SCOTUS under Trump

Are you talking about Sanders or the restaurant owner? Or both. It seems like the restaurant owner did what Timex is talking about.

Honestly, I do have some concerns about our current laws and procedures not being adequate for the times we live in, but then I suppose that’s always been the case; any regulations are going to be perpetually playing catch-up.

That said, we’ve been through crap before and managed to find our way to a functional society once again (albeit with significant turmoil, protests, loss of life, and destruction of property along the way). I expect things will get worse before they get better, however.

Yes she did, to a public facing individual. I don’t know why Sanders complained though. Her party, her political wing of that party, wants the right to refuse people… she was refused but somehow felt that wasn’t okay. They’re hypocrites. They’re always talking about freedom but when someone exercises that freedom against them, suddenly it’s not about freedom anymore.

cue the Airplane gif…

I think we are just seeing the beginnings of how unsocial social interaction can get.

Heck, we haven’t even caught up to the '60s yet.

In light of the dangers that IMO Trump and his enablers present to our system, I really don’t have the bandwidth to give a good goddamn about anyone’s hurt feelings these days.

While I agree the 60’s-70’s were much worse than today in regards to the national scene, I think the behavior was pretty much limited to questions of the war, and politicians could still work together on budget and social issues. We are way past that today.

But yea, I don’t think most people remember the violence in the streets that was common place back in the day.

Suppose Congress passed a law that prevented advocacy organizations from producing pro-LGBTQ media. Would this be unconstitutional? After all, they aren’t limiting your right to produce pro-LGBTQ media.

Well, there is no constitutional basis for treating your favorite nonprofit advocacy group differently from AT&T. So if you don’t want to see Congress shutting down political activity from Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International or even the DNC, then they can’t limit political activity from AT&T either.

Should tax free non-profits be able to produce advocacy media?

This is a good question, but a fair question would be what if Congress passed a law preventing advocacy organizations from making a television broadcast to more than 50,000 people advocating the election of one Presidental candidate or the defeat of another within 60 days of an election. Because they did! The same law that restricted Amex also restricted
Planned Parenthood and even restricted unions! That was the actual question, wasn’t it?

I don’t think that at all. The Civil Rights movement was deliberately confrontational, and the criticism of the movement at the time was that it wasn’t civil. Yes, white people say they admire Dr. King now, but many of them at the time thought he was a troublemaker who didn’t know how to behave properly. So when I hear calls for civility now, I think of that, and I wonder how far the movement would have gotten if they’d all just stayed home writing letters to their local newspaper. You only change things through conflict, which is not to say violence.

See this is a myth, the fact is that no Supreme Court case effects hundreds of millions, it is a rare case that impacts tens of millions, most affect hundreds of thousand or less, a number only impact a handful or a single individual. The Supreme Court actually has a minimal impact on the majority of American.

What Supreme Court decision in the last 5 years material affected how you live? What actions did it allow or prevent you from doing.

Even the case you cite, Citizen United despite all of the end of the world prediction has had virtually no impact on how elections were fund. It turns out large public companies aren’t interested in making direct campaign contributions. So big Coal and Big Oil didn’t give money to Trump, nor did Solar and Green energy companies give money to Hillary, and even companies like Apple with a progressive culture and gay CEO didn’t make corporation contributions.

Instead, individuals at companies gave money individually, sometimes directly and sometimes via PAC. Billionaires like Soros or the Koch brother formed PACs. (Who’s transparency has improved in recent years although still far from totally transparent). What corporations continue to do is fund lobbyist. Citizen United was a big nothing burger. Which is why I find the passion cries to overturn it so entertaining.

The reactions to MLK were uncivil, but MLK stayed above that and was always civil. The leaders of the civil rights movement felt that was what they had to do in their best interests. Others didn’t agree though and so there were some who were confrontational.

But I think on the whole it is fair to say that the civil rights movement of the 60s, if you ignore the race riots which really not civil rights organized, were non-violent confrontations. Or at least the violence was one sided. The non-violent control of the movement in the 60’s was really amazing when you look back on it.

Bush v Gore? Sebelius? Obergefell? Shelby County? Hobby Lobby? All of those effect millions of people, or potentially do. And that’s just off the top of my head.

I’m not arguing that MLK was uncivil. I’m saying that the criticism of MLK at the time was that he was uncivil; and explaining that this makes current calls for civility unconvincing to me. And I’m saying that people called MLK uncivil because he deliberately sought confrontation and conflict to make his point, just as somepeople are doing today.

Which is why I think Kavanaugh’s idea of a law is fucking terrible.

That said, he thinks the law is the opposite: that you can investigate a President as much as you want. He just thinks that is a bad idea, which has some merit to it in the abstract, but back here in the Real World if you can’t investigate then you can never impeach in a reasonable manner.

I’m a pretty tolerant person in real life, and very tolerant online. I put up with both idiots and assholes, although generally not both. n my almost 40 year of spending to much time debating people on the internet, I count one hand the number of people I’ve put on ignore. In fact, I have no idea how to put you on ignore since we switched over from VBulletin to Discourse, which was years ago.

But your ridiculous level of hostility to pretty much everyone on this forum, but especially those who have different opinions is about to earn you place on this rare list.

Feel free to tell me to fuck, or similar words. Just know it will be the last ones I read from you.

Well, the obvious problem with Obama is that he is Kenyan.

Yeah, I forgot Kenyan. Oops.

‘K, g’bye @Strollen !

You see, not all views are good. Some views are bad, and some are even reprehensible, and I have no inclination or commitment to respect those bad or reprehensible views. I’d say ‘sorry’, but I’m not sorry.