More predictions
 

That's what Scalia is for. Alito will just sign on to that one.

More predictions
 

It bears relevence to what the founder would have done at the time but does not bear relevance to what we should do today. In other words, the founding fathers would have not been very respectful of a muslims terrorists rights but I don't think that has much bearing on how we should treat these prisoners. Since they seemed OK with slavery (and thereby the torturing of African Americans after they tried to run away) then we should not turn to them when deciding what our standards should be.

However, I did find it ridiculous when someone tried to claim that the founding fathers would have been respectful of the rights of muslim terrorists. I think that is absurd.

My position never changed. You just weren't paying attention.

More predictions
 

Turning the SupCt to the right, continued success with constitutional democracy in Iraq, perhaps a successful attack on Iran's nucular facilities, real tax reform and an economy that continues to grow.

I'm with Hank, it is a 3 seat gain for the Republicans, at a minimum.

More predictions
 

2.

More predictions
 

Back in those days, the world viewed us as the terrorists. And we, of course, viewed the Indians as the terrorists.

The question being discussed was the attitude the founders would towards whether the government has limited powers when acting abroad or only at home. I was arguing that the founders fundamentally believed in a government of limited powers in all respects.

I agree that the founder's views were colored by an extremely deep racial bias that led them to view blacks as essentially not human and by attitudes toward women that led them to simply disregard women as having virtually no rights. Many but not all founders also had very different attitudes toward men of property tan toward men without property.

That doesn't change the idea that if you believe in a government of limited powers, which is one of the great gifts the founders made to our history, it is intellectually difficult to find a way to justify our government treating foreign persons as being without rights. The cases you will be led to rely on are cases like Korematsu, and even the people I know willing to defend Korematsu as representing the right constitutional outcome seem unwilling to defend the underlying acts at issue on a moral basis. (And, for those of us who are fans of limited government, Korematsu is a total disaster).

More predictions
 

Can he do those things in 6 months, and reverse his current poll numbers? I believe that is about how much time he has.

More predictions
 

If you insist on conflating segregation with a women's rights issue, you'll wind up on more ignore lists than even you can tolerate.

They are not analogous for an innumerable number of reasons you very well know.

Roe is unique. Abortion is unique. Nothing is analagous. Thus, the "superprecedent."

Hatemasters
 

This is just dumb. No one is a hate monger. These people do what they do for dollars. Politics is a business. The currency is dollars, and the chips are rube voters who are piled by crafting the best ideological pitch.

I think you believe Rove and Cheney actually care about an ideological revolution. I don't think they do. There is no "hate" - there is just methodical manipulation of voters to roll back New Deal policies to make a climate favorable to people who sign huge checks for people like Rove and Cheney.

"Hate" is an allegation the Left uses far too much in describiong politicians. Its wrong because it ascribes to those people a level of human feeling they don't have. Its business. Dems, Inc. v. GOP, Inc.

Hatemasters
 

Generally, yes.

But it is a funny kind of business because you measure your success not by money, but by power, and so they are all power mad. Which leads all politicians to play to any old hatemonger who will give them power.

More predictions
 

I think we balance rights all the time, even rights that are fundamental even though they are not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. And I think Roe is a case balancing the rights of the mother against those of the fetus.

Pulled pork
 

Perhaps Penske can have it both ways and enjoy pork yet still reject pork in solidarity with his co-Deists. Pork is a wonderful thing, anyone who denies enjoying pork when they can get it is lying or delusional, but everyone should have to pay for their own pork.

I think we should all join Penske in lobbying against publicly pork until pork ceases to be funded out of general revenues. All other pork is a-OK, of course.

BR(so is pulling the pork, natch)C

More predictions
 

All of them are done or in process, although tax reform needs more work.

More predictions
 

This is the clearest explanation of how the three branches actually, practically work that I have ever heard. Its also an explanation of how they should work. The Right has tried to disrupt that work by using an absurdist orginalist argument.

Originalists of just about all stripes are idiots. Conservatives and liberals may debate how far we stretch the words of the contract, but originalists are just plain flat out imbeciles. Ever argue a contract issue with a fool who tries to argue the "four corners" approach in the face of obviously changed circumstances? That's kind of how I view Scalia - an embarrassing absurdist (unfortunately not the Python/Naked Gun/Airplane sort).

More predictions
 

I was not commenting on any of that. I am just saying the founding fathers would probably have had no trouble treating brown, non christian terrorists in the way that we are. To invoke their name when critizising the way we deal with terrorists is absurd.

Pulled pork
 

I like bacon. I like sausage. I hate ham. I hate pork. I hate pulled pork tenderloin. I hate pork bbq. Where's that leave me?