CURRENT EVENTS February | Cartel Uprising in Mexico

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 21K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Very rarely, and when they do, it's overwhelmingly when it affects their stock portfolio or financial well-being.
Click to expand...
I am almost as cynical about the justices' motives as you are, but I tend to think that ideological/political self-interest, not economic self-interest, is what drives a lot of the court's more cynical rulings . But in the end it doesn't really matter which it is - the point is that SCOTUS is not allowing judicial review to be "obliterated" so much as selectively applying its review (after all, there may be future democratic Presidents for whom the guardrails need to suddenly snap back up). And in the specific case of the boat strikes, there really isn't a clear way for the court to do anything. It's Congress's job to impeach the president if he is flagrantly violating the rules of international warfare.
 
BillyL said:
WOW . . . Can't imagine the emotions her husband and children must feel after discovering she is both alive and doing well and wants to keep her location a secret.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a long story I read a few months ago - maybe in the NYT? - about a middle-aged father who elaborately faked his own drowning death, biked across the border to Canada, and then flew to Europe to start a new life with some woman he had met online. He got found out after a year or two. Just cannot imagine the emotional state it would put me in as a child or spouse to grieve a loved one for a long period of time and then find out that they had intentionally put me through that because they just wanted a completely new life without me.

Also the LEOs who spent so much time and effort, like, trawling a lake for this guy and trying to figure out what happened while they comforted his family were royally PISSED (and I don't blame them).
 
Well, they've had 25 years to get used to the idea that she was either dead or deliberately left them...
 
hedge said:
Well, they've had 25 years to get used to the idea that she was either dead or deliberately left them...
Click to expand...
I think it's prolly the former thought that something harsh or dire must have happened to her, the speculation(s) must have made the complete circle over and again. Now they have to try to understand why was it they were abandoned. I would have been desperate for answers in those 25, and now I have to deal with the feelings of being rejected and the reasoning of why.
Life can be cruel . .
 
05C40 said:
Because too many men in the United States just can't bring themselves to vote for a woman. You know, just like 1996. As long as significant sectors of the Democratic Party refuse to vote for a woman, we will deserve EVRYTHING that happens to us.
Click to expand...
1996?
 
BillyL said:
I think it's prolly the former thought that something harsh or dire must have happened to her, the speculation(s) must have made the complete circle over and again. Now they have to try to understand why was it they were abandoned. I would have been desperate for answers in those 25, and now I have to deal with the feelings of being rejected and the reasoning of why.
Life can be cruel . .
Click to expand...
it sounds like the husband knew the deal
 
rodoheel said:
I am almost as cynical about the justices' motives as you are, but I tend to think that ideological/political self-interest, not economic self-interest, is what drives a lot of the court's more cynical rulings . But in the end it doesn't really matter which it is - the point is that SCOTUS is not allowing judicial review to be "obliterated" so much as selectively applying its review (after all, there may be future democratic Presidents for whom the guardrails need to suddenly snap back up). And in the specific case of the boat strikes, there really isn't a clear way for the court to do anything. It's Congress's job to impeach the president if he is flagrantly violating the rules of international warfare.
Click to expand...
Or some future extradition to an international body.

I'm never said that the justices think, "gee, if I don't get to this outcome, my retirement portfolio will go down." It's more a reflection of what is important to them. The type of outcome they might care about. Like, if they apply their doctrine and it turns out the capital defendant must die, they don't give it a second thought. The FTC can be disabled, and that's just the way the doctrine goes. But then when it's the Fed, they suddenly start to worry about the consequences. Maybe an exception should apply. Maybe this would be just too far. Something that important and potentially devastating. Not just some pollution rule estimated to save 9000 lives a year. No, independent monetary policy is IMPORTANT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top