Juror#8

Nope, there are people who are equally at fault for thir racist demagoguery against the majority. Read my posts here. I've called out Sharptons, and blm, and even Michael Eric Dyson. Search "Juror 8" and "Al Sharpton." I feel that he is a racist blowhard perpetuating a left wing racist agenda. Period. I call a spade a spade, man. You are labeling me as "one of them" and unfortunately proving my point of alienation. I'm the guy saying that for every naacp, there should be a naawp that enjoys tax exempt status. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Right is right and fair I fair. But that has nothing to do with this environment right now. I'm talking about the course of the gop and what can be done to avoid a one party majority. I vote republican and I know a lot of black folks, like me, who want to see some change in the gop so that it doesn't get overrun by a far leftist agenda. I like my guns and I like my traditional values. And I shouldn't have to say all that for my points to be taken seriously. I'm different too in that I don't hate the current administration and feel that they are doing what they feel is best for the country. May not be exactly my cup of tea, but I don't hate them for it. They were voted in, let them do their job, and don't obstruct for the sake of obstructing. But there needs to be compromise ... from the administration and from congress. There hasn't much of any, anywhere. That's my frustration as a citizen.

Not sure what "fire chan" beat you to. I proved that he was wrong in his initial comment. Realizing that he was wrong, he responded with a straw man. I then called out his straw man. Now he will respond with a non-sequitur, an ad-hominem, another straw man or a hybrid red-herring, or he just won't respond under the auspices of "why am I wasting my time." You are a smart man and I enjoy our exchanges. There is nothing about you that I suspect to be racist. In fact there was one exchange that I had with one member at one time that I'm convinced had racial overtones. I feel that way for a very specific reason and I told him that then. I've never mentioned that since. One time. I've had a lot of disagree,nets and heated political exchanges on this forum. I'm not sure what in your post that I can respond to. You drew a lot of assumptions about me and my position. You also seem to be angry about something that I said. I very carefully chose my words and am very confident in the thoughts that I shared. I also find it interesting that in everything that I said, the idea that some may have racial bias (that I specificed and identified as a "decided minority," and even went as far as to distinguish them from those that I believe have a legitimate ideological disagreement with the administration) is all that stood out. And what was ignored were some salient and substantive points for debate.

You've proven my point; thank you. And I have no clue what you're talking about with "your world." I am most certainly a Christian. I'm most certainly not a lefty. But maybe it helps you to categorize everyone neatly in boxes so you that feel justified in your feelings about the world.

That's not even close to what I said. Quite the opposite actually. But maybe the words "decided minority" mean something different to you than they do to me and the rest of the universe. beans Cool.

I think that you may have read more into my post then what I was saying. 1. I don't have problem with Trump. I've decided not to vote for him. But read my posts about him, they've been for the most part complimentary. I think that he is alientating people and for the gop to have a chance moving forward, they will need to distance themselves from him. But I just think he is a showman with a stage and he is working his celebrity and support towards a cable news conglomerate that rivals Fox News at some point post-election. 2. This isn't about tolerance. I don't think that men should be able to use women's bathrooms because that's how they identify themselves. In fact, I find that loathsome and criminal. What it is about is establishing a voting segment and the gop is losing that or at least not growing it because of alienation, and the strange personal issue that people have with this administration that I believe, in some instances, has a racial motivation. And people see it. I see it. Others I know see it. It seems like the only folks who don't want to see it is those who want to take offense to he slightest suggestion that there may be an element of racial bias and stereotype inherent in the ideological stance of some against this administration. And this isn't black/white, dem/repub. I make politicians work for my vote. I've voted once dem, twice repub, and one write-in the last four national cycles so I'm not a sell out for any party. Others I know see that there is a strange personal dislike for this administration that existed since jump street. And those individuals, who have that personal dislike, carry the water for an obstructionist congress as if the congress has been duped out of solemn efforts at harmonious bi-partisan legislation by a bulling administration. How dumb are people? 3. I think that this administration has definitely divided some but if you believe that it's by his doing singularly and that the gop has played ball and sat at the negotiation table patiently waiting to meet the president halfway towards political harmony, then you are lost. The repubs are as complicit as the administration for all the dysfunction in the country. They had an obstructionist agenda and they played it for 8 years. The administration dug their heels in and were as stubborn in their agenda. And so here we are.

I used to work in politics. Some remember in 2012 I had some rather prescient strategic observations about the state of the 2012 race. Specifically I mentioned that anyone who felt that Romney had a chance, based on internal polls that I was seeing, was nut-swinging from conservative media that was pushing a weird agenda of confirmatory bias that was eaten happily like **** pie by some of the more gullible on this thread who think that some conservative revolution was underway. It was sad to see such inanity flow. Anyway, I had a cool conversation over fish and chips and a couple schooners of Yuengling with someone who works for a political think tank in dc. In addition to some other super smart people that I have an occassion to talk with frequently, this is what I've learned this campaign season: 1. Donald Trump is banking on ethno-nationalism. He is won't admit it overtly, but he is and hoping that it galvanizes a semi-silent demographic that off-sets the growing political power of the minority voting bloc. These are people who sadly believe that most blacks and other minorities suck the tit of the welfare system and languish in perpetual poverty and are imparting that culture, by way of politics, into our American ethos. Sadly many of those dolts are here and are under the mistaken belief that the country, intrinsically, loves the right and loathes the left. Dolts. 2. This country is decidedly center right; however the right misses a golden opportunity to court demographics that naturally fit it's party platform by subscribing to ethno-nationalism and being conspicuously quiet on **** that it shouldn't be quiet on. I went to a trump rally and it fundamentally changed my perspective. I've never seen anything like that. I could not align my vote with *some* of the people there after seeing them and some of the things said by supporters. Some were good people and I enjoyed some good conversation with like-minded folks. And then there were the others who displayed and said things that were as odious and offensive as anything that you could imagine. It was epiphany-inducing. Anyway, the right could easily have 60% of the southern black vote and 25% of the black vote everywhere else if they took the L on this election cycle and marginalized Trump now. He is going to lose anyway The Asian vote is another that's nearly tailor-made for the taking in republican politics but their rhetoric is making that increasingly powerful vote unattainable in a generational way. If Clinton gets 60% of the white female vote and Trump 65% of the white male vote, the minority vote will be dispositive. The gop is counting on a lack of enthusiasm from the minority contigent but the dems have some very interesting and persuasive tactics up their sleeve - ads tantamount to the 70s "Daisy" ad - that should drive turnout and scare up support. Also warren is the front-runner but look out for a name that doesn't appear much in national news, Tim Ryan. 3. Gop should have let Garland proceed to a vote. They played the math wrong. They would have ended up with a moderate-left justice who was a flip on potentially key issues. He would not defacto align himself with the left on the bench. If/when Hillary is in office, she will have substantial progressive pressure to put a super lefty on the bench. And mind you it will be right after she takes office so the optics around a gop push back will be bad and have no public support because of what will have been a one-year vacancy. And also new presidents have loads of goodwill. Dumb, dumb, dumb. And the word is that gop lawmakers are starting to realize it. Check-mate 4. I would have voted for Bush and he should have been the nominee. I would have voted for Kasich too. Read back to my posts from 2011. I mentioned, on this forum, being a supporter of Bush presidency back in 2012 and he wasn't running. I mentioned a Kasich presidency 5 years ago because of his resume and big things that he was doing in Ohio at the time only 2 years in as governor. I also mentioned Buddy Roemer who I still believe would be a great third party candidate. The gop is being hijacked by its basest, most feral instincts. And I believe that it's on the verge of 20+ years in the national minority. Because they can't replace their hatred with assimilation. As of 2014, there were 20 million in this country under the age of 5. 51% were minority. Almost 20% mixed race marriages last year. Projected almost 60% of the population "minority" by 2060. Do the math. The gop is losing ground. Because it's alientating, or at least not welcoming, a growing swath of voters. 5. The anti-o, crazy fervor of the last 4 years has created a monster that is now untamable and ushered in an appetite for Trump. Instead of responsible political disagreement over the last 8 years, there has been a personalization and hatred - highlighted by issues-based dissatisfaction that admits itself through weird racial overtones. That will rub some here the wrong way because they will think that they're being called "racist." There are some here (micro), and nationally (macro) that are generally just in different ideological camps. There are some (minority) that are using ideological differences as a proxy for racial biases. In their head the "n" word flows indiscriminately as they work with minority's happily and without incident every day. You know who you are. And it is a decided minority. 6. Some dolts here will think that Hillary doesn't stand a chance against Trump. And she may not. I see polls that give her an advantage over advantage. Either way, though, I challenge you to view multiple media sources because I'm convinced that Fox spins an agenda that tries to reshape polling data. Oc and others here fell for that **** on the last go round though I was saying "I'm looking at internal data points that shows Romney down 8 points in Ohio and worse in other swing states ..." 7. With the scotus thing and damn near this entire election cycle, to this point, the gop is playing checkers while the dems are playing chess.

And on top is where he likely will stay

If anyone else in the DC area is going and wants to meet for a drink (on me) at the Buffalo Wild Wings in Hagerstown, let me know. I don't expect anything different than at his other rallies. But I want to see it for myself ... the atmosphere, attendees, and hopefully have some conversations with others in attendance. Still trying to bring some definition to my voting decision this fall between him and Hillary.

I wondered how long brothers were going to take being sucker punched in the side of the face and called the "n" word while protesting at rallies before they went h.a.m. Niggaz wildin out now. Anyway, protestors should stay out of these trump rallies and let trump be trump and let his people circle jerk each other and exist in the echo chamber and all that jazz. Because there is no "peaceful" protesting in these environments. None. Let them do them and protestors should protest outside of the event. Protesting inside is stoking the flames and not productive. I like Trump though. Don't know if I can vote for him. Because I think that he is playing racial politics to some extent. But I still like him.

Rob, mahfukka, I see you in the gallery chillin. I'm sure you have **** to say to my post #123. What are your thoughts broham? Where do you stand on this shiznit?

Brother you're putting me in a strange place on this ... where I'm acknowledging the incoherence of an argument while at the same time lauding its outcome. I haven't read Brown in a while so I may be rusty on some details. At the end of the day, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there existed contemporaneous school segregation which wasn't on the path to ending or that was at all impacted by Congressional commitment to the amendment's ratification. That tells you all you need to know about the intent and the meaning of the 14th amendment vis a vis "school segregation." Faced with that dilemma, the court in Brown relied on a host of sociological explanations to basically attack the idea that separate could ever be equal even though testimony, during Brown, demonstrated that the resources, facilities, and teacher competencies in the black schools were decidedly equal to the white schools - and not just nominally, but actually as evidenced by cost and metrics. The naacp had people going around with black and white dolls and **** asking kids "which ones do you like more ..." They used the black kids preference for "white," as demonstrated in these cultural doll tests, as part of their demonstration that blacks felt that "white" was better, ostensibly because whites were hierarchically preferred due to blacks not being able to go to their schools. And that was part of the case for "inherent inequality" being the natural corollary to forced separation. There were many other such sociological type tests. But read the court's unanimous opinion, the entire thing was grounded in sociology; because from the standpoint of pure and dispassionate structural constitutional jurisprudence, there was no sound argument for ending "separate but equal." None. And anyone telling you otherwise is lying. And I'm black. But there was plenty of reason from the "is it the right thing to do" side of the coin. Incidentally it wasnt just Scalia's paradox, Rehnquist had the same issue. For 50 years he equivocated with his thoughts around Brown because the law is suspect but the ends were justified. It wouldn't have happened for another 25 years otherwise. Because with Blacks struggling to be able to vote in statewide congressional elections, the wheels of legislative change would have been nearly non-existent or at a snail's pace. So the court acted basically like a third legislative body. Scalia knew it. Rehnquist knew it. And that's why as articulate and demonstrative and loquacious as Scalia was, he was very much not so when discussing brown except to say that he agreed. So back to my original point, there are circumstances when all justices, even the most conservative and constitutionally pure, will agree to legislate. Brown isn't technically sound jurisprudentially. It's just not. It represents the court's decision to basically act de jure. And so voilah. I kind of look at it like "baby come to me." "Congress" was James Ingram, muddling along somewhat insignificantly. And then about 1:43 into the song Patti Austin (scotus) saves him with that beautiful run that can best be described as borderline sensual.

So we seem to be in the same boat with our understandings around Scalia's positioning with regard to Brown. In or around 2005, he reversed course and articulated his last stance with regard to the Brown decision ... that he would have voted with the majority. The only way to square that jurisprudentially is for him to have arrived at his conclusion (segregation bad) and work outwards from there explanatorily. It is also a recognition that the wrong (segregation) would not have been resolved legislatively for another 20 years otherwise because legislative mechanics, by the very nature of our republican form of government, moves remarkably slow ... the harm notwithstanding. This is the perfect example of something the founders didn't contemplate. And it represents Scalia's greatest paradox.

Good article. It relies on a fairly hefty presumption though ... with regard to how important the image of the court is to Roberts and how that will impact cases that have already been argued. And I disagree that 11 months is a long time in "court years" for liberals to be able to get meangiful cases on the lower court docket, heard, and ruled on ... and then breeze past a likely dead-locked Supreme Court. Remember, the Supreme Court doesn't have a time frame with which they have to review petitions for cert. But good read nonetheless.

If you don't think that all justices do this to some degree, all of them, than square Scalia's on-the-record agreement with the majority in the Brown v. Board decision with his otherwise very originalist and textual jurisprudence. His failure to illuminate his reasons for agreeing with the majority in Brown, even when pressed, is telling. Scalia was a pragmatist. Just not often at all. I would have loved to know his thoughts on the ""Bolling" decision. I heard him speak at uva a number of years ago but wasn't able to ask the question.

The political advantage is simply in time. Dems get to suggest that the repubs are holding up a confirmation for an inordinate amount of time simply for the sake of playing politics on the highest court in the land. It stays in the news cycle longer. It becomes a topic during debates. The Dems can message around competent candidate being blocked because the candidate is a ____. The repubs are stuck with "let's wait a year or more so that we can maybe put our own person there." Bad look for repubs. No "win" there for them in that context. It also places Cruz and Rubio in a potential Catch-22. And if the person is a minority, the optics are especially bad for repubs. During an election year, that's a potentially politically damaging proposition. I can see this happening. My larger point was the senator angle to avoid a contentious nomination battle. And Klobachar is considered in very high regard by her colleagues in the senate. I know this fact personally.

As a post script to my post #53 ... if Obama was really thinking, he would nominate a sitting Senator to the bench like Amy Klobachar (not sure of the spelling). If I was sitting around thinking about how to get someone through post haste, it would be to put forth one of their own as the nominee.

Obama will put forth a relatively stall-proof nominee - a marginally left-of-center Hispanic male or black female with no red flags or flagrantly objectionable judicial record. Not some anglicanized Hispanic like Rubio or Cruz, but someone with a discernible accent whose name plays immediately with the minority community - like Mariano Cuellar. The vetting and due diligence will be remarkable. The Senate repubs, because theyre dolts, will look like petty, racist, anti-American demagogues for blocking the nominee. And they'll lose another presidential election because the dummy dems, who can't put their pants on straight otherwise, will at least know to message the **** out of this circumstance, and will galvanize the youth and minority vote which, incidentally, handed Obama the 2012 election. That's the repubs kryptonite - anyone who isn't a white male and how to explain to everyone else why their party appears to lack diversity and be decidedly against a minority voice. Don't believe me just watch. *anxiously waiting on the comments about how the repubs have two Hispanic candidates*

And before you start down that road, I'm not even close to a member of the conservative section of judicial philosophies. I'm more Anthony Kennedy than Clarence Thomas.

Since campaign finance restrictions implicate the first amendment, I'm fairly certain that Scalia's opposition in that regard was not near the type of "activist" that you're suggesting but was rather consistent with his fairly conservative judicial philosophy.

Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/chief-justice-scalia-dead-at-79.html

Wow. An originalist likely to be replaced by an activist judicial figure. The complexion of the highest court in the land is about to change very significantly.

Also posted in ppp to discuss the political implications. Can't verify the veracity of the claim because it's not confirmed on any cable news network. However it's trending online: http://gawker.com/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reportedly-found-d-1758968327

This is not getting any press on the cable news stations but it's circulating around the Internet. Take it for what's it's worth. Hope that it's not true: http://gawker.com/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reportedly-found-d-1758968327 http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php Beginning to be confirmed: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/antonin-scalia-dead_us_56bfa5f7e4b0b40245c6f0d9

Would love to have the discussion. But please know that I'm not saying that it is an environment that I believe to be beneficial for the country as much as I'm saying that it is simply an environment that is.

As a bruh, I get annoyed when primarily the Dems, in these debates, start saying "issues that uniquely affect the African American community: prison, abject poverty, crack-dealing, and raising minimum wage." It's like "what the !@#$ does that make us look like?" My bruh Bubs from "The Wire," or Gucci Mane, that's what. That shiiiiiiiiiiiiit is hilarious. I'm sitting here like "I'm not poor." Then I double check my bank account to be certain and continue my train of thought. So ok, I'm like "My boy Rich and Steve and Jamal and Ken and big Ron ain't poor. Their skin is black. I mean !@#$ Ron just bought a Gallardo. I'm in it right now on the way to the liquor store to get some licca. So I know this mfer sure ain't broke ..." So who is Bernie speaking to in my community about minimum wage and mandatory minimums other than the bruhs who are expertly hustlin yellow tops on the corner with too much focus and alacrity to vote in the primaries? I guarantee you that poot and shampoo and junebug and rayquon and kid caliber aren't voting in the primary. (That's really what I'm thinking in my head anyway). So don't single out black folks to !@#$ing talk about how black folks are basically degenerates. Anyway, I grew up poor with poor people. But that doesn't encapsulate the African American or even the minority experience. For real it's actually slightly insulting for politicians to enumerate the issues that are most consequential to black folks as some **** out of the plot of a bad blaxploitation flick. And then that **** becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Constantly see yourself as the disadvantaged poor in need of rescuing and you'll always be looking to be rescued. And then white folks don't want to share an elevator with you alone or they look at you all crossed eyed and circumspect and sketchy and disinterested at the Torneau in King of Prussia when you want to see, and intend to buy, a 116613lb. Fux your elevator. I didn't want to ride with you anyway sweetie. Mofukkker I'll just buy the **** when I get back home from my usual dude at Radcliffe. Hope you don't work on commission punk sumama B word. You want to talk about something beneficial with regard to improving the urban African American experience, discuss nothing more than what you'll do to develop and improve inner city educational infrastructure and resources. Then you'll have my attention. "Cruising down the street in my 6 4, jockin the bitches, smackin some hoes, went to the park to get the scoop, knuckle heads out there cold shootin some hoops ..." Those are my thoughts at least. (Sidebar: history hasn't been particularly kind to black folk so a little bump early on to equalize the playing field has been merited)