Supreme Court of the United States

[metalhead]

This sort of thing seems plausible but is undermined by the fact that we do have unambiguous evidence of nomadic cultures engaging in warfare for reasons apparently unconnected to the possession of territory or fresh water.
This book (on my reading list) has conclusions directly bearing on this issue:

I'm only going by the Wikipedia entry, but I'm not sure those conclusions apply to the nomadic hunter-gatherers of prehistory.

It's possible that nomadic groups may have fought one another out of simple evolutionary fear of unknown people, perhaps even entire groups of humans were wiped out by other groups. I'm still not quite sure that you can classify that as war. To me, "war" implies planning, battle engaged in to some strategic end, usually but perhaps not always tied to territory.

 

[Cutlass]

There just plain isn't a reason to think that prehistoric hunter gatherer humans didn't fight and kill one another on a regular basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/...ssacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.html

http://www.academia.edu/2968804/War_and_Violence_among_Prehistoric_Hunter-gatherers

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwi58J-NpZPSAhXKKCYKHZxuCNsQgQMIGjAA

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm only going by the Wikipedia entry, but I'm not sure those conclusions apply to the nomadic hunter-gatherers of prehistory.

It's possible that nomadic groups may have fought one another out of simple evolutionary fear of unknown people, perhaps even entire groups of humans were wiped out by other groups. I'm still not quite sure that you can classify that as war. To me, "war" implies planning, battle engaged in to some strategic end, usually but perhaps not always tied to territory.

There just plain isn't a reason to think that prehistoric hunter gatherer humans didn't fight and kill one another on a regular basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/...ssacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.html

http://www.academia.edu/2968804/War_and_Violence_among_Prehistoric_Hunter-gatherers

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwi58J-NpZPSAhXKKCYKHZxuCNsQgQMIGjAA

For the love of derailment guys... I started a New thread on this subject Did Pre Historic Humans fight Wars?

 

[onejayhawk]

Good point.

Hearings on Gorsuch begin next week.
Get you picketing permit here.
Only $20 to picket the Gorsuch hearings.
Also receive priority for tickets to picket the Democratic
filibuster of the full Senate and
An entry to win a seat at the Gorsuch vote.*

J

*If available.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's showtime. Hearings are this week. Senator Warren has already weighed in. Rather predictably, she characterizes him as right extreme, pro-big business. Not a word about his qualifications as a Judge. She concludes by accusing Trump of auctioning the seat.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...preme-court/elq2QqQBdJW5Fh0s2isXhJ/story.html

On a related issue, one wonders how she will deal with the next vacancy. Drawing such an extreme position when the balance of the Court is not challenged, where can she go next. Trump will surely get another seat to fill, which will likely replace one of the liberal Justices.

J

 

[Broken_Erika]

Democrats will oppose any choice Trump makes. US Politics has been full-blown Paranoid Schizophrenic Bi-Polar-Disorder for some time now.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's really important to them that you think they're less similar than they are.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Considering the guy that left the vacancy, there probably wouldn't have been any change had trump got his guy in there.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The 2020 campaign season is underway. One candidate has already begun holding campaign rallies.

We owe it to the American people to hold this seat open and let them decide through that election who should fill it.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And the seat gets filled sometime around 2089.

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought the people decided that Trump did not have a mandate to fill this seat. Given his current approval rating, we should at least wait until the next election.

 

[onejayhawk]

The 2020 campaign season is underway. One candidate has already begun holding campaign rallies. We owe it to the American people to hold this seat open and let them decide through that election who should fill it.

They did have such an election. It was in 2014. A confirming election was held last November.

Watching coverage today, this seems like a rerun of Alito. If that is the case, confirmation will occur without a change in the rules.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

It's looks similar to every nomination going back to Ginsburg except for that crony Bush withdrew and the qualified Garland who obviously should have got hearings and votes. He will be confirmed.

 

[Cutlass]

Seems like the Court's getting another one who's primary judicial philosophy is crony capitalism.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's looks similar to every nomination going back to Ginsburg except for that crony Bush withdrew and the qualified Garland who obviously should have got hearings and votes. He will be confirmed.

Garland was qualified. If Hillary was in the Oval Office he would probably be confirmed by now.

Seems like the Court's getting another one who's primary judicial philosophy is crony capitalism.

Nah. Politics of party, maybe. These guys don't have to run for re-election, so cronyism has fewer hooks.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Or if the Republican were serious about our founder's intent - Washington had two nominees quickly confirmed in an election year.

 

[Cutlass]

Nah. Politics of party, maybe. These guys don't have to run for re-election, so cronyism has fewer hooks.

J

It's an ideological hook. Like Roberts, Gorsuch seems to crony capitalism above all other considerations.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Garland was qualified. If Hillary was in the Oval Office he would probably be confirmed by now.

Wouldn't have been surprised if she nominated someone even more liberal. Garland felt like someone Obama picked purely to put GoP obstructionism on full display. He was a pretty moderate and safe pick.

 

[rah]

Yeah agree, with that. Hillary probably would have selected someone even more liberal as a 'here's what you get for obstructing Garland" kind of screw you to the repugs.

 

[onejayhawk]

Wouldn't have been surprised if she nominated someone even more liberal. Garland felt like someone Obama picked purely to put GoP obstructionism on full display. He was a pretty moderate and safe pick.

I would have been shocked if she went with anyone else. He was already in the Senate's hands. She would have had to pull the name back, which she could not do for political reasons. It's all part of the continuity narrative.

Also, someone more liberal would run the risk of outright defeat.

J