OT Travel Ban Ruling

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:02:20 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:37:07 AM UTC, 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 **** out of the Kremlin.

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

How so, Doug? -- AJ

I have no evidence to back this up, it just seems likely to me, from what I've read about him - that his behavior consisted more of cooperation with others who knew more about it than he than of his own ideas.

On 2/16/2017 1:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2017 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 8:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Diana Ross, a melodramatic diva, exhibits more humility
than the Justices.

I don't think humility is necessary, nor even desirable, in
a Supreme Court justice.


We'll disagree on that.

Personal opinion or the fashions of the moment ought to not supercede
the Constitution or the laws as written IMHO.

We'll disagree on "the laws as written" part as well. The primary
function of the Supreme Court is to judge the laws as written, to see if
they are indeed constitutional. When they are not, the justices are
expected to kick into judicial action.

And of course, they must have personal opinions in order to exercise
their legally required judgment. Having and stating opinions is their job.

I don't think justices should be reeds in the wind of the "fashion of
the moment." But we both know that there are two philosophies of
constitutional interpretation. One side assumes, essentially, that the
writers thought of everything (except when an amendment becomes
obviously necessary). The other assumes that differences between 1789
and 2017 must be factored into judgments. Greater legal minds than yours
or mine have worked on that disagreement for many decades, so we're
unlikely to resolve it here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 7:49:48 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute wrote:

By the standard of "red-hot commercial appeal, rappers
are also artists. Pull the other one, Doug. -- AJ

Take away the music from rap and hip-hop, and what's left is a poetry
reading. I'm always amused by audiences who will pay to hear poetry
recited to music (also known as rap music), but will run in horror at
the thought of attending a poetry reading (same thing without the
music). It also works the other way. I've suggested to some of the
local poets that it might be useful to borrow some of the things that
have worked so well for rappers, with similar horrific results.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/prufrock/is-rap-poetry/

Lifted your link for my Facebook pages.
https://www.facebook.com/andre.jute.5

I wonder how my doggerel would sound set to music?
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/poetry/rhyme.htm

Ditto.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Andre Jute
It's not what you know

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:08:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2017 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 8:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Diana Ross, a melodramatic diva, exhibits more humility
than the Justices.

I don't think humility is necessary, nor even desirable, in
a Supreme Court justice.


We'll disagree on that.

Personal opinion or the fashions of the moment ought to not
supercede the Constitution or the laws as written IMHO.

Harry Blackmun was a modest Mid-West Republican appointed by Nixon. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/05/us...ight-dies.html

To the extent the SC misconstrues the "laws as written," Congress can re-write them.

Construing the Constitution "as written" is like reading tea leaves as written -- at least with the Bill of Rights. For example, the Second Amendment seems pretty straight forward -- protecting gun ownership for use in a "well regulated militia." WTF? Why are lunatics getting automatics? Are they part of a well-regulated militia of lunatics? What is the "establishment" of a religion? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?

The US Constitution works out to a 17 page .pdf with fancy font. You could probably un-fancify it down to ten. http://constitutioncenter.org/media/...nstitution.pdf Making it work almost 230 years later -- after a civil war and the 14th Amendment and in entirely different reality, you have to exercise a little flexibility. What amount of flexibility is subject to dispute and varies by provision. Clearly, revenue bills have to originate in the House, etc. Deciding what is "cruel and unusual," however, may vary over time, particularly after Justin Bieber.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/16/2017 2:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

By the standard of "red-hot commercial appeal, rappers
are also artists. Pull the other one, Doug. -- AJ

Take away the music from rap and hip-hop, and what's left is a poetry
reading. I'm always amused by audiences who will pay to hear poetry
recited to music (also known as rap music), but will run in horror at
the thought of attending a poetry reading (same thing without the
music).

Well, there is a difference. Rap generally rhymes. :-)

I wonder how my doggerel would sound set to music?
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/poetry/rhyme.htm

We once had a musician living next door. He was a cellist and a
composer. One composing gig was working for a recording company
specializing in rap. He said it was very common for young guys to come
in with raps they'd written and want music to be added behind them. He
said it was the easiest composing he'd ever done, and they were always
tremendously satisfied with whatever he quickly threw together.

Which leads to one of my long cherished opinions. I think two important
metrics for judging art of any kind a 1) How much training does it
require? IOW, how easy is it to produce a work of that type of art? 2)
How obvious would a mistake be?

If any kid on the street can produce acceptable "art" within a couple
months of trying - as with rap - it's certainly not high art.

And if it's impossible to tell if the artist made a mistake - as with
much of abstract expressionism
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content...llock-1949.jpg
it doesn't qualify as high art.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:33:07 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2017 1:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2017 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 8:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Diana Ross, a melodramatic diva, exhibits more humility
than the Justices.

I don't think humility is necessary, nor even desirable, in
a Supreme Court justice.


We'll disagree on that.

Personal opinion or the fashions of the moment ought to not supercede
the Constitution or the laws as written IMHO.

We'll disagree on "the laws as written" part as well. The primary
function of the Supreme Court is to judge the laws as written, to see if
they are indeed constitutional. When they are not, the justices are
expected to kick into judicial action.

And of course, they must have personal opinions in order to exercise
their legally required judgment. Having and stating opinions is their job.

I don't think justices should be reeds in the wind of the "fashion of
the moment." But we both know that there are two philosophies of
constitutional interpretation. One side assumes, essentially, that the
writers thought of everything (except when an amendment becomes
obviously necessary). The other assumes that differences between 1789
and 2017 must be factored into judgments.

Did they think about helicopters or satellite photos? Surely the idea of a helicopter or satellite looking in your backyard from above would have seemed to them like an unreasonable search

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:02:13 PM UTC, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:02:20 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:37:07 AM UTC, 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 **** out of the Kremlin.

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

How so, Doug? -- AJ

I have no evidence to back this up, it just seems likely to me, from what I've read about him - that his behavior consisted more of cooperation with others who knew more about it than he than of his own ideas.

"No evidence" is right. There isn't any. The rest of it is just a nicer way of saying Reagan was stupid. It really is amazing how many Republican presidents are stupid in the eyes of the American media. Eisenhower, who successfully led the largest war machine of all time, was said by the media to be a creature of his staff. (Except for CBS, whose boss, as Colonel Paley, served on Eisenhower's staff, and so knew better.) Nixon, one of the great survivors of American politics, was said to be more sly than intelligent. Gerald Ford, a Senate wheeler-dealer nearly the equal of LBJ, was said to be incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, etc, etc, through the Bushes (both of whom had come up through some of the most Darwinian schools and businesses anywhere), and now to Trump, whose "stupidity" apparently resides in his contempt for the Beltway Way.

Of course Reagan consulted with his staff and Cabinet, or appeared to, because in an enterprise the size of the richest nation on earth, he could not do everything himself, nor should the chief executive even try. And in the best American management style, instead of issuing orders, Reagan would make suggestions. But anyone under the misapprehension that these suggestions were subject to negotiation would be shortly straightened out, though not as sharply as Eisenhower would straighten out his Chief of Staff, or members of his Cabinet, when they mistakenly started believing they shared in the executive power. Only the morons in the American mainstream media would mistake a nice man like Reagan's smooth good manners for weakness. There was a will of steel there, and a keen intelligence.

Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:50:26 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2017 2:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

By the standard of "red-hot commercial appeal, rappers
are also artists. Pull the other one, Doug. -- AJ

Take away the music from rap and hip-hop, and what's left is a poetry
reading. I'm always amused by audiences who will pay to hear poetry
recited to music (also known as rap music), but will run in horror at
the thought of attending a poetry reading (same thing without the
music).

Well, there is a difference. Rap generally rhymes. :-)

I wonder how my doggerel would sound set to music?
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/poetry/rhyme.htm

We once had a musician living next door. He was a cellist and a
composer. One composing gig was working for a recording company
specializing in rap. He said it was very common for young guys to come
in with raps they'd written and want music to be added behind them. He
said it was the easiest composing he'd ever done, and they were always
tremendously satisfied with whatever he quickly threw together.

Which leads to one of my long cherished opinions. I think two important
metrics for judging art of any kind a 1) How much training does it
require? IOW, how easy is it to produce a work of that type of art? 2)
How obvious would a mistake be?

If any kid on the street can produce acceptable "art" within a couple
months of trying - as with rap - it's certainly not high art.

And if it's impossible to tell if the artist made a mistake - as with
much of abstract expressionism
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content...llock-1949.jpg
it doesn't qualify as high art.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Now, you see, Franki-boy, your parents didn't waste the money they spent on your education: you learned to agree with me.

Andre Jute
Yup

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:03:47 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:02:13 PM UTC, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:02:20 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:37:07 AM UTC, 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 **** out of the Kremlin.

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

How so, Doug? -- AJ

I have no evidence to back this up, it just seems likely to me, from what I've read about him - that his behavior consisted more of cooperation with others who knew more about it than he than of his own ideas.

"No evidence" is right. There isn't any. The rest of it is just a nicer way of saying Reagan was stupid. It really is amazing how many Republican presidents are stupid in the eyes of the American media. Eisenhower, who successfully led the largest war machine of all time, was said by the media to be a creature of his staff. (Except for CBS, whose boss, as Colonel Paley, served on Eisenhower's staff, and so knew better.) Nixon, one of the great survivors of American politics, was said to be more sly than intelligent. Gerald Ford, a Senate wheeler-dealer nearly the equal of LBJ, was said to be incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, etc, etc, through the Bushes (both of whom had come up through some of the most Darwinian schools and businesses anywhere), and now to Trump, whose "stupidity" apparently resides in his contempt for the Beltway Way.

No, we think he's stupid because he has trouble string-together six words that make sense. And when I say six words, I mean six different words -- and not "huge" three times. He also has one gambit -- the bold move followed by negotiation and the supposed deal. Oooh, shock and awe!

Of course Reagan consulted with his staff and Cabinet, or appeared to, because in an enterprise the size of the richest nation on earth, he could not do everything himself, nor should the chief executive even try. And in the best American management style, instead of issuing orders, Reagan would make suggestions. But anyone under the misapprehension that these suggestions were subject to negotiation would be shortly straightened out, though not as sharply as Eisenhower would straighten out his Chief of Staff, or members of his Cabinet, when they mistakenly started believing they shared in the executive power. Only the morons in the American mainstream media would mistake a nice man like Reagan's smooth good manners for weakness. There was a will of steel there, and a keen intelligence.

Dude, are you in some sort of Reagan-love club? Clinton had far better economic stats. Reagan funded terrorists, etc., etc. (start getting mad . . . now!)

I really don't care who was better since both were good enough. I went to work every day during their respective administrations knowing that the wheels of government would keep on spinning. My 401K zoomed under Clinton. I got a tax break under Reagan (for a while). G.W. screwed much of that up, but even he could keep the government running -- with some help from his masters. Trump is having problems with the basic business of government. I'm not sure he knows what his cabinet does.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:52:19 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:03:47 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:02:13 PM UTC, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:02:20 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:37:07 AM UTC, 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 **** out of the Kremlin.

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

How so, Doug? -- AJ

I have no evidence to back this up, it just seems likely to me, from what I've read about him - that his behavior consisted more of cooperation with others who knew more about it than he than of his own ideas.

"No evidence" is right. There isn't any. The rest of it is just a nicer way of saying Reagan was stupid. It really is amazing how many Republican presidents are stupid in the eyes of the American media. Eisenhower, who successfully led the largest war machine of all time, was said by the media to be a creature of his staff. (Except for CBS, whose boss, as Colonel Paley, served on Eisenhower's staff, and so knew better.) Nixon, one of the great survivors of American politics, was said to be more sly than intelligent. Gerald Ford, a Senate wheeler-dealer nearly the equal of LBJ, was said to be incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, etc, etc, through the Bushes (both of whom had come up through some of the most Darwinian schools and businesses anywhere), and now to Trump, whose "stupidity" apparently resides in his contempt for the Beltway Way.

No, we think he's stupid because he has trouble string-together six words that make sense. And when I say six words, I mean six different words -- and not "huge" three times. He also has one gambit -- the bold move followed by negotiation and the supposed deal. Oooh, shock and awe!

Of course Reagan consulted with his staff and Cabinet, or appeared to, because in an enterprise the size of the richest nation on earth, he could not do everything himself, nor should the chief executive even try. And in the best American management style, instead of issuing orders, Reagan would make suggestions. But anyone under the misapprehension that these suggestions were subject to negotiation would be shortly straightened out, though not as sharply as Eisenhower would straighten out his Chief of Staff, or members of his Cabinet, when they mistakenly started believing they shared in the executive power. Only the morons in the American mainstream media would mistake a nice man like Reagan's smooth good manners for weakness. There was a will of steel there, and a keen intelligence.

Dude, are you in some sort of Reagan-love club? Clinton had far better economic stats. Reagan funded terrorists, etc., etc. (start getting mad . . . now!)

I really don't care who was better since both were good enough. I went to work every day during their respective administrations knowing that the wheels of government would keep on spinning. My 401K zoomed under Clinton. I got a tax break under Reagan (for a while). G.W. screwed much of that up, but even he could keep the government running -- with some help from his masters. Trump is having problems with the basic business of government. I'm not sure he knows what his cabinet does.

-- Jay Beattie.

the oligarchy holds the tiller, the market goes up on hot air. I can now buy a pilot house skiff. Maybe not next month but I believe.

the loose mouth was ambassadored by Henry the K

the Russian deal is real bad ****. Higher level FP analysis ! No one knows. Rump is making a total ass of himself while the Senate gives guns to nuts

now they're gonna send troops to fight in Syria while a Russian mole investigates US Intelligence.

Blackman was my paper in Con Law. Most SC people are very reasonable. Law is like Baseball was...