|
computer parts posted:If you actually look at the breakdown of what's being spent in rural areas, the vast majority is on roads. This is something that rural people use, but so do lots of other people. Since it's now dominated most of the last page, can we have a source for this please?
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Nothing saying Obama can't nominate himself, right? I mean, it'd never get past the Senate, but think of the comedy value!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Any type of stunt nomination would be a very good way to legitimize the GOP's stonewalling. The most wily strategic choice would be to select someone they'll look foolish fighting against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Any type of stunt nomination would be a very good way to legitimize the GOP's stonewalling. The most wily strategic choice would be to select someone they'll look foolish fighting against. Judge Reinhold!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Since it's now dominated most of the last page, can we have a source for this please? Here are the costs per mile for new construction and repavement, by type of road (urban, rural, etc). https://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_design_division/Cost%20per%20Mile%20(JULY%202012).pdf That's for Arkansas specifically but the other numbers I'm finding are roughly equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
NAT-T Ice posted:Nothing saying Obama can't nominate himself, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Judge Dredd!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Any type of stunt nomination would be a very good way to legitimize the GOP's stonewalling. The most wily strategic choice would be to select someone they'll look foolish fighting against. Everyone who doesn't already think the GOP is evil is rooting for them to stonewall. I think he should make ridiculous nominations to make Hillary's eventual nominees look better by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Him currently serving in the Executive is why he cannot nominate himself, iirc. No that just prevents him from serving in the legislature. As far as I know, there are no constitutional restrictions on who can be a supreme court justice. If you are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate you are now a justice, no other requirements necessary
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
if Ted Cruz's Canadian rear end can run for president, Obama can be a justice just sayin
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Isn't it just as well that the Republicans keep filibustering this seat, as opposed to a "moderate" like Sri Srinivasan getting it? If Senate republicans are too stupid to recognize they won't get a better deal later, who cares? Because we won't get a better deal later. They'll filibuster a democratic president's nominations, democrats will wring their hands about the nuclear option and dither until 2018 when they lose the Senate again, whine and cavail until they also lose the presidency in 2020, and by then the court'll be down to 6 people. Day one the Republican president nominates three Junior Scalias, and they all pass on a 58-42 party line vote, because filibustering it wouldn't be Bipartisan. It's not pessimism, it's pattern recognition! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:Because we won't get a better deal later. They'll filibuster a democratic president's nominations, democrats will wring their hands about the nuclear option and dither until 2018 when they lose the Senate again, whine and cavail until they also lose the presidency in 2020, and by then the court'll be down to 6 people. Day one the Republican president nominates three Junior Scalias, and they all pass on a 58-42 party line vote, because filibustering it wouldn't be Bipartisan. You probably need therapy if you think any of that is a realistic scenario.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
There are no constitutional prohibitions regarding who may serve on the Supreme Court. Currently serving in an executive or legislative branch position is not a basis for disqualification, though obviously upon confirmation of the judicial nomination the newly anointed Justice would resign the non-judicial position for both practical and separation-of-powers purposes. Obama is not going to nominate Obama because it's a political nonstarter and nets Democrats nothing, politically; not because it's unconstitutional or whatever. Pretty sure Obama doesn't want to be a SC Justice anyways, so it's an even more pointless hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Obama also isn't really qualified. He's never been a federal judge or argued before SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I seem to recall hearing that Michelle absolutely hates living in DC, and they both want out as soon as his term's over. So, unlikely to seek or accept a lifetime nomination that sticks the family there. Lemniscate Blue fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Obama also isn't really qualified. He's never been a federal judge or argued before SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Here are the costs per mile for new construction and repavement, by type of road (urban, rural, etc). Road construction costs per mile in no way supports the claim that: quote:If you actually look at the breakdown of what's being spent in rural areas, the vast majority is on roads. In the context of city dwellers subsidizing rural districts. Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Though the GOP ignoring Kennedy's own appointment is worth it for moments like last night's debate where the moderator basically shamed Cruz in to silence. From a couple pages ago, but might someone have a link handy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Road construction costs per mile in no way supports the claim that: Roads are expensive. There's lots of roads in rural areas. Connect the dots. I'll even give you a leg up, since you're having trouble. In 2013, there were an estimated ~6 million lane-miles in rural areas (versus ~2.6 million in urban* areas): http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_06.html *More likely Urban and Suburban areas, since those are commonly linked together. computer parts fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Roads are expensive. There's lots of roads in rural areas. Connect the dots. ] That's not how you support a claim with evidence. Our intuitions are different here. Mine is that subsidies from urban to rural states goes mostly through OASDI, Medicare, SNAP, and the occasional military base. And I could just as easily tell you to connect the dots, but that wouldn't really be supporting my intuition with evidence either. See, our intuitions are different, and without anything else, there's no reason to believe your naked assertion over mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Chuu posted:That is the best burn I've seen in my life. No contest. Please, Thomas has gotten better burns in on Scalia. In actual court opinions, even.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That's not how you support a claim with evidence. Our intuitions are different here. Mine is that subsidies from urban to rural states goes mostly through OASDI, Medicare, SNAP, and the occasional military base. Oh good, you'll be glad to provide funding reports on those then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Perhaps now be a good point to close this thread and make a new one for 2016? There are a few more cases outstanding from 2015 of course but I have a feeling those aren't going to be the major topic of discussion for the year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh good, you'll be glad to provide funding reports on those then. Well, you were the one making a claim. It's on you to back it up. But ok, let's take your example Arkansas from the Pew Foundation report on Federal spending, Table 1, Page 6. Transfer payments (broken into the first two columns) totaled just over $20B out of a total of $28B. Since roads are but one part of "everything else" they are substantially less than "most" federal spending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Obama also isn't really qualified. He's never been a federal judge or argued before SCOTUS. Neither of these things are required to be on the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Neither of these things are required to be on the SCOTUS. e: that is to say, there's a difference between constitutionally eligible and qualified
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Neither of these things are required to be on the SCOTUS. Hypothetically, I could be nominated. There's no actual requirements, to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Ain't no rule says a dog can't play soccer. By that standard, a large number of previous justices were "unqualified." http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Ain't no rule says a dog can't play soccer. I agree, there's only one Obama fit for the challenge 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I don't think Obama is going to throw the idea of experience and qualifications out the window just because he's allowed to, especially not when his nominee will face the most intense and public scrutiny in recent memory. Pulling any cutesy poo poo here is a surefire way to vindicate every Republican talking about how his nominee should be rejected sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, you were the one making a claim. It's on you to back it up. Note that the original claim was relating to rural areas, not rural states. ~20% of the country lives in rural areas. 16% of those people are 65 and older, versus 13% for the nation at large (via http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/ts2010/ts-report/ts10_rural_people.pdf , pages 11 & 17). This means that most retirement benefits are still going to urban areas, because more old people live in urban areas. In other words, just because a lot of benefits go to Arkansas doesn't really matter that much because Arkansas still has lots of urban population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:By that standard, a large number of previous justices were "unqualified."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note that the original claim was relating to rural areas, not rural states. This is the best I can find with about five minutes worth of Googling. It's from 1985 though, and only covers the federal government. See figure 1 and table 1 on the second page. There's also this, but it's data is from 1980, and only covers federal spending, again. Check page nine of the PDF (table 3) - this one has a breakdown with Infrastructure as one of the categories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:I seem to recall hearing that Michelle absolutely hates living in DC, and they both want out as soon as his term's over. They're not going to pull Sasha out of her high school. But after that, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
It's about as sick of a burn as you can get while being completely wrong about Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note that the original claim was relating to rural areas, not rural states. go pull a scalia you jabronie
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Like a weird attempt to defuse the difficulty of his being a black conservative by just saying he's a token idiot and a mere unthinking servant of a white man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:
That chart is strange, because if I'm reading it correctly it does say "income transfers" are higher for non-metro/rural areas versus metro/urban areas ($844 per capita in rural areas versus $831 in urban areas), but it says that overall metro areas still receive a higher per-capita amount of funding than non-metro areas ($1,490 per capita versus $1,936). In other words, urban areas got more money per capita than rural areas did. I suppose a possible explanation is that we weren't quite as concentrated 35 years ago versus today, but I can't imagine the shift would be that large. I guess the other factor to make that chart make sense with the common logic re: blue states giving more than they get is that urban areas in red states require much more federal dollars than urban areas in blue states, due to some other confounding factor (like state programs not picking up the slack).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Cheekio posted:Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. More likely: Obama agrees to congress's request to allow the American people to weigh in and forgoes nominating anyone, leaving it to his successor: congress sues Obama for neglecting his article 2 constitutional duty to appoint a justice, which proves he's a dictator stealing our freedoms
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:25
|
|
