SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Lexicus]

Interesting. Where did the other witnesses witness? I mean give their statements? And why weren't their heard? Who controls the hearings?

The prosecuting authority decides what evidence to present to the grand jury. Since the prosecutor's normal career depends on amiable relationships and coordination with the police, many people do not believe that police can be held accountable through "normal" legal channels and that independent bodies should be appointed to investigate police misconduct.

Reading these stories the impression I have is that the level of violence accepted as normal in he US is one huge failure of that country. Raising the question of why they think they "need" that level of violence.

You already know why. Class inequality, racial inequality and the social problems that go along with that. The long-term trend since the "crime waves" of the 1970s and 80s has been to respond to those problems by militarizing society (a fact of interest here is that municipal budgets often spend more on police departments than on every other budget item combined) and locking up millions of people in extremely inhumane conditions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the Dems are lucky and take the senate and the presidency, they should just impeach the last three confirmed justices. Case closed.

 

[Estebonrober]

If the Dems are lucky and take the senate and the presidency, they should just impeach the last three confirmed justices. Case closed.

I don't think besmirching the reputation of all three is as smart as just adding more imo. First off, I feel you would need reasons beyond the politics of it. . .now in Kavanaugh's case you might have that, but in Gorsuch's? I mean I'm not sure what is there actually. It seems a tougher road to drive on for me. Second, I feel like the point of stacking the court means we are moving outside the any semblance of normal actions by the democrats and maybe movement toward their base who've been screaming about getting their asses kicked around politically by the GOP for 40 years.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If the Dems are lucky and take the senate and the presidency, they should just impeach the last three confirmed justices. Case closed.

Nope. You need a 2/3 majority to impeach remove a SCOTUS Justice, so everything else about that aside... they will not have the numbers period.

 

[Lexicus]

To convict.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To convict.

Of course you're right... corrected.

 

[Ajidica]

The Eagles as an organization does claim to be trained in teachings that advocate this behavior. Though admittedly I wonder sometimes.

And what about the political right in the US? A large number of people, attracting national attention, proclaimed themselves as being on the political right, emphasized their event was to 'unite the right', went on nighttime tiki-torch marches shouting 'Jews Will Not Replace US', and waving flags with SS and Black Sun runes. The president, who leads the US right wing party went on national television and called the tiki-torch crowd 'very fine people'.
BLM may emphasize some rather confrontational tactics, akin to the lunch counter sit-ins, but to say they train people to riot is farcical.

I don't care about the race of the people doing these things and nobody else should either, because it's irrelevant.

Have you been criticizing the Turner Diaries cosplayers or the militia LARPers who keep cropping up these days? I don't know about you, but I'm far more unnerved by a Turner Diaries cosplayer strolling around with a rifle than a BLM protest.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you personally condemn the entire US political right because people claiming to be on the political right held a nighttime tiki-torch parade shouting "Jews Will Not Replace Us", accompanied by SS and Black Sun runes?
Some Eagles fans riot and burn cars when their team wins/loses/exists. Should the Eagles team and overwhelming majority of fans be treated as a public menace carrying out subversion?

The moment black individuals start organizing and promoting their interests in a manner you disagree with, you seize any and all straws to dismiss their concerns out of hand on the ground they are actually a front for Marxist subversion of the United States.

Antifa is largely non-black, but tiki torch protesters dont destroy neighborhoods. It aint got nothing to do with skin color, white, black, brown, you dont care what the person who destroyed your life looks like. If he's the same color will you react differently? You burned down my business, but you kinda look like me so... no biggie.

If Eagles home games resulted in burned out cars the owner might be complicit, same as bars letting people get too drunk before driving away. I expect at some point BLM will be sued for their complicity in riots just as cities and bar owners are sued for police misconduct and drunk drivers.

As for your broader point about guilt by association, if you organize protests that turn violent, at what point are you morally complicit? How many people have to be hurt by your protests before you are guilty of enabling riots? It doesn't take dozens or hundreds of protests turning violent to see the moral culpability of organizers.

 

[amadeus]

A large number of people, attracting national attention, proclaimed themselves as being on the political right, emphasized their event was to 'unite the right', went on nighttime tiki-torch marches shouting 'Jews Will Not Replace US', and waving flags with SS and Black Sun runes.

Is 250 that large in a country of 300,000,000+? My superficial observation is that the U.S. has a relatively low number of “fascists” or “neo-Nazis” (in quotes because I’m using them as generally in common parlance) compared to Britain or Germany with the BNP and NPD, respectively.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Is 250 that large in a country of 300,000,000+? My superficial observation is that the U.S. has a relatively low number of “fascists” or “neo-Nazis” (in quotes because I’m using them as generally in common parlance) compared to Britain or Germany with the BNP and NPD, respectively.

If its such a low number then President Trump wouldn't be in office. He would have tanked pitifully in the GOP primaries. Instead his outward fascist rhetoric shot him to the top.

Everyone who voted for Trump for more innocent reasons has now had 4 years to see what horrible mistake they've made. So I think this election will give us a more precise number of how many fascists there are in the US.

 

[cardgame]

Antifa is largely non-black, but tiki torch protesters dont destroy neighborhoods.

Right, they only kill people

As for your broader point about guilt by association, if you organize protests that turn violent, at what point are you morally complicit? How many people have to be hurt by your protests before you are guilty of enabling riots? It doesn't take dozens or hundreds of protests turning violent to see the moral culpability of organizers.

So you agree? ALL COPS are bastards?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If its such a low number then President Trump wouldn't be in office. He would have tanked pitifully in the GOP primaries. Instead his outward fascist rhetoric shot him to the top.

Everyone who voted for Trump for more innocent reasons has now had 4 years to see what horrible mistake they've made. So I think this election will give us a more precise number of how many fascists there are in the US.

Let's not be coy; the GOP is the party of fascism and those that would vote for them, defend them, make excuses for them, are either proto-fascists or comfortable enough with fascism as to be willing to enable and facilitate it, so there's not really much of a delineation between the two.

 

[Estebonrober]

Antifa is largely non-black, but tiki torch protesters dont destroy neighborhoods. It aint got nothing to do with skin color, white, black, brown, you dont care what the person who destroyed your life looks like. If he's the same color will you react differently? You burned down my business, but you kinda look like me so... no biggie.

If Eagles home games resulted in burned out cars the owner might be complicit, same as bars letting people get too drunk before driving away. I expect at some point BLM will be sued for their complicity in riots just as cities and bar owners are sued for police misconduct and drunk drivers.

As for your broader point about guilt by association, if you organize protests that turn violent, at what point are you morally complicit? How many people have to be hurt by your protests before you are guilty of enabling riots? It doesn't take dozens or hundreds of protests turning violent to see the moral culpability of organizers.

Wow your takes across the boards are jsut epically stupid everywhere today. This take is so easy to manipulate that no one would be able to protest against this nation ever. Its painfully naïve and stupid. Try again. (btw its been shown that quite a bit of the rioting has been started by right wing instigators)

 

[Lexicus]

Wow your takes across the boards are jsut epically stupid everywhere today. This take is so easy to manipulate that no one would be able to protest against this nation ever. Its painfully naïve and stupid. Try again. (btw its been shown that quite a bit of the rioting has been started by right wing instigators)

You didn't pay attention I guess. The Tiki Torch Nazis are fine as far as Berzerker is concerned because "they don't destroy neighborhoods" (they only murder people with cars).

The mental gymnastics required to simultaneously believe that "BLM" is responsible for every event that happens at their protests, while the organizers of Unite The Right are not responsible for the presence of Nazis or the actual terrorist murder that occurred during their event...let's just say it's typical Berzerker and leave it at that.

 

[Estebonrober]

You didn't pay attention I guess. The Tiki Torch Nazis are fine as far as Berzerker is concerned because "they don't destroy neighborhoods" (they only murder people with cars).

Yes I always forget libertarianism is about the freedom to own things and not have the rabble destroy them because they want the same types of liberty (5th amendment rights) as you already enjoy. . .

 

[Bugfatty300]

You didn't pay attention I guess. The Tiki Torch Nazis are fine as far as Berzerker is concerned because "they don't destroy neighborhoods" (they only murder people with cars).

Remember his argument that the KKK is violent because they destroy private property, so therefore statue-topplers are also violent.

 

[Lexicus]

Remember his argument that the KKK is violent because they destroy private property, so therefore statue-topplers are also violent.

Berzerker is here to remind us that the KKK destroyed countless innocent wooden crosses.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is 250 that large in a country of 300,000,000+? My superficial observation is that the U.S. has a relatively low number of “fascists” or “neo-Nazis” (in quotes because I’m using them as generally in common parlance) compared to Britain or Germany with the BNP and NPD, respectively.

They answered it, but you have to follow the rhetorical slide when the small amount of chanters becomes everyone that's a Republican and nearly half the country is now genocidal fascists that require eugenicists to save us.

It's the standard volley.

 

[Lexicus]

To come back to the Supreme Court...the Courts very power is an artifact of slavery. No, seriously, hear me out. The powerful role played by courts throughout American history is the result of the state being intentionally designed such that it would be very difficult to create new taxes or laws relating to the disposition of private property...but it would be very easy to enforce property claims! Indeed, the slaveholders wanted the Federal government's powers essentially restricted to enforcing property claims across state lines. And that is largely what they got: a weak central government, with most of the key powers to regulate the economy or property (mainly of taxation - Constitution's framers understood the power to tax slavery was the power to abolish it) reserved to the state governments. But since the federal government would enforce property claims over state lines, state governments were severely constrained in their ability to actually exercise these powers since capital could always move to a state with a more friendly government.

The weakness of the state's fiscal and regulatory powers meant that a great deal of political action, a great deal of state action actually took place in the course of litigation. The most infamous action of the US state with regard to slavery was not a law passed by Congress but a court decision- the Dred Scott case. And similarly, the most infamous and renowned actions of the American state with regard to segregation are a pair of court decisions - Plessy v Ferguson on the one hand and Brown v Board of Ed on the other.

We can see quite clearly whose interests are served by this relative power of the courts by observing that while Brown v Board of Ed was issued in 1954, very little progress on desegregation was made until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, two laws which have been bitterly opposed by "small-government" conservatives and libertarians up to the present day.

 

[aelf]

They answered it, but you have to follow the rhetorical slide when the small amount of chanters becomes everyone that's a Republican and nearly half the country is now genocidal fascists that require eugenicists to save us.

It's the standard volley.

Majority of FB's posting history is basically an exercise in being maligned because people condemn Republicans for their views and he votes Republican but don't personally hold many of those views.