OT Travel Ban Ruling

[jbeattie]

Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Can't wait for the tweets. Senior Cheeto will be going nuts.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand:

bonehead

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:49:01 PM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand:
>
> bonehead

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6895/1598/1600/michael%20ramirez%20052506.jpg

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:49:01 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand:
>
> bonehead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfS5JTvv7hE&t=36s

[AMuzi]

Beyond parody:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf


Citing 'rights' of foreign nationals (!) it looks as if the
Ninth now holds that indeed the Constitution has become a
suicide pact. You could not make this up.


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[David Scheidt]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

:On 2/9/2017 7:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
:> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:49:01 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
:>> Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand:
:>>
:>> bonehead
:>
:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfS5JTvv7hE&t=36s
:>

:Beyond parody:
:http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf


:Citing 'rights' of foreign nationals (!) it looks as if the
:Ninth now holds that indeed the Constitution has become a
:suicide pact. You could not make this up.

It's well established constitutional law that permant residents have
rights under the constitution. the 9th circuit didn't make that up.



--
sig 12

[Andre Jute]

Bizarre. -- AJ

[John B.]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:23:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/9/2017 7:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:49:01 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
>>> Well, I was wrong again. I thought the Ninth Circuit would let Trump waive the magic immigrant exclusion wand:
>>>
>>> bonehead
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfS5JTvv7hE&t=36s
>>
>
>Beyond parody:
>http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
>
>
>Citing 'rights' of foreign nationals (!) it looks as if the
>Ninth now holds that indeed the Constitution has become a
>suicide pact. You could not make this up.

It is a strange world where the President can condemn a foreigner to
death, without trial, and it is carried out to the acclaim of the
public but he can't prevent (perhaps) the same person from entering
the U.S.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I could analyze the opinion and opine, but I'm off work and drinking.

None of this stuff is made up, its just an alternative fact. I hope they got it right, though, because we don't want another Bowling Green massacre. Buy Ivanka!

-- Jay Beattie.

[retrog...@gmail.com]

IMHO, Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. The USSC concocted its right to invalidate acts of the other two branches of government from whole cloth. What a complete shuck and jive routine that case was. The Constitution intends that all 3 branches of government were to be equal, not that those unelected judges have the right to stymie the other two branches.

[Tosspot]

Gosh! How much does she cost? I might be looking at a bulk discount
deal as well if the price is right.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Consider Japan vs Perry and Kimmel vs US

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Our divergent analysis are worthy of anthropological study. That we traded east to west ? SO BUNDY !

I smell no move toward adjusting the EO into global reality suggesting a Malhuerian attitude. However the slum lord called what his name following gaming airspace problems.

We should be SO LUCKY !

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Cheaper than yesterday

[AMuzi]

Don't forget our Senior Discount rate.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

We could go in drag to a City Hall ...

[Andre Jute]

Nuts on a Bench.

[jbeattie]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> Nuts on a Bench.

Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.

The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.

The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuits-donald-trump-travel-ban-ruling-dangerous
But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.

The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.

Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444786/donald-trumps-judges-attacks-andrew-jackson-did-much-worse

Andre Jute
The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.

[jbeattie]

You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:

"So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.

It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 2/10/2017 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> Nuts on a Bench.
>>>
>>> Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.
>>>
>>> The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.
>>>
>>> The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuits-donald-trump-travel-ban-ruling-dangerous
>> But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.
>>
>> The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.
>>
>> Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444786/donald-trumps-judges-attacks-andrew-jackson-did-much-worse
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.
>
> You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:
>

> "So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

>
> Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.
>
> It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>

Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

[Andre Jute]

Well done, Jay. You should watch out, or they'll elect you to the school board.

I started reading National Review, which previously I dismissed as a Catholic-conservative sheet (I knew Bill Buckley in a distant sort of way, back in the day when he was the establishment and I was a rebel (1) in Savile Row pinstripes operating out Madison Avenue), because it is the only journal with any respect for the facts, and discovered that most of its contributors not only have sensible opinions but are good writers as well.

Andre Jute
Georges Clemenceau predicted it

(1) Nation Review, for which I wrote back in the 1970s, shouldn't be confused with Buckley's National Review. Nation Review was well to the left of centre, and its tone was satirical and iconoclastic; you can't get further from Buckley's gravitas than Nation Review and still be on this planet.

[jbeattie]

These are the real Americans we should have elected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE They can do the job!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
SNipped

> Well done, Jay, +1.
>
> Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
> boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I thoght that USAians were fed up with the Democrats and were VERY fearful of H.R. Clinton and there even though many didn't care for Trump they voted for him as being a lesser evil than H.R. Clinton. = much like many here in Canada voted for Trudeau Junior ONLY because they wanted Harper out no matter what.

Cheers

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

conservative politicians groups and professional problem solving analysis are


DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED


we sold 279 TAKE THE PEDESTRIAN T's today

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:28:17 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/10/2017 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> Nuts on a Bench.
>>>>
>>>> Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.
>>>>
>>>> The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.
>>>>
>>>> The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!
>>>>
>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>> It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuits-donald-trump-travel-ban-ruling-dangerous
>>> But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.
>>>
>>> The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.
>>>
>>> Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444786/donald-trumps-judges-attacks-andrew-jackson-did-much-worse
>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.
>>
>> You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:
>>

>> "So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

>>
>> Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.
>>
>> It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Well done, Jay, +1.
>
>Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
>boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

Well, why shouldn't he be elected. after all he is going to raise your
salary to $15.00 and hour; he is going to create jobs so your no-good
brother-in-law can get a job and he is going to get rid of the Wogs,
Gooks and Beaners so the U.S. can enjoy 100% employment and he is
going to "get" them Chinks over there across the sea.

What more could one ask of a president?

(Winston Churchill once said that "the greatest argument against
democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

All last year I listened to people across every imaginable
spectrum and their disappointment/frustration/disgust with
HRC, both major parties, the civil service and nearly every
institution of our culture. DJT is literally 'none of the
above', hence the election results.

Lately I'm hearing a lot of anti-Republican complaints
especially as regards the House having done exactly nothing
so far. Paul Ryan being relatively local, these
conversations are full of invective. One might say, as Jay
did above, that Mr Ryan's job is like herding cats but that
didn't stop Nancy Pelosi from subjecting the nation to
something she had to pass to see what the law required (! I
paraphrase but she really said that). Even then, it took
several contortions of rules and laws to get it through both
chambers and even then ACA had to be rewritten from the
bench. And _still_ it is not repealed -oy! This is but one
issue, there are hundreds and each citizen has a litany now.
The anger is palpable and poorly concealed.

It's not only national. In this afternoon's news, the
Illinois House, having not passed a constitutionally
mandated budget for two years, found time to get behind HR30
making October Zombie Preparedness Month. The State is
broke, their bonds are worthless, there's not enough money
on earth for the on- and off-book pension obligations, homes
for disabled and elderly don't get paid and yet zombies.
When I mentioned that this frustration goes straight down to
school boards I was not exaggerating.

Mr Trump was not my first or second or 3d choice but I
completely understood his broad appeal. That said, I was
amazed on the morning of 10 November.

As regards Canada, you're on your own there. I can't explain it.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Andy

we won by 3.5 million votes

from illegal Bolivian marmot herders living outside Cincinnati

Canada is above Rt 8 Canada isnot a country.

who told you Canada is a country ?

I spoke with rump voters. They are filled with hate n mostly retarded

HRC is an administrative team drawn from Oville. This is way too complex for the above. However they can add 2+2 n arrive at 4 so there's some distrust in the hinterlands.

we saved your economy if not for us you'd starve this winter.

[Duane]

Not all. Not even most.

--
duane

[jbeattie]

Does any state do a good job (not a rhetorical question)? Is there a model of behavior states could follow? Utah seems to have it together, mostly. https://www.alec.org/article/state-of-the-state-utah/. And its not an entirely cruel place. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/?utm_term=.700d6318b802

Maybe we should all be Mormen and Morwomen. Really, though, I'd consider SLC but for the incredible smog during winter. Spend more time on my skis.

Slovenia is also supposed to be nice, and they have fairy castles.

By the way, the bit about Nancy Pelosi not understanding ACA -- I can believe that. Unless she were on the sub-committee that actually worked on the bill, I wouldn't expert her to know much more than the Reader's Digest version -- particularly since it would have no effect on her personally. A few wonks outside the committees probably analyzed it more depth, but the vast majority reduced it to sound-bites. Try giving most legislators a pop quiz on any complicated statute -- the alternative minimum tax or tariffs on inner-tubes. "Quick, someone hand me a baby to kiss!"

-- Jay Beattie.



-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

IMHO Utah is fairly well-run and population trends show net
immigration into UT from other States (it's cheap to drive a
rental truck to IL but expensive to rent there outbound, net
population loss every year)

Our WI Governor is a creative and decent fellow (got his
start breaking the crooked retirement/benefits scheme of the
Milwaukee County Board directors) but his Republican
legislature has gone native. A good many people wished Chris
Christie well, and NJ certainly needed something, anything.
But even his fans can't point to a single policy,
legislative or administrative success.

So I suppose it's a mixed bag, some stink, some stink more.

As regards the general run of things, an old friend who
enjoys a growing business, just bought a bigger warehouse in
a major metro area that sorely needs investment, jobs and
tax revenue. He still can't get is OP, over a month in. A
2500-ft mezzanine area, intended for office space, just got
a city order for a new stairway (probably reasonable- he
expected that) but also an elevator. For three people ten
feet up. Elevator's a $50,000 expense. When he complained
the inspector came back and apologized, saying that after
further review of the code, he actually needs two stairwells
and two elevators. Meanwhile, no one's working on the rest
of the building (another half-dozen permits required for
various aspects) and he can't list his old building. When we
say 'regulatory uncertainty' it is not a dry academic
problem, it hurts people. These are not unusual experiences
in our brave new world.

Right down to the smallest of small minds:
http://www.channel3000.com/news/restaurant-rallies-around-longtime-customer-94-after-wheelchair-ramp-fine/325729339

[retrog...@gmail.com]

Jay Beattie wrote: "By the way, the bit about Nancy Pelosi not understanding ACA -- I can believe that.."

I'm not a Nancy Pelosi fan, but a common misconception is that she was referring to reading the ACA itself before being able to understand it. She was really referring to the extremes of discretion given to the Dept. of HHS under the ACA to promulgate regulations; i.e., the ACA gave HHS little or no statutory guidance, so nobody had the slightest idea what regulations HHS would eventually come up with. For Congress to delegate such unbounded administrative discretion to an agency is unconstitutional as hell. See "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?" by Prof. Philip Hamburger, Univ. of Chicago Press 2014.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I realize that. BUT Many who DID vote for Trudeau Junior only did so because they wanted Harper gone. Unfortunately those few were a big enough block and the opposition split enough between the Consand the NDP to give Trudeau Junior a majority of seats.

Cheers

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Who wrote the code ?

who can they be ?

Devious NYC slum 9lords ?

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

No doubt codes can bee awkward yet Ghost Ships run aground.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Illegal Mexicans EO is a read. Try identifying. Here, there is expertise ...and hapless victims

Long way from Hollywood EO to the border.
300/week // 3 mill ?

Whose first in the citizen eviction category ?

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:46:17 -0800 (PST), retrog...@gmail.com
<retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO, Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. The USSC concocted
> its right to invalidate acts of the other two branches of government
> from whole cloth. What a complete shuck and jive routine that case
> was. The Constitution intends that all 3 branches of government were
> to be equal, not that those unelected judges have the right to stymie
> the other two branches.

Umm. That's how checks and balances work. Did they not cover that in
your civics class? SCOTUS's most important job is to determine whether
laws and executive actions are in keeping with the intent and letter of
the Constitution. Human fallibility being what it is, all three
branches will sometimes miss the mark on that.

An advantage for the executive branch is having a Constitutional scholar
in the White House. That tends to keep most of its actions within the
bounds of constitutionality up front, resulting in fewer post-hoc
actions in SCOTUS about that. Saves taxpayer dollars, too. The current
administration is a parody of the "unitary executive" that Darth Cheney
tried to push (which denied the system of checks and balances, asserting
that the executive had no accountability to the legislative; the current
executive appears to believe there is no accountability to the judicial,
either).

The primary intent of the system of checks and balances is to prevent
the establishment of a "unitary executive," a.k.a. a dictator. There is
going to be a lot of checking and balancing between now and 1/20/21. If
you thought the federal government was inefficient before...

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:16:02 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I thoght that USAians were fed up with the Democrats and were VERY
> fearful of H.R. Clinton and there even though many didn't care for
> Trump they voted for him as being a lesser evil than H.R. Clinton. =
> much like many here in Canada voted for Trudeau Junior ONLY because
> they wanted Harper out no matter what.

We're fed up with everyone in office, no matter who they are, what party
they belong to and no matter what they do. What we don't get is that
it's our own damn fault for electing idiots. Seriously, there are
people in legislative, judicial and executive offices who are overtly
psychotic, sociopaths and/or both. And a lot of them.

I think there was little to no fear of HRC; I think there was a lot of
hatred. The election of Donald Trump was a sign of the deep disrespect
that nearly half of Americans have for our government- even the notion
of government itself.

[AMuzi]

+1
Hey, Tim, I fully agree with you.
(in fact I replied similarly)

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:00:43 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

>
> Does any state do a good job (not a rhetorical question)? Is there a
> model of behavior states could follow?

I'm originally from Illinois. It is a model to follow for how to NOT do
things. They do have the distinction of putting a surprising number of
former governors in prison.

I live in Minnesota now. Our legislature is not a pretty thing to watch
since- in particular for the Republicans- learning from the lessons of
history is not a strength. However the outcomes have been generally
good. The state budget and the state economy is in generally good
condition. The foundation of that is the "Minnesota Miracle," which
actually got both parties a lot of what they wanted and succeeded in
reviving the state.

http://libguides.mnhs.org/publiced

Some of that has been undone since, with negative consequences becoming
gradually more evident. Such is the nature of politics. As with every
other aspect of life, the next generation always thinks they know better
(and sometimes they do).

[retrog...@gmail.com]

Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented"; i.e., you like the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the authority to decide the constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of government, so you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But that is a totally different inquiry than the question of whether or not the framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have that power. What if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is the remedy? Why is there only a remedy if the executive or the legislative branch acts unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary? That really tilts the playing field in favor of judicial power. Remember, when the USSC invents or vindicates certain rights that you think are important, they are restricting someone else's rights, and if you give the USSC more power than it is entitled to, someday it will be your rights that are restricted.

[AMuzi]

On 2/12/2017 3:46 PM, retrog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented"; i.e., you like the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the authority to decide the constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of government, so you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But that is a totally different inquiry than the question of whether or not the framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have that power. What if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is the remedy? Why is there only a remedy if the executive or the legislative branch acts unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary? That really tilts the playing field in favor of judicial power. Remember, when the USSC invents or vindicates certain rights that you think are important, they are restricting someone else's rights, and if you give the USSC more power than it is entitled to, someday it will be your rights that are restricted.
>

You mistake my position.

I often note, there's that one guy who, after the cards are
dealt, says, "Oh, and one-eyed Jacks are wild". I hate that guy.

A civil society is not long for this world when their
founding document is riven and rent by penumbras and
eminences and the personal opinions of a few justices. As
with so much of our society now, regime uncertainty is a
real and costly burden. You just never know what the ground
rules will be next week, legislative, executive or judicial.
(administrative is already the enemy of citizenry)

It's just pervasive. In a discussion today about 1st
Amendment liberties, during which I much agreed with the
other person, I threw in, "So one should not have to get
prior government permission or documents or be vetted before
speaking freely?" She was vehemently opposed to licensing or
limiting speech. I could not resist, "But you think the 2d
Amendment is somehow different from the 1st?"

end of conversation.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:46:09 PM UTC, retrog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented"; i.e., you like the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the authority to decide the constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of government, so you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But that is a totally different inquiry than the question of whether or not the framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have that power. What if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is the remedy? Why is there only a remedy if the executive or the legislative branch acts unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary? That really tilts the playing field in favor of judicial power. Remember, when the USSC invents or vindicates certain rights that you think are important, they are restricting someone else's rights, and if you give the USSC more power than it is entitled to, someday it will be your rights that are restricted.

Andrew Muzi is big enough to speak for himself, but I don't think he'll agree you've rendered his position accurately.

About controlling the judges, in theory at least, Congress can impeach any Federal judge and rescind his appointment. But in practice that has happened probably less than a couple of handful of times, and always for reasons of corruption or patent incompetence (drunkenness? -- I'm giving you all this from memory because I need to be on my treadmill, so the net's copout IIRC applies) rather than for the betrayal of the Constitution, which in our time is so common as hardly to attract comment. You'd better look it up, to be sure, but, again from memory, the procedure is that one of the houses of Congress impeaches the judge, there is a trial with the well of the house of Congress turned into a bar (not that kind!), and the executive, meaning the President, must sign off on the recommendation to dismiss the judge, something like that. Jay will probably know offhand.

In the present tense atmosphere with the Democrats intent not on governing but on obstruction, an impeachment would surely be a circus.

The Ninth Circuit either had second thoughts in its more sensible levels, or foolishly decided to support the three foolish judges who so hugely extended their own area of (in)competence, with a call to review the most recent judgement en banc, which I haven't seen noted in this thread yet. If that happens and backtracks on the recent unfortunate and disgraceful judicial shenanigans, all this talk of impeachments will become moot. That may be the motive behind the en banc call.

Andre Jute
The American judicial system (as a whole) is probably superior to the British one, but the British way is a hell of a lot more dignified, especially when a judge needs to be removed

[John B.]

But I don't believe that this is simply a modern phenomena. Read a bit
of U.S. history. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Aaron Burr, all were
hated. Even George Washington was viewed with some suspicion for a
time.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I haven't looked up the procedure, but yes, Congress can impeach SC justices. However, we usually just kill them off secretly, like with Scalia. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/conspiracy-theories-surround-justice-scalias-death/

Someone has to be the referee, and it's not going to be the players. If the SC declares a statute unconstitutional, Congress can simply pass another. If the SC issues an opinion requiring federal or state action, the federal or state governments can simply not act. The SC doesn't have an enforcement arm. Really, you need to be wary of any government where the final arbiter of what is or is not legal has soldiers, tanks and oodles of war materiel. Again, as a nation, we have agreed among ourselves that the relatively toothless judicial branch lead by a dozen egg-heads should make the call as to what is or is not legal.

Cases can go en bank only to produce the same result but with a dissent or two. It can also mean reversal in part. I don't think the judges are dopes or foolish or any of those epithets. I don't think they're that political, either. The order has problems, but I think the full court might allow some portion of it to go ahead -- but not all of it. Keep in mind that three courts have held the order to be unconstitutional in some respect. It wasn't just the USDC WD Washington. That was just the first ruling to make it to a Circuit Court of Appeals.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

Thanks, Jay. --AJ

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://goo.gl/B7U6TO

The Sandy Hook militia ?

[Duane]

> . http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/conspiracy-theories-surround-justice-scalias-death/
>
> Someone has to be the referee, and it's not going to be the players. If
> the SC declares a statute unconstitutional, Congress can simply pass
> another. If the SC issues an opinion requiring federal or state action,
> the federal or state governments can simply not act. The SC doesn't have
> an enforcement arm. Really, you need to be wary of any government where
> the final arbiter of what is or is not legal has soldiers, tanks and
> oodles of war materiel. Again, as a nation, we have agreed among
> ourselves that the relatively toothless judicial branch lead by a dozen
> egg-heads should make the call as to what is or is not legal.
>
> Cases can go en bank only to produce the same result but with a dissent
> or two. It can also mean reversal in part. I don't think the judges are
> dopes or foolish or any of those epithets. I don't think they're that
> political, either. The order has problems, but I think the full court
> might allow some portion of it to go ahead -- but not all of it. Keep in
> mind that three courts have held the order to be unconstitutional in some
> respect. It wasn't just the USDC WD Washington. That was just the first
> ruling to make it to a Circuit Court of Appeals.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>

I don't think they would have upheld the stay so readily if Trump hadn't
have been running his mouth constantly about banning Muslims. Yes I know
it's not a ban. Excuse me for quoting him. Giuliani's quotes didn't help
either with respect to intent. Nor his lawyers claiming this was beyond
the court's oversight. Maybe Donald can fire them all.

Anyway the 3 judges didn't rule on anything except that the temporary ban
on the ban would stay.

--
duane

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

SC can throw the EO out as incompetent.

[AMuzi]

Continuing the theme. 'a pox on both their houses', the
order was poorly drafted, the US solicitor was
embarrassingly unprepared, the Washington judge was no
better, the Ninth decision brought in quite fanciful
arguments without once citing the enabling statute. DJT
running his mouth and the loony left lighting their own hair
on fire isn't helpful to calm deliberation of a serious
issue[1].

And you wonder why your average citizen thinks 'none of the
above' is a reasonable choice.

[1] I am not a genius,. There's probably a workable answer
between 7 billion new immigrants arriving to claim relief
while waging jihad here and a closed garrison state, neither
of which is going to happen. I have no idea what that answer
might be.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

self deprecation is no sanctuary

[1] I am not a genius,. There's probably a workable answer
between 7 billion new immigrants arriving to claim relief
while waging jihad here and a closed garrison state, neither
of which is going to happen. I have no idea what that answer
might be.

you are in the 95%tile relative to the 'average citizen'

the event we're discussing is orchestrated thru the current law environment...this isnot Bundyville this is Law School.

Washington has the background for opening the event without placing foot in mouth. No one would object to this in public. Not even Duke.

and this is the way the event plays. your objections are out in the parking lot.

4-4. try a rewrite. while we adjust to this slumlord right wing whacko BS

[Duane]

Neither do I but I can see what the answer can't be and it can't be that
people that don't know what they're doing have full control without
respect to the balances of power.

[AMuzi]

So, except for the administrative State, our various elected
putzes and the senile emotional judiciary we're otherwise OK?

[Duane]

No we're screwed. And now we're more screwed than before because we
have people without a hint trying to implement policy based on sound
bites and electoral promises. Do you know what's going to happen if
Trump moves the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem for example?

[AMuzi]

What the hell?
Could yo quickly name another country in which our embassy
is outside the Capital?

Oh, this must be different because everybody hates the Jews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

[Duane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

My question wasn't whether this was right or wrong but what will happen
when it's moved.

[AMuzi]

Israelis will kvetch, "37 years late, what took you so long?"

[jbeattie]

Taiwan. You know as well as anyone that Israel (like China) is a very special case. Personally, I'm sick of the "it is our spiritual homeland" thing. By that reasoning, I'd have to give my house back to the Multnomah Tribe. I totally understand "we kicked ass, and its ours!" That's the Western way. Then we throw our lot in with the winners.

That would be in keeping with the current administration's basic "f*** you" approach to nuanced issues of international diplomacy. "Israel is a winner! The Palestinians lost! Sad!" Trump could leap-frog decades of international diplomacy with a Tweet or two.

Trump is breaking a lot of eggs, but it is yet to be seen whether he'll make an omlet -- or even knows how to make an omlet. We may just end up with a bunch of broken eggs on the counter.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

No different from the Russians in Konigsberg. If Jordan
could possibly have held Jerusalem, they would have.

Taiwan is not in fact different from any other state
separated by civil war; Sudan/South Sudan, ROK/DPRK,
Pakistan/Bangladesh and so on. Or the Two Irelands for that
matter. We chose to not make it an issue with PRC but the
facts didn't change.

[Andre Jute]

Liberals ask, in effect: who are we to interfere in the quaint Jew-murdering rituals of those cute indigenous savages, the Palestinians?

That violent scum doesn't want peace with Israel. How many times do they have to shout it out for Washington to hear? But we're coming to an externally forced breakpoint.

The two-party state in Israel has been visibly dead since the Oslo Accords; more accurately, for fifty years it was never more than wishful thinking in Washington, London and Bonn. Anyone who thinks there is a deal to be made with the Palestinians has rocks in his head. (Surely not even Mr Trump, by his own account the biggest dealmaker in the world, harbours any dream of dealing with lifelong professional genocides, by definition psychopaths.) Anyone who in 2017 thinks any deal short of every Jew dead can be enforced on Hamas is a moron beyond belief (or a professional diplomat, which too often comes to the same thing).

Sooner or later the Palestinians will have to be taught a short, sharp military lesson. I imagine all hell will break loose among the chattering classes when Israel undertakes the necessary preemptive strikes against Hamas' armorers, financiers and ideological supporters to avoid being backstabbed while they drive the Palestinians into the sea, but they won't matter (when did the left ever matter? (1)). My guess is Egypt and Saudi Arabia will stay out of it, Jordan will require only a pro-forma threat from Israel to justify sitting on its hands while simultaneously wringing them, Iraq may launch a few desultory rockets until the Americans tell them not to be silly, Syria will be stupid enough to fight (and open itself up to a two-front war, which can't be bad), Lebanon can't fight, Turkey will be bribed by the EU not to fight (it's actually doubtful that Turkey will fight Israel rather than use the opportunity to commit genocides of its internal enemies, starting with the Kurds -- the Turks might even decide to grab a piece of Iran while their attention is elsewhere), and Iran will have to be hurt to the point of regime change.

"Later" in the previous paragraph, by the way, means before the Iranians complete their first nuclear bomb and a missile to deliver it, because if I believe those crazy ragheads will do it, then the Israeli leadership know in their bones that the Iranians will press the button even if it means guaranteed self-annihilation. So "later" is actually also quite soon. That is the forcing mechanism I mentioned above, the breakpoint.

Will this be the third world war? Not on your nellie. Racism is a lovely thing when it calms the passions, and those Iranians are not Semites like the Arabs and the Jews, they're Aryans like you and me and the (Asian) Indians, too white, and too snotty, for their own good, and they belong to a rival strain of Mohammedanism. I don't see too many Arabs even mourning their passing, never mind fighting to avenge them. Ten bucks will get you one that even the lip service from the important Arabs will be distinctly lackluster.

It's a pity, because without those mad mullahs the Iranians were well on their way to being the most eastern of the Western cultures, with a far greater natural right to be considered for membership of the EU than Turkey. Every single Persian I know is a class act.

If the American embassy moving to Jerusalem sends a hard-edged message to the Palestinians and, more important, their backers, so much the better for the cause of peace. Trump is a dealmaker exactly as he claims, you know; all that crap from little people who never did anything in their lives about his business failures just measures the depth of their misunderstanding about how the world works for the movers and shakers. As an opener for hardline negotiations, I can't think of a more effective signal than moving the embassy permanently right into the middle of the contested region.

Andre Jute
Prescient

(1) Still, one can hope that the Israeli decide to indulge in a preemptive strike against George Soros, just because the opportunity offers. But they probably won't; they're altogether too respectable these days.

[AMuzi]

The Twelvers (shi'a mullahs and ayatollahs ) who rule Persia
are not Persian. They are Arabs, descendants of the prophet.

[Andre Jute]

Conclusion? -- AJ

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

not....the O admin adjusted the economy into globalization as did Clinton. Bush lacking viable analysts gave Chinese Wal money.

now we have a rag tag group of wannabee pre globalization amateurs looking for the 'good ol days' or room to drill drill drill when oil should go for 200/gallon

one prob they have solved is to piss into the wind and into the bucket at the same time.

so we have China footing the bill for an aggressive bunch of not globalization yahoos.

so yes there's a serious problem...

adding global warming which is not gonna wait....

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

wannna cite links on that ?

[John B.]

Or the U.S. for that matter. A part of the English Empire that decided
to go it alone. A very close parallel to the China - Taiwan episode,
taxation without representative and all that.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

It's not a secret:

Shias continued to look to the Imams—the blood descendants
of Ali and Husayn—as their legitimate political and
religious leaders.

The majority of Shias, particularly those in Iran and the
eastern Arab world, believe that the 12th Imam entered a
state of occultation, or hiddenness, in 939 and that he will
return at the end of time. Since then, “Twelvers,” or Ithna
Ashari Shias, have vested religious authority in their
senior clerical leaders, called ayatollahs (Arabic for “sign
of God”).

from:
http://www.newsweek.com/struggle-between-sunni-and-shia-muslims-explained-291419

If you want to get into the weeds, details go on and on:
http://www.twelvershia.org/2016/12/24/jafar-al-sadiq-descendant-abu-bakr/

[Frank Krygowski]

Nope. There's still the vast crowd that thinks anyone with an ethnicity
different from theirs must be excluded or battled as a potential
terrorist. And of course, there's the paranoid fringe.

One guy I knew passed away leaving a sort of strategic problem. He was
so convinced that "they" (Blacks? Muslims? Limp-wristed liberals? Black
helicopters?) were going to attack en masse that he accumulated a huge
(huge!) collection of heavy-duty arms, ammunition and who-knows-what-else.

Now his widow is fretting about how to safely sell off the stuff. She
and the cops are fearful that if the word gets out about the size of the
arsenal, that _real_ bad guys are going to break in and haul the stuff
off. The result would be some serious cop-killing firepower out on the
streets. Supposedly it's enough to supply an unregulated militia.

He's gone, and I trust this specific problem case will be solved. But
he was far from alone in his paranoia and obsession.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

From what I have read The Prophet died without nominating a successor
and his direct descendents, i.e., sons, survived to adulthood there
was a question of who would succeed to leadership. The main choices
seemed to be between Adu Bakr, who was the father-in-law of the
Prophet and the first convert to Islam (other than the Prophet's
direct family) and Ali who was a cousin and son-in-law.

It appears that Abu Bakr was the more dynamic leader and much of the
initial dissension seems to have been fostered by Fatima (The
Prophet's daughter) over his estate.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:41:24 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Goodness! Mia culpa, I skipped a word and the above should have read
"and none of his direct...".

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

no weeds.... gotta chart with Persian - Arab pinned down ? seems farfetched over 1000 years n uragonnatellme Irans leaders are Arabs 'becasue' ....

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:30:16 +0700, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:54:28 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 2/12/2017 2:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:16:02 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
>>> <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I thoght that USAians were fed up with the Democrats and were VERY
>>>> fearful of H.R. Clinton and there even though many didn't care for
>>>> Trump they voted for him as being a lesser evil than H.R. Clinton.
>>>> = much like many here in Canada voted for Trudeau Junior ONLY
>>>> because they wanted Harper out no matter what.
>>>
>>> We're fed up with everyone in office, no matter who they are, what
>>> party they belong to and no matter what they do. What we don't get
>>> is that it's our own damn fault for electing idiots. Seriously,
>>> there are people in legislative, judicial and executive offices who
>>> are overtly psychotic, sociopaths and/or both. And a lot of them.
>>>
>>> I think there was little to no fear of HRC; I think there was a lot
>>> of hatred. The election of Donald Trump was a sign of the deep
>>> disrespect that nearly half of Americans have for our government-
>>> even the notion of government itself.
>>>
>>
>>+1 Hey, Tim, I fully agree with you. (in fact I replied similarly)
>
>
> But I don't believe that this is simply a modern phenomena. Read a bit
> of U.S. history. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Aaron Burr, all were
> hated. Even George Washington was viewed with some suspicion for a
> time.

Yes, or at least not exclusively modern nor exclusively American. These
trends in the public sentiment ebb and flow.

Sometimes principled and rational people (on either side of the aisle)
are in charge and sometimes the nuts (on either side of the aisle) are
in charge.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), retrog...@gmail.com

<retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented"; i.e., you like
> the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the authority to decide
> the constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of government,
> so you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But that is a
> totally different inquiry than the question of whether or not the
> framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have that power.

Yes, they did. Again, was this not covered in your high school civics
class?

> What if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is the remedy?
> Why is there only a remedy if the executive or the legislative branch
> acts unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary?

There are checks and balances for that. The legislative and executive
do have several layers of checks and balances.

For example, in the current Case of the Executive Order the Trump
Administration could simply write one that is constitutional and makes
the necessary case for why the rights that will be limited by the order
should be limited. Trump's publicly stated case was "we're gonna keep
Muslims out until we figure out what the hell is going on." His
ignorance and that of his administration is not a public crisis that
warrants taking rights away from people that legitimately and legally
hold them.

> That really tilts the playing field in favor of judicial power.
> Remember, when the USSC invents or vindicates certain rights that you
> think are important, they are restricting someone else's rights, and
> if you give the USSC more power than it is entitled to, someday it
> will be your rights that are restricted.

Funny thing about rights- they apply to all within the US. Vindicating
someone's rights (interesting choice of word, there- vindication is the
justification against denial or censure that has been wrongfully
applied) defends those rights for all. Inventing rights? You mean like
Miranda rights?

How about a legislator inventing the right of ownership of a woman's
body by a man and that women don't actually own themselves, as we saw in
Oklahoma today?

Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:10:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> On 2/12/2017 3:46 PM, retrog...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented"; i.e., you like
>> the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the authority to decide
>> the constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of
>> government, so you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But
>> that is a totally different inquiry than the question of whether or
>> not the framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have that

>> power. What if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is the

>> remedy? Why is there only a remedy if the executive or the
>> legislative branch acts unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary?

>> That really tilts the playing field in favor of judicial power.
>> Remember, when the USSC invents or vindicates certain rights that you
>> think are important, they are restricting someone else's rights, and
>> if you give the USSC more power than it is entitled to, someday it
>> will be your rights that are restricted.
>>
>

> You mistake my position.
>
> I often note, there's that one guy who, after the cards are dealt,
> says, "Oh, and one-eyed Jacks are wild". I hate that guy.
>
> A civil society is not long for this world when their founding
> document is riven and rent by penumbras and eminences and the personal
> opinions of a few justices. As with so much of our society now, regime
> uncertainty is a real and costly burden. You just never know what the
> ground rules will be next week, legislative, executive or judicial.
> (administrative is already the enemy of citizenry)

Funny thing is, there is no universal agreement on those penumbras,
eminences and personal opinions- nor upon where the Constitution is
riven and rent. Watching Scalia's transparent legislating from the
bench, twisting the Constitution into saying what he wished the framers
had meant under the phony rubric of "originalism," it is apparent to me
that tremendous damage was done. But people who agree with his
fundamental political stance saw it as brilliant jurisprudence that
vindicated their beliefs. They don't think that damage was done- quite
the contrary, they think damage was repaired.

> It's just pervasive. In a discussion today about 1st Amendment
> liberties, during which I much agreed with the other person, I threw
> in, "So one should not have to get prior government permission or
> documents or be vetted before speaking freely?" She was vehemently
> opposed to licensing or limiting speech. I could not resist, "But you
> think the 2d Amendment is somehow different from the 1st?"

Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment is marred by poor grammar which obscures
its intent and meaning. Following the logic of the gun lobby, I should
also be able to bear swords, hand grenades, Tasers, brass knuckles,
rocket launchers and tactical nuclear weapons under the 2nd Amendment.
They selectively emphasize only part of the Amendment and choose the
most profitable construction.

Following the logic of court decisions prior to about 40 years ago, the
2nd Amendment does not impute an unlimited individual right to bear
arms; the interpretation that it does is a johnny-come-lately in
jurisprudence.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

A rocket launcher is not self protection
RL's are military not militial

BTW, is Wednesday ...where's the rewrite ? Cannah find a lawyer with free time ?

[AMuzi]

Trouble is, you never really know.

Barry Goldwater was tarred with that 'mentally ill' smear.
We suffered greatly without his leadership. LBJ was at least
as crazy and arguably less fit to lead.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Goldwater never led. BG was an anomaly as an interesting politician ...bomb then back to the stone age ? Trumpish ...looks good in print.

LBJ was an accomplished organizer backed by Texas Reality .... 'no President ever lost a war ( which war ?) n I'm not gonna be the first'

Kennedy assassinates Viet royalty invades Cuba.....

globalization moves away from a WW2 mind then comes Trump...in print. Now buffering.

connect the dots ?

[Frank Krygowski]

And the "truth" is so often in the eye of the beholder.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Fifty years later maybe.
In real time I think one just never knows.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/10/17 5:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:

Right. Ignore the judge and kill thousands of Cherokees.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/10/17 5:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying

He needs to use it on himself. He's definitely got a screw loose.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/13/17 1:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> In the present tense atmosphere with the Democrats intent not on governing but on obstruction, an impeachment would surely be a circus.

Sort of like a Star Trek episode. Same plot; only the names have changed.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/13/17 6:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> Trump is breaking a lot of eggs, but it is yet to be seen whether he'll make an omlet -- or even knows how to make an omlet. We may just end up with a bunch of broken eggs on the counter.

We should be thankful they're not on the floor—or on our face.

--
Wes Groleau

[jbeattie]

One does know in real-time whether a candidate has the basic skills necessary to do the job. We have never before elected a president who has not been in the military or government. Goldwater, whatever you might have thought about his politics, was qualified. So was Johnson and so was Nelson Rockefeller. In 1964, you could have picked any flavor of candidate and know that he could do the job. Goldwater was also articulate, lucid, consistent -- obviously not to the taste of the US public since he lost in a crushing landslide, but he was qualified. He could find the light switches and pull the levers of government. With his approach to USSR, I'm sure he knew where the nuke buttons were located.

And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.

-- Jay Beattie

[Doug Landau]

Haha nor was she. Sarah Winchester

[Doug Landau]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:

> Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
> the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
> USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.

United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/

[AMuzi]

They're also not so affectionately known as The Supremes.

[Andre Jute]

Careful, Wes. Liz Warren claims to be a Cherokee. It is probably a Federal offense to wish a senator ill. -- AJ

[Andre Jute]

They weren't even good enough to be a backing group. Mind you, they were a lot more musical than today's rappers. -- AJ

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

no question. slum lord

goo.gl/PpfNzT

great map

1964 AZ was not on TV. Now AZ is not on the beach.

BG could say 'rain tomorrow' and an easterner would hear ?

interesting as the day has passed, we look back to BG n see how the west was won. and not by slum lords as McCain may agree

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:17:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
>
> And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.
>
> -- Jay Beattie

I'm one of those psychologists you mention, and an economist, and I practised both skills at the cutting edge of business, in a business that is probably the only more Darwinian ratfuckery than property development, and I must tell you that the leaders of their nations that I've advised on four of the five continents were probably interchangeable with the business leaders I've advised, except that the businessmen were smarter. Hal Geneen, said almost universally to be one of the great businessmen of the previous century (and a benefactor to me), was once told by someone from his hotels group as the car passed the monument, "That's the Colosseum, Mr Geneen." He looked up, mistook the remark for a suggestion that it should be turned into a hotel, glanced around the back of the car at our faces for support for the notion, found none, ruled, "It'll cost too much to restore," and dropped his eyes again to the spreadsheet on his lap, moving my finger, which had slid as I looked up, to the exact point where he was interrupted in his perusal of the numbers. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Geneen could have walked into the Oval Office and taken over the management of the nation in an instant and proven more competent than any President since World War II, with the obvious exceptions of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Geneen wasn't the only one. Chuck Bluhdorn, Robert Holmes a Court, Rupert Murdoch, many more would do a brilliant job. In every single case it would be the easiest job they ever held, because there is so much help: two houses of Congress, the judiciary, established bureaucracies, lots of experienced executives vying for appointments running these bureaucracies, platoons of high-quality advisors.

> Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit.

I laughed aloud when I read that. Whenever I've taught, I always open by stating the principles of economics (a presumption of rationality in everyone involved in everyday life) even to doctoral aspirants and postdocs, adding, "That's just the normative case [what should be, if everything were to be rational, as opposed to what is]. In reality, the madhouse is all around us, and the greatest virtue in the Darwinian competition of life is unpredictability." Your premise simply doesn't conform to real life experience, Jay.

I don't know what Mr Trump studied at college, but that was surely the last time he was involved in a rational market, however notional. The vicious irrationality of dealing with the building trades and their unions is a far better preparation for Mr Trump to govern, especially internationally, than any military service would be, or any government bureaucratic service. What made Reagan the victor of the Cold War wasn't his fine administrative experience in the actors' unions or in Sacramento, or his diplomatic charm, but his gambler's instinct frightening the shit out of the Kremlin.

Andre Jute
It's not recklessness that will get us all killed, it is wishful thinking

[Andre Jute]

Only the cast wouldn't be as young and handsome.

AJ

[AMuzi]

Aside from other rich experience, Ronald Reagan worked as a
lifeguard on the Rock River[1] while completing his degree
in economics (Eureka 1927).

DJT attended military secondary school (I don't know, but in
USA this is a standard path for children of the well-to-do
with discipline problems) then on to Fordham (2yrs) and
Wharton (2 yrs; not an MBA)

[1] I grew up swimming in it, well upriver from Dixon IL

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://dustyshutt.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/24x30-dancing-on-the-water-0081a.jpg

our democracy is organized n orchestrated this is not Old Yurp as AJ is Old Yurp.

Rump is an MBA https://www.google.com/#q=trump+education

His wealth derives from his education and weaselish un-CPA advice gambling on real estate 'loopholes' not loop holes but aggressive real estate 'law'

as jay sez, this has zero to do with government. government is getting along n Trump is not.

GOP admins historically ( the last 50 ) are not filling admin positions with qualified people BECAUSE there are no qualified conservatives. Or like Pudzer there are problems or careers to pur$ue.

government is more complex than making n selling air conditioners.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

I don't. Some of my best relatives are Cherokees. I'm saying that was
Andrew Jackson's response to a judge.

--
Wes Groleau

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Andy, your father owned a chain of LBS ?

I slipped so sorry


https://www.google.com/#q=does+trump+have+an+mba+degree+from+wharton

more Bongo.

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:17:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie
>
> I'm one of those psychologists you mention, and an economist, and I practised both skills at the cutting edge of business, in a business that is probably the only more Darwinian ratfuckery than property development, and I must tell you that the leaders of their nations that I've advised on four of the five continents were probably interchangeable with the business leaders I've advised, except that the businessmen were smarter. Hal Geneen, said almost universally to be one of the great businessmen of the previous century (and a benefactor to me), was once told by someone from his hotels group as the car passed the monument, "That's the Colosseum, Mr Geneen." He looked up, mistook the remark for a suggestion that it should be turned into a hotel, glanced around the back of the car at our faces for support for the notion, found none, ruled, "It'll cost too much to restore," and dropped his eyes again to the spreadsheet on his lap, moving my finger, which had slid as I looked up, to the exact point where he was interrupted in his perusal of the numbers. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Geneen could have walked into the Oval Office and taken over the management of the nation in an instant and proven more competent than any President since World War II, with the obvious exceptions of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Geneen wasn't the only one. Chuck Bluhdorn, Robert Holmes a Court, Rupert Murdoch, many more would do a brilliant job. In every single case it would be the easiest job they ever held, because there is so much help: two houses of Congress, the judiciary, established bureaucracies, lots of experienced executives vying for appointments running these bureaucracies, platoons of high-quality advisors.
>
> > Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit.
>
> I laughed aloud when I read that. Whenever I've taught, I always open by stating the principles of economics (a presumption of rationality in everyone involved in everyday life) even to doctoral aspirants and postdocs, adding, "That's just the normative case [what should be, if everything were to be rational, as opposed to what is]. In reality, the madhouse is all around us, and the greatest virtue in the Darwinian competition of life is unpredictability." Your premise simply doesn't conform to real life experience, Jay.

Developing property is cookie-cutter. You can read market studies and pencil out pro formas on the back of napkin. Dealing with ideologues in foreign countries, building coalitions, developing a national strategy is not cookie-cutter.

The down-side of a bad development deal is a low return on investment. If the going gets tough, you give the property to the bank or the investors. The down-side of bad foreign policy is a bomb-crater and/or a lot of dead Americans in some foreign shit-hole.

BTW, what made Reagan the victor in the Cold War was the US economy and
Mikhail Gorbachev. Kennedy was the gambler, whatever you may think of Kennedy and/or Dean Rusk.

Perhaps Trump is a savant and a natural diplomat who will make America great again. I'm not seeing it. And in fact, even after living through the Cuban Missile Crisis, I'm more anxious about our government than ever.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Doug Landau]

> <snip> What made Reagan the victor of the Cold War wasn't his fine administrative experience in the actors' unions or in Sacramento, or his diplomatic charm, but his gambler's instinct frightening the shit out of the Kremlin.

What makes you think he wasn't responding to what the regulars wanted from him?

[Doug Landau]

"The most successful American performers of the 1960s, the Supremes for a time rivaled even the Beatles in terms of red-hot commercial appeal, reeling off five number one singles in a row at one point."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-MDYopSoA

[AMuzi]

On 2/15/2017 7:52 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:02:12 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:24:12 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2017 2:27 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
>>>>> the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
>>>>> USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.
>>>>
>>>> United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/
>>>>
>>>
>>> They're also not so affectionately known as The Supremes.

>> They weren't even good enough to be a backing group. Mind you, they were a lot more musical than today's rappers. -- AJ
>
> "The most successful American performers of the 1960s, the Supremes for a time rivaled even the Beatles in terms of red-hot commercial appeal, reeling off five number one singles in a row at one point."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-MDYopSoA
>

It's satire. Diana Ross, a melodramatic diva, exhibits more
humility than the Justices.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-5, Doug Landau wrote:
> > <snip> What made Reagan the victor of the Cold War wasn't his fine administrative experience in the actors' unions or in Sacramento, or his diplomatic charm, but his gambler's instinct frightening the shit out of the Kremlin.
>
> What makes you think he wasn't responding to what the regulars wanted from him?

ahhhno....the cold war was won by thin Russian soil and the American electronics industry ....and the Tomcat !

Raygun did Bongo goes to DC ...???