Then they at the end they give that know an extra twist by specifically mentioning two justices notorious for receiving substantial bribes rewards who didn’t feel the need to recuse themselves.
Yeah, I watched it the other day. That cop was nuts. “I thought maybe you were signaling me because you needed help.” Bullshit. He just wanted him to admit he’d flipped him off because he thought he could charge him for that.
Do you just do things entirely at random with no input from your understanding of the world?
No? Then congrats, you’ve got ideology. I’m gonna assume it’s liberalism, since they’re typically the only ones both dumb and arrogant enough to think they’re not only non-political, but non-ideological.
I am definitely saying the liberals are more likely to be impartial.
liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome, not the conservative fairness of opportunity. Hence they are better able to better put themselves in other people’s shoes and go against their core beliefs (ideology) if that means a failed outcome for other people.
And you’re not trying to deflect from your original argument you were making.
A text book definition of a word vs what people behind a political party in a specific country are very different things.
I stand by what I’ve said, American conservatives tend to assume that American liberals do what a conservative would have done. In this case be unable to be impartial and make decisions based on their own ideology.
An American liberal is more likely to be able to be impartial than a conservative.
non-ideological judgement is impossible because “impartially” applying for example, textualism is still ideological, because the choice to use textualism vs any other method is ideological.
What AIPAC is doing here is they see a vulnerable member they don’t like on their issue and they go after them," said a House Democrat.
The lawmaker added: “Whatever you think of [AIPAC], they’re pretty intelligent. They’ve got some skin in this in the sense that if Bowman wins, that’s egg on their face. They’re very strategic.”
This is how moderates act when a progressive incumbent loses…
But if it’s a moderat incumbent, even as shitty as Manchin, the DNC protects them, and untill very recently opened threatened to blackball anyone that came close to a primary campaign against any incumbent.
Any “party unity” has always been one sided. “Moderates” prefer republicans to progress.
Technically Hakeem Jeffries endorsed Bowman and donated a couple thousand dollars, but he certainly didn’t make much noise about it. I think that was more for deniability after the fact, Jeffries himself is on the AIPAC payroll.
He’s carrying on a tradition for the House leader to endorse and support (with varying levels of “support”) all House incumbents. It’s not an indication of policy agreement or friendship, it’s just if you’re an incumbent, he supports you.
Which is… fine. It’s probably good that the House leader isn’t supporting primary opponents to people in his caucus. But of course some support will be a lot more substantial than others. Pelosi (when she was leader) went to the mat for Henry Cuellar in his previous close primary against a progressive, but would just give perfunctory endorsements to progressive incumbents. When most people know you endorse based simply on incumbency, it’s not really much of an endorsement.
Yep. Just compare how they defended Henry Cuellar against Jessica Cisneros vs how they left Jamaal Bowman hanging.
Honest question to anyone possibly paying more attention. Was there any act from the DNC to defend Bowman? I might’ve missed it but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn they felt differently about supporting one incumbent vs the other
You dumb son of a bitch! That “problem” you fixed has been our job security for the past 30 years! We could have had voters arguing over that platform for another seven terms if you had left well enough alone! Now what are we supposed to use for fundraising? Ideas???
I know you’re probably just kidding (and it’s funny), but please don’t. I don’t even know you and I can promise this world is a better place with you in it
Most Americans are keyed in on the intricacies of the Court. You can find a few polls showing this like this one where 1/10 of college graduates think Judge Judy has a chair at SCOTUS.
Using her real name and then reporting the results as “they thought Judge Judy was a SCOTUS justice” seems disingenuous. It’s not like the option that they chose said “Judge Judy”. I wouldn’t even have known that Judith Sheindlin is her real name and not just a generic old lady name.
I would wager the majority of American college grads can’t name all 9 SCOTUS justices (or even all 4 women), and if you’re just guessing then any choice that isn’t obviously wrong (like “Judge Judy”) has around the same chance of being chosen as any other not obviously wrong option.
For anyone interested in the changes in the Court here’s a video of two of the former justices explaining the different perspectives between living constitutionalism and originalism. Right now there’s a shift from one to the other. Just like there was a shift around the 50s.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.