2022 SCOTUS rulings

[JohnStOnge]

We're veering off topic but since the inflation thing was discussed I'll post this article from 2016:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... -inflation

A quote:

Across the board, we found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, in our benchmark specification, we found that a 10 percent increase in government spending led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Moreover, the effect is not statistically different from zero.

I'm sure you can find something that takes the other view as, from what I've seen, there is disagreement about it.

Me, I am comfortable with thinking that if government spending has any effect on inflation it is minimal if it exists at all. That's because, as I am wont to do, I looked up data on the matter and analyzed it myself. It looked to me like there MAY be some lag effect whereby spending results in SOME tendency towards higher inflation 2 to 3 years later. But we're talking about spending in year 1 accounting for about 7% of the variation in inflation 2 years later and 8% of the variation in inflation 3 years later.

We're not having the high inflation we have now because of the COVID-19 spending packages. If the spending packages are a factor at all they are a minor one. That's not where most of the year over year difference in prices is coming from.

[UNI88]

Low information voters will blame Biden. Biden deserves some of the blame because his Democratic establishment continues to not address working class issues.

This is what happens when economic center right Democrats continue to follow the Republican playbook. Two Santa Claus theory in full effect.

Inflation is govt caused, so you have to either blame Trump and the conks, or Biden amd the donks (and Putin lol).

Biden inherited 1.4% inflation. Then he proceed to ram through trillions and trillions in extra spending, bursting the inflation bubble. His so called Covid Relief bill extended the enhanced unemployment out to a year and a half, causing severe labor shortage and labor cost increases through the spring & summer of 21’. Also another round of stimulus which was like pouring gas on a fire (too much $$$ chasing too few goods).

Under Biden interest rates were kept at near zero for over a year.

Biden’s 2020 campaign declared a war on fossil fuel, and he carried that out on day 1, signing multiple anti fossil fuel EOs. And his admin has stonewalled on the permitting process.

And those are the 3 biggest drivers of inflation- spending, high oil prices, and low interest rates. And anyone with a lick of commom sense can see that Biden deserves the majority of the blame on all 3. Not Trump. Not Putin.

Or you can blame both of them.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Lol at all the teeth knashing by the left about how this is an activist court. SCOUTUS didn’t say abortion is outlawed. They didn’t say a woman can’t have an abortion. They just said there’s no constitutional right to one, thereby kicking the issue back to the states.

An activist court would have said not only is there no constitutional right to an abortion, but a life in thr womb is a life under the equal protection clause, therefore all abortion is outlawed. But they didnt do that.

Now both sides will have to make their arguements at the state level. A win for democracy and states’ rights..

Quoted for if the Republicans take Congress and the White House and then try to pass a nationwide ban.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

Yes. The party of voters who think men can menstruate, men can get pregnant, thinks children as young as 3 can “choose” their sexual identity and that we should be providing puberty blockers to aid them in their “transition, the party of voters that thinks COVID is a death sentence and masks work, thinks the civil war was fought in the 1960’s, thinks black people don’t have cell phones or internet, THOSE folks are going to fucking ACE an IQ test, I’m just positive of it.

It's the party of people who understand that, though there is a small chance of dying from COVID-19 in a single randomly selected case, it has a much higher mortality rate than something like seasonal influenza does and also a much higher hospitalization rate. They understand that the population impacts are significant. They understand that biological males do not menstruate and cannot get pregnant. As far as the gender identity stuff goes: Their outlook is consistent with the positions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other major medical organizations. I've never heard of anybody who thinks the civil war was fought in the 1960s or thinks that black people don't have cell phones or internet. I suspect that comes from yet another instance of some conservative pundit or something taking something somebody said out of context.

The bottom line, though, is that people with graduate degrees have consistently voted by a substantial majority for Democrats and the margin has generally increased in recent years. During the 2020 election it was by 60% to 40% in the House Elections and by 62% to 37% in the Presidential election. That strongly suggests that if, we administered an IQ test and only allowed the top 15.87% to vote (the 1 standard deviation thing), the Republicans would be completely screwed.

The exit polls don't break the House races down by State. But the 2020 Republican candidate for President lost by an estimated 10 percentage points , 54% to 44%, among people with graduate degrees in TEXAS. He also lost by an estimated 8 percentage points, 53% to 45%, among people with graduate degrees in Florida.

We don't have direct measurement of IQ. But I'd be VERY confident that, if we only allowed those who scored at least 1 standard deviation above the mean on an IQ test to vote, the Republicans would become a non factor nationally. They might locally control a small minority of what are now deep red States. But they'd never win a Presidential election and they'd be small minorities in the House and Senate without enough people in the Senate to sustain a filibuster.

JSO's council of learned citizens running things

[BDKJMU]

Lol at all the teeth knashing by the left about how this is an activist court. SCOUTUS didn’t say abortion is outlawed. They didn’t say a woman can’t have an abortion. They just said there’s no constitutional right to one, thereby kicking the issue back to the states.

An activist court would have said not only is there no constitutional right to an abortion, but a life in thr womb is a life under the equal protection clause, therefore all abortion is outlawed. But they didnt do that.

Now both sides will have to make their arguements at the state level. A win for democracy and states’ rights..

Quoted for if the Republicans take Congress and the White House and then try to pass a nationwide ban.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Big difference between legislating through Congress, and legislating through the courts..

[BDKJMU]

We're veering off topic but since the inflation thing was discussed I'll post this article from 2016:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... -inflation

A quote:

Across the board, we found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, in our benchmark specification, we found that a 10 percent increase in government spending led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Moreover, the effect is not statistically different from zero.

I'm sure you can find something that takes the other view as, from what I've seen, there is disagreement about it.

Me, I am comfortable with thinking that if government spending has any effect on inflation it is minimal if it exists at all. That's because, as I am wont to do, I looked up data on the matter and analyzed it myself. It looked to me like there MAY be some lag effect whereby spending results in SOME tendency towards higher inflation 2 to 3 years later. But we're talking about spending in year 1 accounting for about 7% of the variation in inflation 2 years later and 8% of the variation in inflation 3 years later.

We're not having the high inflation we have now because of the COVID-19 spending packages. If the spending packages are a factor at all they are a minor one. That's not where most of the year over year difference in prices is coming from.

Why Printing Money Causes Inflation
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/797/ ... p%20prices.

Or how about this.
-Govt stopped printing $$$. ZERO spending. Besides the economy crashing, we would have massive deflation. Dollars would become rare..
OR
-Govt printed printed $$$ as fast as it could. Printed hundreds of trillions of $$$. Maybe a quadrillion. Gave every household 1 million $$$. Better yet, gave every indivdual 1 million $$ (would that be over a quadrillion?) Everyone would be rich, no one would have to work- well, not. Inflation would be hundreds or even thousands percent. If you were going to the store, paying cash, soon you’d soon have to bring a suitcase full..

The more of something there is, the less valuable it is. Not a hard concept. Bottom line, anyone with half a brain can see that govt spending (ie printing $$$) affects inflation..

[UNI88]

Quoted for if the Republicans take Congress and the White House and then try to pass a nationwide ban.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Big difference between legislating through Congress, and legislating through the courts..

Getting a head start on the mental gymnastics. Nice work BDKMaryLouRetton.

Shitting all over state's rights is ahitting all over state's rights regardless of who does it. Consistency is fun, you should try it some time.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

BTW, on the issue of a right to abortion not being enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment does say:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated does not necessarily mean it's not a right. Rights are not limited to those specifically described.

The reason I am on the pro life side is that the only objective criterion for the transition between non-existence and existence for a member of our species is conception. So I'm looking at the right to life. A member of our species has a right to continue their life.

If it weren't for that, to me, there would be ZERO doubt about a woman having the right to have control over her own body whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or not. I'm looking at it as a situation in which the right to live on the part of one individual outweighs the right of another individual to control their own body.

But, to me, the argument that something is not a right because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is a non-starter. Not a good argument.

But the Ninth Amendment is not a bottomless cookie jar of non-enumerated rights. As the Court has said, the Ninth Amendment protects a very narrow class of rights, firmly entrenched and identifiable within the nation's traditions, and which existed within the common law at the time the constitution was ratified (marriage, parental rights, and other rights of that nature).

[JoltinJoe]

Chevron deference on the chopping block for today.

[kalm]

BTW, on the issue of a right to abortion not being enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment does say:



So the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated does not necessarily mean it's not a right. Rights are not limited to those specifically described.

The reason I am on the pro life side is that the only objective criterion for the transition between non-existence and existence for a member of our species is conception. So I'm looking at the right to life. A member of our species has a right to continue their life.

If it weren't for that, to me, there would be ZERO doubt about a woman having the right to have control over her own body whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or not. I'm looking at it as a situation in which the right to live on the part of one individual outweighs the right of another individual to control their own body.

But, to me, the argument that something is not a right because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is a non-starter. Not a good argument.

But the Ninth Amendment is not a bottomless cookie jar of non-enumerated rights. As the Court has said, the Ninth Amendment protects a very narrow class of rights, firmly entrenched and identifiable within the nation's traditions, and which existed within the common law at the time the constitution was ratified (marriage, parental rights, and other rights of that nature).

Wouldn’t autonomy over one’s body be included? It’s tough to move past the philosophical debate of when life begins.

[AZGrizFan]

Big difference between legislating through Congress, and legislating through the courts..

Getting a head start on the mental gymnastics. Nice work BDKMaryLouRetton.

Shitting all over state's rights is ahitting all over state's rights regardless of who does it. Consistency is fun, you should try it some time.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I agree. If it’s truly a states rights issue (and it is), then fucking leave it to the states. Period.

[UNI88]

BTW, on the issue of a right to abortion not being enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment does say:
So the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated does not necessarily mean it's not a right. Rights are not limited to those specifically described.

The reason I am on the pro life side is that the only objective criterion for the transition between non-existence and existence for a member of our species is conception. So I'm looking at the right to life. A member of our species has a right to continue their life.

If it weren't for that, to me, there would be ZERO doubt about a woman having the right to have control over her own body whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or not. I'm looking at it as a situation in which the right to live on the part of one individual outweighs the right of another individual to control their own body.

But, to me, the argument that something is not a right because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is a non-starter. Not a good argument.

But the Ninth Amendment is not a bottomless cookie jar of non-enumerated rights. As the Court has said, the Ninth Amendment protects a very narrow class of rights, firmly entrenched and identifiable within the nation's traditions, and which existed within the common law at the time the constitution was ratified (marriage, parental rights, and other rights of that nature).

Should marriage be a right or simply a contract?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

The theocratic rulings march on…

“Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said Monday that a Washington state school district violated the First Amendment rights of a high school football coach when he lost his job after praying at the 50-yard line after games.

The opinion was 6-3 along conservative-liberal ideological lines.
"The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics ... index.html

I wonder about this one. Where is the line, assuming there is one? If you don't like the school paid coach, while still in his job, kneeling and praying at the 50 yard line after a game, is there anything a person can do while employed by the school that has any religious connotation to it? Can a Christian teacher wear a crucifix as a necklace, can a Muslim teacher wear a head scarf, can a teacher make any reference to what they did on the weekend if it involves them going to a place of worship, can a teacher make a silent prayer over food before eating it, and so on? I think the Court is right on this case, you can't ban public expressions of faith just because someone is in the public space. I think in this case of the football coach, he was asked to specifically not include players in his private moment of prayer, and he followed that. I think that's reasonable. I find it harder to make a case to not allow the coach to pray in public at all, given all the other visible displays of faith than an individual can bring into the public space.

[tribe_pride]

Chevron deference on the chopping block for today.

Tomorrow

[BDKJMU]

Big difference between legislating through Congress, and legislating through the courts..

Getting a head start on the mental gymnastics. Nice work BDKMaryLouRetton.

Shitting all over state's rights is ahitting all over state's rights regardless of who does it. Consistency is fun, you should try it some time.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I didn’t say I was for Congress making a national law, UNIReadingIsFundamentalandjumpingtoconclusions88..

[Winterborn]

But the Ninth Amendment is not a bottomless cookie jar of non-enumerated rights. As the Court has said, the Ninth Amendment protects a very narrow class of rights, firmly entrenched and identifiable within the nation's traditions, and which existed within the common law at the time the constitution was ratified (marriage, parental rights, and other rights of that nature).

Should marriage be a right or simply a contract?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

That is an interesting question and one I have pondered a bit making the rounds during tillage work.

My initial thoughts are that from a federal perspective, the government should not care who marries who. The rest is a legal contract (of estate planning, etc.) and all the Government needs to know is how to collect taxes. And if one removed the joint filing option and just had single (or heaven forbid simplify the tax code), that would be taken care of as well (not a tax person so very well could be wrong there).

If one wants it to be religious or show some signs of being a couple, that is a personal preference, not a government one.

[Winterborn]

Getting a head start on the mental gymnastics. Nice work BDKMaryLouRetton.

Shitting all over state's rights is ahitting all over state's rights regardless of who does it. Consistency is fun, you should try it some time.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I agree. If it’s truly a states rights issue (and it is), then fucking leave it to the states. Period.

[BDKJMU]

I agree. If it’s truly a states rights issue (and it is), then fucking leave it to the states. Period.

As I have said for years on here (along with a host of other issues)..

[UNI88]

As I have said for years on here (along with a host of other issues)..

So you will oppose a Congressional Republican effort to pass a nationwide ban?

[BDKJMU]

As I have said for years on here (along with a host of other issues)..

So you will oppose a Congressional Republican effort to pass a nationwide ban?

Yes. I’ve said numerous tumes on here over the years abortion is a states’ rights issue. Abortion before viability EASY CALL- states’ rights. But OTOH I don’t think its an outlandish arguement to say late term/partial birth abortion is taking of a viable life and therefore a violation of the due process clause. Much tougher call, but I’d still lean states’ rights on late term

[houndawg]

How many unwanted kids have you fostered?

Cry more, shitlib.

Is that a "none"? About what I figured.

Nobody is crying today except traitor cunts, like yourself.

[houndawg]

So you will oppose a Congressional Republican effort to pass a nationwide ban?

Yes. I’ve said numerous tumes on here over the years abortion is a states’ rights issue. Abortion before viability EASY CALL- states’ rights. But OTOH I don’t think its an outlandish arguement to say late term/partial birth abortion is taking of a viable life and therefore a violation of the due process clause. Much tougher call, but I’d still lean states’ rights on late term

I'd roll with the individual rights - if you don't control your own body you're nothing but livestock and thats what this decision is really about.

[JohnStOnge]

It's the party of people who understand that, though there is a small chance of dying from COVID-19 in a single randomly selected case, it has a much higher mortality rate than something like seasonal influenza does and also a much higher hospitalization rate. They understand that the population impacts are significant. They understand that biological males do not menstruate and cannot get pregnant. As far as the gender identity stuff goes: Their outlook is consistent with the positions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other major medical organizations. I've never heard of anybody who thinks the civil war was fought in the 1960s or thinks that black people don't have cell phones or internet. I suspect that comes from yet another instance of some conservative pundit or something taking something somebody said out of context.

The bottom line, though, is that people with graduate degrees have consistently voted by a substantial majority for Democrats and the margin has generally increased in recent years. During the 2020 election it was by 60% to 40% in the House Elections and by 62% to 37% in the Presidential election. That strongly suggests that if, we administered an IQ test and only allowed the top 15.87% to vote (the 1 standard deviation thing), the Republicans would be completely screwed.

The exit polls don't break the House races down by State. But the 2020 Republican candidate for President lost by an estimated 10 percentage points , 54% to 44%, among people with graduate degrees in TEXAS. He also lost by an estimated 8 percentage points, 53% to 45%, among people with graduate degrees in Florida.

We don't have direct measurement of IQ. But I'd be VERY confident that, if we only allowed those who scored at least 1 standard deviation above the mean on an IQ test to vote, the Republicans would become a non factor nationally. They might locally control a small minority of what are now deep red States. But they'd never win a Presidential election and they'd be small minorities in the House and Senate without enough people in the Senate to sustain a filibuster.

JSO's council of learned citizens running things

Look, we've got a serious problem right now. We have a major political Party that is beholding to a core base of people who are completely separated from reality. They depend on overwhelming support among a group that is around 30% of the population and believes that a series of myths written between something like 4,000 and 1,800 years ago is the inerrant truth. it's the American Taliban.

I wouldn't pull the trigger. But we would indeed be better off if only people with IQ at least one standard deviation above the mean could vote.

[BDKJMU]

JSO's council of learned citizens running things

Look, we've got a serious problem right now. We have a major political Party that is beholding to a core base of people who are completely separated from reality. They depend on overwhelming support among a group that is around 30% of the population and believes that a series of myths written between something like 4,000 and 1,800 years ago is the inerrant truth. it's the American Taliban.

I wouldn't pull the trigger. But we would indeed be better off if only people with IQ at least one standard deviation above the mean could vote.

Wouldn’t that be racist, and eliminate a large chunk of the donks base?

[93henfan]

Cry more, shitlib.

Is that a "none"? About what I figured.

Nobody is crying today except traitor cunts, like yourself.

Thanks, gentlemen. I just got the name for my next band: Shitlib and the Traitor Cunts. Woot!