court is not obligated to rule on any case brought to
> them. Many cases are brought to that level but never ruled on by the
> Supreme Court.

True, but I'll bet this one will be.

I'll add that the gun-control law has different provisions connected
only in being attempts to reduce gun violence, and some can be struck
down while others are left in place. I'll be very surprised if the current
Supremes strike down increased funding for mental health or if they
don't strike down red-flag laws.

> By the time the case is brought before the Supreme Court, the balance
> in the Court can change. Based on the current political climate in
> the US, there's no indication that it will change, though.
>
> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
> the Supreme Court.

If one or the other party is in control. If not, there will be a compromise.

>The President nominates a candidate when there is
> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.

--

Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Few would dare to own up to 'Sheep', I guess, so 'Human' should do.

> Check out Quinn's Margaret Atwood sig.

Sorry, I'm not an avid reader of Quinn sigs.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

What you Americans are conveniently forgetting
is that the present Supreme Court is doing
just what the founding fathers thought it should be doing.

The constitutional purpose of the supreme court
was to enable some conservative elderly gentlemen
to overrule the always dangerous democratic power
of the unwashed masses.
You can't allow an elected parliament
to have the last word in making laws, eh?
God only knows what they might do.

You are disappointed because you have lived with the illusion
that it could be otherwise.

What you need is not better judges, or better politicians,
but a better constitution.
And of course a better democracy,

Jan

[Tony Cooper]

That is the basis of thinking for some. It presumes, arrogantly, that
we can today know what the founding fathers thought they were doing.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Nonsense, By the time they got to Article III they were almost
out of time and put in just about nothing about what SCOTUS
was supposed to do.

Its most basic function, ruling on the Constitutionality of
laws, was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803
(16 years after the Constitution was written), under the
third Chief Justice, John Marshall.

> The constitutional purpose of the supreme court
> was to enable some conservative elderly gentlemen
> to overrule the always dangerous democratic power
> of the unwashed masses.

When did you last read the Constitution?

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

It's only about 8000 words.

> You can't allow an elected parliament
> to have the last word in making laws, eh?
> God only knows what they might do.

Have you ever had even a single class in Government?

Do you know nothing about human language?

> You are disappointed because you have lived with the illusion
> that it could be otherwise.
>
> What you need is not better judges, or better politicians,
> but a better constitution.

Do enlighten us as to how you would improve it,

[Peter Moylan]

On 26/06/22 00:40, Tony Cooper wrote:

> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.

And then Mitch McConnell decides whether the nomination will be accepted.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

>>
>> [ … ]

>>
> What you Americans are conveniently forgetting
> is that the present Supreme Court is doing
> just what the founding fathers thought it should be doing.
>
> The constitutional purpose of the supreme court
> was to enable some conservative elderly gentlemen
> to overrule the always dangerous democratic power
> of the unwashed masses.
> You can't allow an elected parliament
> to have the last word in making laws, eh?
> God only knows what they might do.
>
> You are disappointed because you have lived with the illusion
> that it could be otherwise.
>
> What you need is not better judges,

Yes, but there must surely be better choices among the 300 million
Americans than Brett M. Kavanaugh etc.

> or better politicians,

Yes, but there must surely be better choices among the 300 million
Americans than Marjorie Taylor Green etc.

> but a better constitution.

Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
Century constitution.

> And of course a better democracy,

Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
districts in a natural way.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-26 00:17:07 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 26/06/22 00:40, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
>> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
>> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
>> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.
>
> And then Mitch McConnell decides whether the nomination will be accepted.

Which he does according to criteria that could easily be programmed
into a computer: accept if nominated by a Republican; not if nominated
by a Democrat.

[Paul Carmichael]

El Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:17:33 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden escribió:

> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
> Century constitution.

Here in Spain, there is almost universal acceptance that the 1978
constitution is about due for "updating".

https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1978-31229

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 25-06-2022 kl. 16:40 skrev Tony Cooper:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:11:50 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
>> in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
>> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
>> similar majority.
>
> It doesn't work the way I think you think it works.

Your summary below is a good match for how I think it works,
so I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

> The 65/33 vote refers to the Senate's vote on a gun control bill.

Correct

> I wouldn't say that bill's intent reflects the majority of the
> American public's view. It's a compromise that provides some of what
> the majority wants, but not enough to truly reflect what the majority
> wants.

I was thinking in terms of directions, not one simple "public position",
which does not exist anyway. Admittedly, that could have been more clear.

> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
>
> The Supreme Court is not obligated to rule on any case brought to
> them. Many cases are brought to that level but never ruled on by the
> Supreme Court.
>
> By the time the case is brought before the Supreme Court, the balance
> in the Court can change. Based on the current political climate in
> the US, there's no indication that it will change, though.
>
> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.

/Anders, Denmark

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Agree. Thank you for filling in.

What I have seen is "Dommer John Roberts afstod fra at støtte
afskaffelsen.", i.e. "JR desisted from supporting abolition
(of women's right to abortion)", so I'd say the blame lies partly
with my interpretation of this statement, but mostly with
the person who summarized his position thusly.

>> Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
>> in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
>
> Nothing to do with abortion.

I didn't say it is, but it *is* to do with another "one of these issues"
listed by Coop (still visible higher up in this posting).

> That was the Senate's vote on the
> minuscule "compromise" on gun limitation that accomplishes
> almost nothing in that area.
>
>> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
>> similar majority.
>
> You need to learn what the issues are. And, there has to be a
> case that has worked its way up through all the levels of the
> judiciary, probably starting at a county court, then through the
> state courts, then through the federal courts.

I didn't claim the challenge would be a simple matter (and I don't much
care about the details of how), only that it will be made and that it
is likely to succeed.

/Anders, Denmark

[Paul Carmichael]

El Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:38:39 +0200, Anders D. Nygaard escribió:

> What I have seen is "Dommer John Roberts afstod fra at støtte
> afskaffelsen.", i.e. "JR desisted from supporting abolition (of women's
> right to abortion)", so I'd say the blame lies partly with my
> interpretation of this statement, but mostly with the person who
> summarized his position thusly.

Isn't "thus" already an adverb?

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[CDB]

On 6/25/2022 4:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

To paraphrase: she feels about being human the way some Germans feel
about being German. (I think most Germans are feeling better about that
by now.)

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:38:09 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"

<news2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Den 25-06-2022 kl. 16:40 skrev Tony Cooper:
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:11:50 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
>> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
>>> in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
>>> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
>>> similar majority.
>>
>> It doesn't work the way I think you think it works.
>
>Your summary below is a good match for how I think it works,
>so I'm not sure why you think otherwise

What your description does not include is the timeline. A bill (law)
can be passed today, challenged tomorrow, but the challenge may not be
heard by the Supreme Court for several years. In the intervening
years, the nature of the court may have changed.
>
Opponents to Roe v Wade have been waiting for about 50 years for the
nature of the court to change to the 6-3.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> > but a better constitution.
>
> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
> Century constitution.

No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.

> > And of course a better democracy,
>
> Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
> gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
> Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
> almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
> districts in a natural way.

Wrong, of course.

"Blue states" have put into their constitutions requirements that
redistricting cannoit be politically based,

As a result, New York is thoiroughly screwed, and as many as
four Democratic congress seats may be lost.

Plus, NYC was redistricted to force long-time Representatives
to face each other to represent areas that have nothing to do
with existing neighborhood structures.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:17:33 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>> What you Americans are conveniently forgetting
>> is that the present Supreme Court is doing
>> just what the founding fathers thought it should be doing.
>>
>> The constitutional purpose of the supreme court
>> was to enable some conservative elderly gentlemen
>> to overrule the always dangerous democratic power
>> of the unwashed masses.
>> You can't allow an elected parliament
>> to have the last word in making laws, eh?
>> God only knows what they might do.
>>
>> You are disappointed because you have lived with the illusion
>> that it could be otherwise.
>>
>> What you need is not better judges,
>
>Yes, but there must surely be better choices among the 300 million
>Americans than Brett M. Kavanaugh etc.

The word "better" implies a scale of qualifications ranging from
"least qualified" to "most qualified" with the better choices from the
"most qualified".

I would include Kavanaugh as one of the "most qualified" choices if
you consider only his legal qualifications and experience prior to his
nomination.

The word "better", though, does not cover the nominee's philosophical
approach to Constitutional issues. The philosophical approach is
based on their interpretational view of the Constitution.

For example, one view is to interpret the Second Amendment to mean
that Americans have a right to bear arms. The other view is that the
Second Amendment means that Americans have a right to bear arms under
certain conditions.

Those opposing views are not included in a least qualified/most
qualified ranking, but they are included in a ranking by the person
nominating the candidate.

>
>> or better politicians,
>
>Yes, but there must surely be better choices among the 300 million
>Americans than Marjorie Taylor Green etc.

Only a tiny percentage of the 300 million Americans had anything to do
with Ms Greene's election. Only those in Disctrict 14 of Georgia were
eligible to vote for her or for her opponent. In the last Primary she
received 31,873 votes.

>
>> but a better constitution.
>
>Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
>Century constitution.
>
>> And of course a better democracy,
>
>Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
>gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
>Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
>almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
>districts in a natural way.
--

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> > but a better constitution.
>>
>> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
>> Century constitution.
>
>No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
>that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.
>
>> > And of course a better democracy,
>>
>> Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
>> gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
>> Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
>> almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
>> districts in a natural way.
>
>Wrong, of course.
>

What is "Wrong" about his statement?

Is it Right or Wrong that almost the whole country is gerrymandered?

Is it Right or Wrong that Iowa is almost the only state with natural
congressional districts?

Nothing in your comments suggests that either premise is Wrong.

>"Blue states" have put into their constitutions requirements that
>redistricting cannoit be politically based,
>
>As a result, New York is thoiroughly screwed, and as many as
>four Democratic congress seats may be lost.
>
>Plus, NYC was redistricted to force long-time Representatives
>to face each other to represent areas that have nothing to do
>with existing neighborhood structures.

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Thusly" is very common.

Ending a sentence with "thus" is a bit odd; it calls for a colon and
a list. Anders was going for "in that way," because he was referring
to the summary he had transcribed,

[Jerry Friedman]

It's a serious problem. But I hope "almost" allowed New Mexico to be
another. (Three districts: Albuquerque area, southern half of the rest,
northern half of the rest.) Colorado recently established an independent
commission to draw the borders.

"Natural way" isn't so clear-cut either.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bebercito]

Indeedly.

>
> --
> Paul.
>
> https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:05:28 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:38:09 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Den 25-06-2022 kl. 16:40 skrev Tony Cooper:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 12:11:50 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> >> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Interestingly, at almost the same time a majority of 65 to 33 has
> >>> in fact decided in agreement with the majority of the citizens.
> >>> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
> >>> similar majority.
> >>
> >> It doesn't work the way I think you think it works.
> >
> >Your summary below is a good match for how I think it works,
> >so I'm not sure why you think otherwise
> What your description does not include is the timeline. A bill (law)
> can be passed today, challenged tomorrow, but the challenge may not be
> heard by the Supreme Court for several years. In the intervening
> years, the nature of the court may have changed.
> >
> Opponents to Roe v Wade have been waiting for about 50 years for the
> nature of the court to change to the 6-3.

Recent histories (e.g. on "On the Media") have indicated that
the opposition didn't emerge until almost a decade later, when
the RC Church began to take notice and then Paul Weyrich
recognized it as a "wedge issue" that he could hype among
Evangelicals in order to acquire rightwing political powers
for many issues.

Brooke Gladstone opened this weekend's "On the Media"
with a list of the SCOTUS outrages of the past week,
including (besides the NYS gun law and Roe): funding
for private religious schools (Maine); limitation of Miranda
rights (you can't sue a policeperson if they fail to Mirandize
you); and the fifth one that I had in mind when I started to
type this paragraph.

[Jerry Friedman]

I thought you were talking about abortion, that is, you were still on
the same subject as the decision you described as 5 to 3 with one
abstention.

> > That was the Senate's vote on the
> > minuscule "compromise" on gun limitation that accomplishes
> > almost nothing in that area.
> >
> >> But surely, that will be challenged and reversed by another 6-3 or
> >> similar majority.
> >
> > You need to learn what the issues are. And, there has to be a
> > case that has worked its way up through all the levels of the
> > judiciary, probably starting at a county court, then through the
> > state courts, then through the federal courts.

> I didn't claim the challenge would be a simple matter (and I don't much
> care about the details of how), only that it will be made and that it
> is likely to succeed.

But will only overturn part of the law.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:59:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >
> >> > but a better constitution.
> >>
> >> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
> >> Century constitution.
> >
> >No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
> >that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.
> >
> >> > And of course a better democracy,
> >>
> >> Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
> >> gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
> >> Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
> >> almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
> >> districts in a natural way.
> >
> >Wrong, of course.
> >
> What is "Wrong" about his statement?

Try reading before typing, moron.

What applies to red states like yours does not apply generally
throughout the US, even though "enzyme kineticists" of limited
intellectual powers still do not understand that states are more
powerful than the Federal government.

> Is it Right or Wrong that almost the whole country is gerrymandered?

It isn't.

> Is it Right or Wrong that Iowa is almost the only state with natural
> congressional districts?

Whatever that means. Contentless assertions are not "right" or
"wrong,"

Iowa and Maine are the states that don't allocate Electoral votes
by winner-take-all. Maybe that's what he's misrembering.

> Nothing in your comments suggests that either premise is Wrong.

Mazel tov, you're just as wrong.

> >"Blue states" have put into their constitutions requirements that

> >redistricting cannot be politically based,
> >As a result, New York is thoroughly screwed, and as many as

> >four Democratic congress seats may be lost.
> >Plus, NYC was redistricted to force long-time Representatives
> >to face each other to represent areas that have nothing to do
> >with existing neighborhood structures.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And, as always, misinformation and misinterpretation.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

As usual, you bang out words in response that have nothing to do with
what you are responding to.

Athel has stated that an article in the Guardian indicates that almost
all states in the US have gerrymandered districts.

You have not addressed whether this is Right or Wrong.

Gerrymandering is creating districts that favor the party that creates
the districts. Nothing in your reply negates the claim by the
Guardian.

Athel's profession or intellectual powers are not related to the
Guardian's article's Rightness or Wrongness.

If you feel that the Guardian article is Wrong, then provide a
response that shows some evidence that almost most states do not have
districts that are created to favor the party that created the
districts.

>> Is it Right or Wrong that Iowa is almost the only state with natural
>> congressional districts?
>
>Whatever that means. Contentless assertions are not "right" or
>"wrong,"

The meaning is quite clear to me, and should be to you. Iowa has four
congressional districts that roughly include the northeast, northwest,
southeast, and southwest portions of the state. That is a more
"natural" configuration than seen in most of the other states.

Contentless objections are just words banged out.

>
>Iowa and Maine are the states that don't allocate Electoral votes
>by winner-take-all. Maybe that's what he's misrembering.

Athel's intellectual powers are such that he - unlike you - can tell
the difference between the shape of congressional districts is a quite
different subject than what is required for a candidate to win an
election.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then what did I do when I said it was wrong, moron?

> Gerrymandering is creating districts that favor the party that creates
> the districts. Nothing in your reply negates the claim by the
> Guardian.

Are you familiar with the meaning of "almost all"? How many
out of 50 constitute "almost all" in Hoosier arithmetic?

> Athel's profession or intellectual powers are not related to the
> Guardian's article's Rightness or Wrongness.

They are related to his gullibility and his JJ-like kneejerk
anti-Americanism.

> If you feel that the Guardian article is Wrong, then provide a
> response that shows some evidence that almost most states do not have
> districts that are created to favor the party that created the
> districts.

Looks like you don't know what "gerrymander" means.

> >> Is it Right or Wrong that Iowa is almost the only state with natural
> >> congressional districts?
> >Whatever that means. Contentless assertions are not "right" or
> >"wrong,"
>
> The meaning is quite clear to me, and should be to you. Iowa has four
> congressional districts that roughly include the northeast, northwest,
> southeast, and southwest portions of the state. That is a more
> "natural" configuration than seen in most of the other states.

Iowa has one of the most homogeneous populations in the country.
It would be difficult to dissect the state into _any_ four pieces whose
populations weren't equally homogeneous. What's left of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 still prohibits redistricting affecting racial and a
few other "protected classes" of minorities, and districts are still
required to be "compact and contiguous" -- honored more in the
breach than the observance..

> Contentless objections are just words banged out.

Which you've had an immense amount of practice at.

> >Iowa and Maine are the states that don't allocate Electoral votes

> >by winner-take-all. Maybe that's what he's misremembering.

>
> Athel's intellectual powers are such that he - unlike you - can tell
> the difference between the shape of congressional districts is a quite
> different subject than what is required for a candidate to win an
> election.

How long ago did he read whatever it was that the Guardian had
misled him about? "A few years ago" is how he put it.

> >> Nothing in your comments suggests that either premise is Wrong.
> >Mazel tov, you're just as wrong.
> >> >"Blue states" have put into their constitutions requirements that
> >> >redistricting cannot be politically based,
> >> >As a result, New York is thoroughly screwed, and as many as
> >> >four Democratic congress seats may be lost.
> >> >Plus, NYC was redistricted to force long-time Representatives
> >> >to face each other to represent areas that have nothing to do
> >> >with existing neighborhood structures.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-26 15:15:40 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:59:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 06:16:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>
>>>>>> but a better constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
>>>>> Century constitution.
>>>>
>>>> No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
>>>> that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.
>>>>
>>>>>> And of course a better democracy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I hadn't realized until a few years ago how thoroughly
>>>>> gerrymandered almost the whole country was. There was an article in the
>>>>> Guardian entitled Thank Heavens for Iowa that pointed out that Iowa was
>>>>> almost the only state that drew its borders between congressional
>>>>> districts in a natural way.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, of course.
>>>>
>>> What is "Wrong" about his statement?
>>
>> Try reading before typing, moron.
>>
>> What applies to red states like yours does not apply generally
>> throughout the US,

Maybe the silly little man should study the boundaries of New York
Assembly Districts 99, 104, and 106. Only someone with his head firmly
in the ground could think that the problem is confined to the red
states. In any case, the last time I checked Iowa was a red state.

>> even though "enzyme kineticists" of limited
>> intellectual powers still do not understand that states are more
>> powerful than the Federal government.
>>
>>> Is it Right or Wrong that almost the whole country is gerrymandered?
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
> As usual, you bang out words in response that have nothing to do with
> what you are responding to.
>
> Athel has stated that an article in the Guardian indicates that almost
> all states in the US have gerrymandered districts.
>
> You have not addressed whether this is Right or Wrong.
>
> Gerrymandering is creating districts that favor the party that creates
> the districts. Nothing in your reply negates the claim by the
> Guardian.
>
> Athel's profession or intellectual powers are not related to the
> Guardian's article's Rightness or Wrongness.
>
> If you feel that the Guardian article is Wrong, then provide a
> response that shows some evidence that almost most states do not have
> districts that are created to favor the party that created the
> districts.

That's still correct for Iowa, but the Guardian article was published
several (probably ten) years ago and didn't take account of reforms
that may have happened since. (Obvious, I know, but sometimes one has
to point out obvious things to people who don't understand what they
read.)

>
>>> Is it Right or Wrong that Iowa is almost the only state with natural
>>> congressional districts?
>>
>> Whatever that means. Contentless assertions are not "right" or
>> "wrong,"
>
> The meaning is quite clear to me, and should be to you. Iowa has four
> congressional districts that roughly include the northeast, northwest,
> southeast, and southwest portions of the state. That is a more
> "natural" configuration than seen in most of the other states.
>
> Contentless objections are just words banged out.
>>
>> Iowa and Maine are the states that don't allocate Electoral votes
>> by winner-take-all. Maybe that's what he's misrembering.
>
> Athel's intellectual powers are such that he - unlike you - can tell
> the difference between the shape of congressional districts is a quite
> different subject than what is required for a candidate to win an
> election.

After reading the article I started worrying that maybe gerrymandering
was just as prevalent in France but no one talked about it. I'm happy
to say that that is not the case. I live in the 2nd Circonscription of
les Bouches du Rhône, which is a simple shape and includes as
homogeneous and "natural" a population as one could expect.

>>
>>> Nothing in your comments suggests that either premise is Wrong.
>>
>> Mazel tov, you're just as wrong.
>>
>>>> "Blue states" have put into their constitutions requirements that
>>>> redistricting cannot be politically based,
>>>> As a result, New York is thoroughly screwed, and as many as
>>>> four Democratic congress seats may be lost.
>>>> Plus, NYC was redistricted to force long-time Representatives
>>>> to face each other to represent areas that have nothing to do
>>>> with existing neighborhood structures.
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>>> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
>>
>> And, as always, misinformation and misinterpretation.


--

[Lewis]

In message <6g6ebhtsa05eibb9i...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.

that is generally how it works, but there is nothing at all stopping
SCOTUS from issuing a ruling without a case, or taking a case directly
from a lower court. I expect the TreasonMonkeys will do exactly this.

> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.

We can but hope that the CryBaby, the Handmaid, and the two medievalists
die very very soon.

--
Margo: P.S. We still hate you. but it's the twenty-first century. It shouldn't
be this hard for a girl to get an evil demigod abortion.
Eliot: And we're emotionally advanced. We can hold resentment and sympathy for
a person at the same time.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-26 17:51:12 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <6g6ebhtsa05eibb9i...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
>> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
>> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
>> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
>> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
>> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
>
> that is generally how it works, but there is nothing at all stopping
> SCOTUS from issuing a ruling without a case, or taking a case directly
> from a lower court. I expect the TreasonMonkeys will do exactly this.
>
>> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
>> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
>> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
>> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.
>
> We can but hope that the CryBaby, the Handmaid, and the two medievalists
> die very very soon.

Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
longevity. Despite his unhealthy appearance the orange loser (whom I
suppose you mean by the crybaby) may last another 20 years.

Despite his cancer and other health problems I don't suppose that Putin
is planning to die any time soon.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 2:40:19 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-06-26 17:51:12 +0000, Lewis said:
> > In message <6g6ebhtsa05eibb9i...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
> > <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
> >> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
> >> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
> >> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
> >> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
> >> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
> > that is generally how it works, but there is nothing at all stopping
> > SCOTUS from issuing a ruling without a case, or taking a case directly
> > from a lower court. I expect the TreasonMonkeys will do exactly this.
> >> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
> >> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
> >> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
> >> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.
> > We can but hope that the CryBaby, the Handmaid, and the two medievalists
> > die very very soon.
>
> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
> longevity. Despite his unhealthy appearance the orange loser (whom I
> suppose you mean by the crybaby) may last another 20 years.

The Orange Loser is not on the Supreme Court, moron.

"Crybaby" is Kavanaugh.

"Handmaid" is Coney-Barrett (with a nod to Atwood).

For "two medievalists" you can choose among Alito, Gorsuch,
and Thomas; evidently Lewisss isn't aware enough to distinguish
among them.

A low-tech lynching might be in order.

(For those with 30-year memories.)

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 26-06-2022 kl. 15:16 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>>> but a better constitution.
>>
>> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
>> Century constitution.
>
> No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
> that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.

I have a hard time believing that any constitution is millions of words.
Do you have any examples?

The Danish (19th Century) constitution (as but a single counterexample)
is, I believe, shorter than the 8000 words you cite for the US one.

/Anders, Denmark

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>longevity.

Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
still alive.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-06-26 15:19, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>> longevity.
>
> Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> still alive.

But he's got nicer legs than Hitler, and bigger tits than Cher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8

--
I ate alphabet soup. Now I have strong vowel movement.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 26/06/2022 14:16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>>> but a better constitution.
>>
>> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
>> Century constitution.
>
> No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
> that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.
>

You say the US constitution can be:
"adapted to changing circumstances".

In light of current events, that really should read:
"a constitution which can be turned inside out in order to put into law
the extreme views of one small segment of society."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-06-26 21:19:24 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:

> In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>> longevity.
>
> Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> still alive.

Yes. It was a big surprise to me when he crawled out of his hole a few
weeks ago, saying that that nice Mr Putin mustn't be humiliated.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 15:45:00 -0600
lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2022-06-26 15:19, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
> >> longevity.
> >
> > Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> > still alive.
>
> But he's got nicer legs than Hitler, and bigger tits than Cher.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8
>

Biting sarcasm. But satire stopped working for Tom Lehrer (94) in the 60's.

wikipedia quote of a quote:

"I'm fond of quoting Peter Cook, who talked about the satirical Berlin kabaretts of the 1930s, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the Second World War."[56]

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 26/06/2022 10:19 pm, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>> longevity.
>
> Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> still alive.

Never are the terms "virtue signalling" and "right side of
history" so hideously ironic as when one's desire to flag group
membership, and one's earnest belief that one is one of the
"goodies[1]", prompt one to wish one's political opponents dead.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
[1] Small 'g' - pace Brooke-Taylor, Garden, and Oddie.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:34:27 +0100
Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 26/06/2022 10:19 pm, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
> >> longevity.
> >
> > Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> > still alive.
>
> Never are the terms "virtue signalling" and "right side of
> history" so hideously ironic as when one's desire to flag group
> membership, and one's earnest belief that one is one of the
> "goodies[1]", prompt one to wish one's political opponents dead.
>

one?

[Richard Heathfield]

Yes, as a pronoun "one" is a trifle inelegant, isn't it? Allow me
to fix it, sacrificing brevity for clarity.

Never are the terms "virtue signalling" and "right side of

history" so hideously ironic as when a hypocritical and
evil-minded intolerant supercilious bastard's desire to flag group
membership, and the hypocritical and evil-minded intolerant
supercilious bastard's earnest belief that the hypocritical and
evil-minded intolerant supercilious bastard is one of the
"goodies", prompt the hypocritical and evil-minded intolerant
supercilious bastard to wish the hypocritical and evil-minded
intolerant supercilious bastard's political opponents dead.

Is that a little better, do you think?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 4:46:29 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 26-06-2022 kl. 15:16 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 3:17:39 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-06-25 20:21:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> >>> but a better constitution.
> >> Yes. No other country tries to manage with a minimally amended 18th
> >> Century constitution.
> > No, they write inflexible constitutions with millions of words
> > that cannot be adapted to changing circumstances.
>
> I have a hard time believing that any constitution is millions of words.
>
> Do you have any examples?

The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
Repeal of Prohibition.)

The Constitutions of the 50 states are like that. Just about every
statewide election, we're asked to approve up to three amandments.
After 200-some years, they add up.

It's a little disturbing that you don't recognize hyperbole when
it is set obviously before you.

> The Danish (19th Century) constitution (as but a single counterexample)
> is, I believe, shorter than the 8000 words you cite for the US one.

So you agree with me that the "enzyme kineticist"'s statement
was absurd, providing only that "18th century" be amended to
"18th-19th century."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Where were you when Justice Douglas discovered a "right to
privacy" in the "emanations and penumbras"? It works both
ways.

Justice Ginsburg maintained that Roe had been the wrong case
for establishing women's right to control their own bodies. Some
four years earlier, SCOTUS turned down the opportunity to rule on
a case where the US Air Force discharged any pregnant servicewomen
-- or, if they chose to continue their careers, required them to have
an abortion. Even if there had been seven Catholics on the Court
in those days, they couldn't have claimed that the right to _not_
have an abortion implicated the right to _have_ an abortion.

I don't know why it's taken 50 years for someone to bring up the
First Amendment argument. The Dobbs decision is manifestly
based on religious teaching, and Roman Catholicism or extreme
Evangelicalism cannot prevail over practitioners of every other
religion or of none. Such a case has just begun to wend its way
through the legal system.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-06-26, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> In article <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>>longevity.
>
> Every so often I am involuntarily reminded that Henry Kissinger is
> still alive.

"I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices
with great satisfaction." (Clarence Darrow)


--
Now you're climbing to the top of the company ladder
Hope it doesn't take too long
Can't you see there'll come a day when it won't matter?
Come a day when you'll be gone ---Boston

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:22:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield

I recall when an interviewer asked Kissinger about being hated
by people on both the left and the right. He responded, like,
"Then I must be doing something right." The commentary
went on --

There's some sense there if both sides think you lean too much
the other way. It does not work so well when both sides
agree you are an evil-minded intolerant supercilious bastard.
Though, I think "lying" was in there, too.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:22:18 +0100

Please stop beating about the bush and say what you mean.
Do you feel you need to stick up for the 'baddies'?

In another post I mentioned satire; I found the quote, by Tom Lehrer:

'When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died'

from:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/31/artsfeatures1

[Richard Heathfield]

To be fair to the man, I don't think I have any reason to believe
that Garrett Wollman is a liar.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
> constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
> to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
> Repeal of Prohibition.)

I'm looking at a statistics for the period of 1990-2017: 162 bills were
presented to change something in the German constitution. 26 of them
went through. The changes effected were 65 articles reworded, 13 added
and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.

A lot of those changes are very formal, dealing with administrative
processes or the relationship of federal and state organs. After all,
regulating such things is the main function of the constitution. Those
won't attract much attention in the broad population. A change that did
elicit a lot of public debate was the recent removal of the term "race"
from the anti-discrimination article. Mind you, it's concerning one of
the first 20 articles, "the principles of which must never be touched".

--
... why the English language is riddled with all this gender.
What's it FOR? How did it GET there? Will it go AWAY now please?
-- Helen Zaltzman

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 2:40:19 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-06-26 17:51:12 +0000, Lewis said:
>>> In message <6g6ebhtsa05eibb9i...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
>>>> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
>>>> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
>>>> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
>>>> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
>>>> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
>>> that is generally how it works, but there is nothing at all stopping
>>> SCOTUS from issuing a ruling without a case, or taking a case directly
>>> from a lower court. I expect the TreasonMonkeys will do exactly this.
>>>> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
>>>> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
>>>> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
>>>> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.
>>> We can but hope that the CryBaby, the Handmaid, and the two medievalists
>>> die very very soon.
>>
>> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
>> longevity. Despite his unhealthy appearance the orange loser (whom I
>> suppose you mean by the crybaby) may last another 20 years.
>
> The Orange Loser is not on the Supreme Court, moron.

And him running for president again is inconsequential?

--
Some of the most horrific things ever done to humans
were done by the politest, best-dressed, most well-spoken
people from the very best homes and neighborhoods.
-- Jerry Springer

[Richard Heathfield]

Not at all. I just wish they'd realise that when they hate people
and wish them dead, that makes them baddies, not goodies. Clearly
they weren't paying attention when the teacher told them hating
people is wrong.

[Jerry Friedman]

Well, it certainly clarifies your real position on judging.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 11:56:37 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
> > constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
> > to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
> > Repeal of Prohibition.)
>
> I'm looking at a statistics for the period of 1990-2017: 162 bills were
> presented to change something in the German constitution. 26 of them
> went through. The changes effected were 65 articles reworded, 13 added

I read somewhere that hundreds of amendments get suggested
every year, and just 27 (25 if we omit Prohibition and Repeal; 15
if we don't count the Bill of Rights, which was part of the original
deal; XI tried to fix an inadequacy in Article III, as I mentioned
yesterday, and XII was because they realized how badly they'd
screwed up the relation with a Vice President; the next three
are the Civil War amendments; so there wasn't an actual "change"
until 1913, where XVII is because some people thought an income
tax wasn't allowed [even though Lincoln had imposed one during
the Civil War], and then direct election of Senators, and some might
say that hasn't been an improvement over the days of such people
as Daniel Webster; maybe half the amendments since then might
be considered "social amendments" [women suffrage, voting age,
poll tax, etc.]) have made it all the way through the arduous process
(I posted Article V the other day).

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

> and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
> rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.

No, why would it be? Overlooking the punctuation and capitalization,
I don't think there's anything challenging about the diction?

> A lot of those changes are very formal, dealing with administrative
> processes or the relationship of federal and state organs. After all,
> regulating such things is the main function of the constitution. Those

AIUI, the West German constitution was imposed by the Allies in
1945, based on the US Constitution. Did it get replaced by something
more Third World -like in 1989?

> won't attract much attention in the broad population. A change that did
> elicit a lot of public debate was the recent removal of the term "race"
> from the anti-discrimination article. Mind you, it's concerning one of
> the first 20 articles, "the principles of which must never be touched".

? The 1945 core?

Things that "don't attract much attention" aren't important
enough to be in a nation's constitution.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 11:56:37 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

Has nothing to do with what Lewis was talking about.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <x0y940fs...@mid.crommatograph.info>,

Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
>> constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
>> to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
>> Repeal of Prohibition.)
>
>I'm looking at a statistics for the period of 1990-2017: 162 bills were
>presented to change something in the German constitution. 26 of them
>went through. The changes effected were 65 articles reworded, 13 added
>and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
>rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.

Few constitutions have an amending formula as difficult as the US
federal constitution's (or Canada's, for that matter). Some places do
it by referendum at every general election (or nearly every, anyway).
Some places have a periodic constitutional convention that redrafts
the whole thing and proposes an updated text every generation or so.
I do look askance at any place whose constitution can be amended by
ordinary legislation; it hardly seems worthy of the name
"constitution" when it can be trivially amended at the whim of the
government of the day.

The New England states share a common amending formula: an amendment
must be approved by two consecutive legislatures, after which it is
placed on the ballot for a referendum.[1] This does make it difficult
to react quickly, if the circumstances genuinely warrant, since this
process cannot take less than four years, but that does also
discourage entrenching short-term policy decisions into the
constitution. (Contrast California.)

-GAWollman

[1] The process is somewhat different for amendments by initiative, in
those states that have initiative.

[Richard Heathfield]

Wishing one's political opponents dead is judging.

Describing what one sees is just description.

[Silvano]

Garrett Wollman hat am 27.06.2022 um 18:37 geschrieben:

> In article <x0y940fs...@mid.crommatograph.info>,
> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
>>> constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
>>> to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
>>> Repeal of Prohibition.)
>>
>> I'm looking at a statistics for the period of 1990-2017: 162 bills were
>> presented to change something in the German constitution. 26 of them
>> went through. The changes effected were 65 articles reworded, 13 added
>> and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
>> rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.
>
> Few constitutions have an amending formula as difficult as the US
> federal constitution's (or Canada's, for that matter). Some places do
> it by referendum at every general election (or nearly every, anyway).
> Some places have a periodic constitutional convention that redrafts
> the whole thing and proposes an updated text every generation or so.
> I do look askance at any place whose constitution can be amended by
> ordinary legislation; it hardly seems worthy of the name
> "constitution" when it can be trivially amended at the whim of the
> government of the day.

Just for the record, as Quinn was talking about amendments to the German
constitution, they require a 2/3 majority in the German equivalents of
both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Please look
askance somewhere else.
And just for fun, when was the last time that the US Democrats or
Republicans had 67 Senators and also 291 Representatives?

[lar3ryca]

It's probably too much to hope for, but perhaps one day he will learn
how to actually read and understand English instead of just knowing a
lot of theories about it.

--
If I make you breakfast in bed, a simple "Thank you" is all I need.
Not all this "How did you get into my house?" business.

[Lewis]

In message <jhrngf...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2022-06-26 17:51:12 +0000, Lewis said:

>> In message <6g6ebhtsa05eibb9i...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Once signed by the President, it becomes law. To be reversed is a
>>> long and complicated process. First it must be challenged and found
>>> to be unconstitutional by some court. That decision must be appealed
>>> and the next level of the judiciary must agree that it's
>>> unconstitutional and so on up the court levels. Eventually, it can
>>> wind up being considered by the Supreme Court.
>>
>> that is generally how it works, but there is nothing at all stopping
>> SCOTUS from issuing a ruling without a case, or taking a case directly
>> from a lower court. I expect the TreasonMonkeys will do exactly this.
>>
>>> While the Supreme Court is independent of the political party in
>>> control, the political party in control does determine who will be on
>>> the Supreme Court. The President nominates a candidate when there is
>>> an opening on the Court due to death or retirement.
>>
>> We can but hope that the CryBaby, the Handmaid, and the two medievalists
>> die very very soon.

> Unfortunately the people who ought to die sometimes show amazing
> longevity. Despite his unhealthy appearance the orange loser (whom I
> suppose you mean by the crybaby) may last another 20 years.

No, I was referring to the crybaby on the SCOTUS.

--
Evil is a little man afraid for his job.

[lar3ryca]

Of course you were, but Athel was referring the orange loser, said
personage being introduced as new player in the category of 'people who
ought to die, but show amazing longevity'.

The local linguistic loser didn't get it either.

--
The following is only a sig.
The preceding is only a disclaimer.

[Quinn C]

* Silvano:

I'd like to know if that falls under "ordinary legislation" for Garrett.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

1949, and that's a misconception. If you were a German saying that, I'd
suspect you of being anti-American and possibly a Nazi sympathizer.

There was certainly Allied influence and guidance, but there was also a
1918 German constitution to build on, which is being lauded these days
as progressive in its day and influential in writing constitutions all
over the world. One couldn't learn that much any more from the US
constitution in the 20th century. For example, the Weimar constitution
secured women's right to vote right in the text before the US had this
as an amendment.

And the 1949 German constitution had a lot of things in there from the
start that on your side still required a long fight (racial equality) or
still hasn't happened (gender equality.)

In Japan, Americans were directly involved in the process of writing the
constitution, although I can't say to what extent. In Germany, IMU it
was only that the Allies had to sign on to the results.

> Did it get replaced by something more Third World -like in 1989?

Whence this stupid hostility? Are you siding with the guy who said the
US constitution was divinely inspired? In Germany, that would make him a
religious crank who has no place in government.

It was widely understood that unification would mean writing a new
constitution, but somehow, it never happened, and the Eastern part was
just sucked up into the existing one. I guess that was also a possible
interpretation of the constitution. You should know something about how
much leeway one has in such matters.

>> won't attract much attention in the broad population. A change that did
>> elicit a lot of public debate was the recent removal of the term "race"
>> from the anti-discrimination article. Mind you, it's concerning one of
>> the first 20 articles, "the principles of which must never be touched".
>
> ? The 1945 core?

I don't think that's a good characterization. It's the set of articles
that enshrines civil liberties - dignity of the person,
non-discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right of
assembly etc.

> Things that "don't attract much attention" aren't important
> enough to be in a nation's constitution.

You may think so because you're personally interested in such matters.

As I already tried to hint at, the main part of constitution defines the
political system - the function of the houses of parliament, how
elections are held, the legislative, executive and judicative processes
and the relationship between federal and state organs.

"Broad attention" requires attention beyond the circles who are
"interested in politics". Those who aren't are interested in the
outcomes of politics, but not the processes.

In the US as well, the rights to abortion, same-sex marriage or
mixed-race marriage may be important subjects to many, but if you'd try
to explain the constitutional arguments that brought you these - and now
took one of them away again -, most people's eyes would glaze over.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 27-06-2022 kl. 17:56 skrev Quinn C:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> The news are full of examples of dictators adding clauses to their
>> constitutions so they can do whatever they want. It's a lot harder
>> to remove provisions than to add them. (We did it once, with
>> Repeal of Prohibition.)
>
> I'm looking at a statistics for the period of 1990-2017: 162 bills were
> presented to change something in the German constitution.

162 bills in 27 years?!

> 26 of them
> went through. The changes effected were 65 articles reworded, 13 added
> and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
> rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.

That's makes a different constitution for each year - and I thought
constitutions were supposed to be the bedrock on which legislation
can be built!

As a comparison, the Danish constitution was enacted in 1849, and
has been changed fewer than ten times since then; most recently
in 1953.

> A lot of those changes are very formal, dealing with administrative
> processes or the relationship of federal and state organs. After all,
> regulating such things is the main function of the constitution. Those
> won't attract much attention in the broad population. A change that did
> elicit a lot of public debate was the recent removal of the term "race"
> from the anti-discrimination article. Mind you, it's concerning one of
> the first 20 articles, "the principles of which must never be touched".

A change to the constitution without public debate is completely
anathema to me; in Denmark it requires solid parliamentary majorities
twice, separated by a general election, and then a majority of at least
40% (iirc) of eligible voters (i.e. people over 18, basically) in
a referendum.

I'm appalled that in Germany it can apparently be changed on the whim
of the parliamentary majority du jour.

/Anders, Denmark

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 11:56:37 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

>> and 1 removed. It seems to track, even without dictators, except that
>> rewording doesn't seem to be on your radar at all.
>
> No, why would it be? Overlooking the punctuation and capitalization,
> I don't think there's anything challenging about the diction?

It's not about diction. I checked a random article that was reworded in
2009. As usual, my translation:

Before:
Air traffic regulation is an internal matter of the federal
administration.

After:
Air traffic regulation is handled by the federal administration. Air
traffic control can also be performed by foreign bodies that are
authorized according to EU law.

I guess that a lot of articles had to be reworded to allow delegation of
functions to EU organs or organs of other EU states, rather than just
between the federal and state levels (which is the subject of a lot of
other articles; the second, unchanged paragraph of the one quoted above
also deals with that option.)

[Quinn C]

* Anders D. Nygaard:

Based on the example I now quoted, I'd like to know how you handle EU
integration.

One different approach is the Japanese one of ignoring the literal
contradictions between constitution and practice. Both the German and
Japanese post-war constitutions stated that the country can't have
military forces. Allowing remilitarization was one of the first major
changes to the constitution in Germany; in Japan, it was never changed,
one simply pretends that the army (third biggest in the world by budget)
isn't really an army, because it's called "self-defense force".

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Needs nuance. There is nothing wrong with hating Putin for bombing civilians
in Ukrainian cities, for example.

bill

[Richard Heathfield]

Your hating Putin won't hurt Putin one jot or tittle. But your
hating Putin will hurt you.

Putin must be stopped, and urgently. And his crimes must be
severely punished. But hating him gets nobody anywhere.

[lar3ryca]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to hate someone for their actions. I
don't know if Richard thinks it's OK to wish someone dead for their
actions, or just for a political difference.

As an example, I hate Trudeau, but I don't wish him dead. I do wish
Putin dead, not because of his politics, but because he has chosen to
take actions that I consider to be unworthy of anyone who claims to be
human.

I would go so far as to say that if Putin was in my sights, I would not
hesitate to throw that garbage out.

--
Is it my imagination, or do buffalo wings taste like chicken?

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-06-27 18:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 1:45 am, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2022 4:32 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please stop beating about the bush and say what you mean.
>>>> Do you feel you need to stick up for the 'baddies'?
>>
>>> Not at all. I just wish they'd realise that when they hate people
>>> and wish them dead, that makes them baddies, not goodies. Clearly
>>> they weren't paying attention when the teacher told them hating
>>> people is wrong.
>>
>> Needs nuance. There is nothing wrong with hating Putin for bombing
>> civilians
>> in Ukrainian cities, for example.
>
> Your hating Putin won't hurt Putin one jot or tittle. But your hating
> Putin will hurt you.

How will hating Putin hurt me, exactly?

> Putin must be stopped, and urgently. And his crimes must be severely
> punished. But hating him gets nobody anywhere.

I agree on both counts.
However, I don't hate him in order to hurt him. I am HIGHLY unlikely to
ever be in a position to do anything about that hatred, but I can't
decide not to hate him.

--
O Sibili, Si.
Ergo Fortibus es in ero.
O Nobili! Deis Trux.
Vatis inem?
Causen Dux!

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/06/2022 2:02 am, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-06-27 18:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 28/06/2022 1:45 am, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-7, Richard
>>> Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2022 4:32 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please stop beating about the bush and say what you mean.
>>>>> Do you feel you need to stick up for the 'baddies'?
>>>
>>>> Not at all. I just wish they'd realise that when they hate
>>>> people
>>>> and wish them dead, that makes them baddies, not goodies.
>>>> Clearly
>>>> they weren't paying attention when the teacher told them hating
>>>> people is wrong.
>>>
>>> Needs nuance. There is nothing wrong with hating Putin for
>>> bombing civilians
>>> in Ukrainian cities, for example.
>>
>> Your hating Putin won't hurt Putin one jot or tittle. But your
>> hating Putin will hurt you.
>
> How will hating Putin hurt me, exactly?

By making you a more hateful person.

>> Putin must be stopped, and urgently. And his crimes must be
>> severely punished. But hating him gets nobody anywhere.
>
> I agree on both counts.
> However, I don't hate him in order to hurt him. I am HIGHLY
> unlikely to ever be in a position to do anything about that
> hatred,

So what good does it do?

> but I can't decide not to hate him.

Yes, you can. You're an adult.

[Jerry Friedman]

In the thread on "The Boyfriend Loophole", you said if Jesus had wanted
us to judge others, he would have wanted us to be "constantly carping
and criticising and seeking to tear people down". So you criticized
Garrett's comment, including what you assumed (without evidence I
see) were his reasons for it. Then you took the opportunity to repeat it
with an insulting phrase used five times. That looks to me like carping,
criticizing, and seeking to tear someone down.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Richard Heathfield]

You know perfectly well why five times, but it doesn't suit your
purpose to acknowledge the fact.

> That looks to me like carping,
> criticizing, and seeking to tear someone down.

How does wishing someone dead look to you?

Furrfu!

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-06-27 19:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 2:02 am, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-06-27 18:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2022 1:45 am, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2022 4:32 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please stop beating about the bush and say what you mean.
>>>>>> Do you feel you need to stick up for the 'baddies'?
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I just wish they'd realise that when they hate people
>>>>> and wish them dead, that makes them baddies, not goodies. Clearly
>>>>> they weren't paying attention when the teacher told them hating
>>>>> people is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Needs nuance. There is nothing wrong with hating Putin for bombing
>>>> civilians
>>>> in Ukrainian cities, for example.
>>>
>>> Your hating Putin won't hurt Putin one jot or tittle. But your hating
>>> Putin will hurt you.
>>
>> How will hating Putin hurt me, exactly?
>
> By making you a more hateful person.

In what sense are you using the word 'hateful'?

>>> Putin must be stopped, and urgently. And his crimes must be severely
>>> punished. But hating him gets nobody anywhere.
>>
>> I agree on both counts.
>> However, I don't hate him in order to hurt him. I am HIGHLY unlikely
>> to ever be in a position to do anything about that hatred,
>
> So what good does it do?

None whatsoever, at least so far. But I don't tailor my feelings toward
anyone in order to serve some end. I like some people. I'm indifferent
to some. I dislike some. I hate some.

>> but I can't decide not to hate him.
>
> Yes, you can. You're an adult.

Well, I suppose I could pretend to like some POS like Putin, but then
what good would that do?


--
ANAGRAMS
A DECIMAL POINT: I'm a dot in place.
ONE PLUS TWELVE: Two plus eleven.

[Richard Heathfield]

What one eventually becomes if one keeps pumping in hate - full
of hatred (Wiktionary sense 3).

>>>> Putin must be stopped, and urgently. And his crimes must be
>>>> severely punished. But hating him gets nobody anywhere.
>>>
>>> I agree on both counts.
>>> However, I don't hate him in order to hurt him. I am HIGHLY
>>> unlikely to ever be in a position to do anything about that
>>> hatred,
>>
>> So what good does it do?
>
> None whatsoever, at least so far. But I don't tailor my feelings
> toward anyone in order to serve some end. I like some people. I'm
> indifferent to some. I dislike some. I hate some.

Of those, only the last is likely to have a negative impact on
your health by increasing your blood pressure. It may therefore
be worth your while to moderate your feelings.

>>> but I can't decide not to hate him.
>>
>> Yes, you can. You're an adult.
>
> Well, I suppose I could pretend to like some POS like Putin, but
> then what good would that do?

None; I see no value in pretending to like the man. But neither
do I see any value in hating him.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Did I say he was?

>>
>> And him running for president again is inconsequential?
>
>
> It's probably too much to hope for, but perhaps one day he will learn
> how to actually read and understand English instead of just knowing a
> lot of theories about it.


--

Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No, but as you have remarked, understanding what he reads is not his
strong point.

[Lewis]

Perhaps you should ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD.

"Despite his unhealthy appearance the orange loser (*whom*I*
*suppose*you*mean*by*the*crybaby*)

No, I was not referring to trump as a Crybaby.

--
what is magic actually for?
For fixing things, dummy.

[Paul Carmichael]

AKA "get religion". The religious have almighty powers over their own
emotions and beliefs.



--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio