Midterm predictions…cuss and discuss
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
She's making the excuse that she was showing how easy it was to do that:
'Demonstration purposes only.'
Last edited:
I always had hoped that the courts would be as unbiased as possible. But many Democratic & Republican judges have flung unbias out the window.
Speaking about unbiased, Judge Clarence Thomas involved in election certification? Guess he and his wife had some morning coffee klatches discussing this.
I could do without both Thomas and Sotomayor. Easily the two most politically extreme Justices on the Court.
Alito is fairly close to Breyer except on opposite ends of the spectrum.
www.axios.com
The political leanings of the Supreme Court justices
The most conservative: Clarence Thomas. The most liberal: Sonia Sotomayor.
www.axios.com
Reading more about the metric used to create that spectrum, there are some fundamental flaws inherent in its algorithm. From the Northwestern Law Review:Alito is fairly close to Breyer except on opposite ends of the spectrum.
The political leanings of the Supreme Court justices
The most conservative: Clarence Thomas. The most liberal: Sonia Sotomayor.
The limits of Martin-Quinn scores raise some doubts about the authors' conclusions. Martin-Quinn scores are generated by simply observing patterns of coalition voting among the justices without paying any attention to what the cases are about. The authors assume that all voting is ideological, so any change in the patterns of the coalitions the Justices form is taken to show changes in the Justices' ideologies. There are various reasons to question this chain of reasoning. The most important is that the authors' model treats all cases as equally important and revealing. So if a Justice starts to vote a little to the left of where he formerly did (relative to his colleagues) in any area of law, this may cause a change in how the Martin-Quinn model views his entire ideology - even if his voting has been consistent in most areas of great public interest. So when the authors find statistical changes in the behavior of Justices, those changes may not (and in some cases do not appear in fact) to amount to shifts that would have mattered to the Presidents who appointed those Justices in the first place.
Also the net scale on that algorithm would mean that Thomas was at one point in time, the second most conservative justice to ever sit on the bench behind Rehnquist. Alito would be more comparable (historically) to Ginsburg in terms of his leanings. Also, all votes are not created equally. Votes in landmark cases should probably be considered differently than how one sides on more minor cases.
It was written by the Dean of the University of Texas School of Law...Martin-Quinn may have a few issues but it is the most widely used and accepted ranking system. Which is why I linked the same. Not sure how much weight to give to a law review article. Hell…I’ve written a law review piece
…and you’re giving more weight to that than lawpoke’s article?
He may take issue with it but a lot of legal scholars use the metric
The stagnation of wages in real terms since the 1980’s and a tax code favoring the top 1% have over 5 decades led to both a concentration of wealth and an increase in the roles of the working poor. No wonder working class Americans are fed up and increasingly willing to support an autocrat and find some group to blame for their problems. SS was supposed to be a backstop but with the end of pensions and low incomes, for too many it is all the have for retirement.
Extreme partisanship inhibits independent thought. People believe what they are told without questioning the same. Both sides.
this sort of statement used to be accompanied with a banner that this is an editoral comment. it is opinion not fact.
Latest Oklahoma senate and governor poll released yesterday by Ascend (KOKC) are as follows:
Stitt +1
Lankford +14
Mullin +11
Local polling companies like Ascend and Sooner polling are historically unreliable and overstate Dem support. Based on recent history I cannot imagine a situation where both Lankford and Mullin aren’t up by +20. This Dem bias in the poll (if it exists) would also lift Stitt up considerably. We will know soon enough.
Stitt +1
Lankford +14
Mullin +11
Local polling companies like Ascend and Sooner polling are historically unreliable and overstate Dem support. Based on recent history I cannot imagine a situation where both Lankford and Mullin aren’t up by +20. This Dem bias in the poll (if it exists) would also lift Stitt up considerably. We will know soon enough.
Not true. CNN & MSNBC has advertised opinion shows. And both Fox, CNN, and MSNBC report the news with an opinion slant. Everything republican is not wonderful, same for Democrats.
I understand how crime could affect the governor's races. But the Democrats are blaming their possible losses in Congress on crime too. How many bills on crime does congress vote on. Not many. Congress is more concerned with other issues than it is with crime.
It’s more Dem run state governments passing bail “reform” laws which put repeat offenders back on the street to continue committing crimes. The election or appointment of prosecutors deemed to be “soft” on crime has hurt as well. Governors in these states have mostly supported these changes. Dems’ in Congress are getting caught up in the crossfire for the actions of other Dems in their respective states. When things go bad the party in charge usually gets blamed. Whether the actual candidate bears any responsibility. My guess would be in most cases the Congress person has publicly supported the Governor/Mayor/etc…. Making it pretty easy to tie them together in a 30 second commercial
NYC crime rate climbed 31% in July compared to July 2021 amid surges in murders, shootings, thefts, robberies
Mayor Adams and the police blame the elimination of bail for misdemeanors and certain felonies that went into effect with the criminal justice reform laws in 2020.
If voters woke up and thought about it, that shouldn't have much effect on congressional races. But maybe that's putting more on the voter than they are capable of when you consider the average voter.It’s more Dem run state governments passing bail “reform” laws which put repeat offenders back on the street to continue committing crimes. The election or appointment of prosecutors deemed to be “soft” on crime has hurt as well. Governors in these states have mostly supported these changes. Dems’ in Congress are getting caught up in the crossfire for the actions of other Dems in their respective states. When things go bad the party in charge usually gets blamed. Whether the actual candidate bears any responsibility. My guess would be in most cases the Congress person has publicly supported the Governor/Mayor/etc…. Making it pretty easy to tie them together in a 30 second commercial
NYC crime rate climbed 31% in July compared to July 2021 amid surges in murders, shootings, thefts, robberies
Mayor Adams and the police blame the elimination of bail for misdemeanors and certain felonies that went into effect with the criminal justice reform laws in 2020.www.nydailynews.com
I think you’re on to something there.
Dems are convinced Pubs are fascist and Pubs are convince Dems are fascist as well. Both believe the other’s objective is the elimination of rights and freedoms. It’s really a remarkable dynamic born from one’s inability to process independent thought.
Last edited:
Dems are Marxist/Socialists that like elements of fascist economics.. ie public/private partnerships.
Actually the claim was made that the voters were unverified, not unregistered. It was 255k not 220k. It really isn't true.
Yeah. I deleted my post once I looked into it. Teach me to look before posting. My bad. Didn’t get the damn thing deleted fast enough
I do like seeing record turnout in Georgia after all the voter suppression claims by Abrams. Every eligible voter should have the opportunity to cast a ballot
We also need to look at the revenue side, not just the cost side. Real wages for those without a college degree are lower than 1980 as globalization moved higher paying jobs offshore to the benefit of stockholders and management. Now four decades later when the bottom 50% has seen its wealth sapped, looking for further cuts there is beating a horse already dead from mistreatment. Until we recognize and correct the decades of inequity that created this situation, it will only get worse.
Similar threads
