H E A D L I N E S : 2 0 2 2 & 2 0 2 3

[Borg Refinery]

No, Ukraine's military WOULD have collapsed without intense Western support / without $$$billions poured into them and modern equipment sent to them; to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.

I doubt F-15s would be sufficient to take on the US govt anyway, given they have F-22 Raptors (which I love to bits, my favourite of all jet fighters) nto to mention F-35s (ok flawed but still) and numerous drones, and surface-to-air missile systems ETC. You wouldn't stand a chance. So he was wrong - just in the opposite way to the way you think he was.

All that being said, it hinges on whether the military defect to the cause of the public or not, that's what it really hinges on, OR if they at the very least do nothing and do not oppose the civilians - there is also a chance of civilians can commandeer enough military equipment and are sufficiently able to utilise it to their advantage. Of course, there is the Gandhi-style non-violent resistance example, which may be more in line with the point you are making..

 

[sear]

I believe you are correct about Ukraine's military. But also relevant in my opinion, I deduce Russia was seduced by its own propaganda, that Putin's war would be over in a few days. And because they fell for that, they did not adequately prepare for the now nearly year long war. Many wish Ukraine to win. I wish Ukraine to win swiftly, soon, and decisively.

"it hinges on whether the military defect to the cause of the public or not" BR #101

This GWB pic was taken just as the Iraqi insurgency was getting started.

For an even more grim perspective, consider the U.S.' longest War. Biden abandoned Afghanistan, and the U.S. propped-up government employees were in such haste to desert, they left their clothes in the street.

As a general rule perhaps you make a worthwhile point. But it is a fatal blunder to ignore the power of home-turf "advantage". KG3 learned this in the U.S. Revolutionary War. SOMEbody had to pack up and go home. And the American colonists were ALREADY home. The U.S. learned this in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese couldn't pack up and go home. They were already home. So like the French before them, the U.S. packed up and went home.

Regarding Gandhi:
MLK never met Gandhi. But it was Gandhi that inspired MLK to the non-violent civil rights strategy that seems to have won what otherwise might not have been won. Impressive.

off-topic bonus Q:
I gather from fragments filtering in over the decade that the Y-22 turned F-22 was a good war bird, a super-ship, BUT !! Was so expensive that congress felt guilty, and so chose to also buy a somewhat less capable but combat worthy F-35, to save $money. BUT !!
Due to cost over-runs the less capable F-35 ended up costing more than the F-22. Was that ever true? Is it still?

 

[sear]

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could give religious conservatives an unprecedented new ability to dictate how their workplaces operate, and which workplace rules they will refuse to follow.
Yet Groff is also likely to overrule a previous Supreme Court decision that treated the interests of religious employees far more dismissively than federal law suggests that these workers should be treated.
The case, in other words, presents genuinely tricky questions about the limits of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs. But those questions will be resolved by a Supreme Court that has shown an extraordinary willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit Christian-identified conservatives.

A new Supreme Court case could turn every workplace into a religious battleground

The fight over whether religious conservatives enjoy special rights is coming to a workplace near you.

www.vox.com

uh oh

 

[Borg Refinery]

The actor Alec Baldwin is facing criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal film-set shooting of a cinematographer during a rehearsal of the western film Rust, according to prosecutors.

The film’s armorer overseeing weapons, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, is also set to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 2021.

Meanwhile, the production’s assistant director, David Halls, has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon and to spend six months serving probation.
[..]
Involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, meanwhile, would require prosecutors to prove that there was more than simple negligence involved in Hutchins’s death.

Both charges are felonies typically carrying maximum penalties of 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine. But, in this case, Carmack-Altwies’s office has added a so-called firearm enhancement to the involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act charge, leaving anyone convicted of that count to be required to spend five years in prison. [..]

5 years in prison? While murdering paedophiles and rapists get let out free and this guy killed someone in a tragic accident..? What is the world coming to?

 

[Shiftless2]

The case, in other words, presents genuinely tricky questions about the limits of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs. But those questions will be resolved by a Supreme Court that has shown an extraordinary willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit Christian-identified conservatives.

As if truth mattered during their confirmation hearings.

 

[Borg Refinery]

But none of them believe in precedents, they are either 'textualists' or 'originalists' so de facto they don't accept precedents.

For the record, I think textualism is the only way a Supreme Court judge should ever rule. I've always maintained that, it just happens that none of them are proper textualists in the first place, but I don't believe in activist judges of any stripe, whether liberals who believe in precedent / case law or originalists who believe in all kinds of insane stuff.

The ONLY way to be an unbiased SCOTUS judge is to firmly rule based on textualism and precedent where it respects textualist principles, the only 'centrist' SCOTUS judge is currently Justice Roberts.

 

[sear]

What is the world coming to?

The weekend?
We're on the same page on this one BR #104. "When the picture doesn't make sense, a piece of the puzzle is missing." psychologist Joy Browne
Perhaps one of the missing puzzle pieces here is Baldwin reportedly insisted he did NOT pull the trigger, BUT !!
"That's not true. And we know that from the FBI lab report." Santa Fe, New Mexico District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies

That in turn indicates Baldwin was lying. And that in turn indicates he's trying to cover up something.
Carmack-Altwies suggested it's not that there's some magic in - 6.5 years- , but that: "Prison is not necessarily the goal. What I want is justice [for the victim]."

BR #106
I don't know what mqscores is. And I don't see a Y-axis units designation, only increments. But I couldn't tell you the difference between a red -5 and a black +2.

 

[Borg Refinery]

IMHO, liberal activist judges on the court have no business being on there, just like extremist originalists like Clarence Thomas, however even Trumpists agree with me that Alito is mercurial and unfit to be on teh court - he is the worst of the bunch. An absolute disgrace to his robe.

How can a judge be anything but biased when they're hired in a biased, partisan fashion and how can true justice ever be served by a partisan judge?

 

[Shiftless2]

But none of them believe in precedents ...

Except that they all said that Roe v Wade was an important precedent.

 

[Borg Refinery]

Except that they all said that Roe v Wade was an important precedent.

And you believed them? They are textualists and originalists, show me one of them who isn't? B y default, textualists and originalists don't believe in case law or precedents having any merit whatsoever. If you look at how they worded their replies, they didn't really commit to anything firmly, for example saying it's the law of the land doesn't mean it can't later be overturned.

I can't imagine why anyone would have believed they were sincere believers in precedents.

 

[titan]

Borg - here's one for you. Fox News reports

Joy Behar suggests charging Alec Baldwin in 'Rust' shooting was political: He's 'a target for Republicans'​

Did Baldwin suggest that? If not, why not?

 

[sear]

BR #108
- amen -
BUT !!
Problem is, how can we solve the activist judges problem? Where do you draw the line?

Except that they all said that Roe v Wade was an important precedent.

Didn't several of them assert or imply they accepted Roe, and would not overturn it? If so, did they not perjure their testimony before congress? And if so is that not grounds for action against them? - OR ! - Is the updated rule: "Nobody is above the law, except Supreme Court nominees."

And you believed them?

They said so under oath. Lying under oath on a matter germane to the inquiry is perjury. They're perjurers, criminals. And yet now they populate the highest law court in the United States of America.

They are textualists and originalists

- PIFFLE ! -
They are wrong-wing reactionaries, pseudo-cons. And they are traitors to their People and perjurers of their oaths.

Joy Behar suggests charging Alec Baldwin in 'Rust' shooting was political: He's 'a target for Republicans'​

Did Baldwin suggest that? If not, why not?

T #111
Meaning, if it's so, wouldn't Baldwin himself have suspected it? And therefore if he didn't, is it less likely to be true?

Anyway, how about some good news?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley on Friday said that Russia has "really suffered a lot" in Ukraine and urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war.
"The Russian casualties — last time I reported out on it publicly, I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it's significantly well over 100,000 now," Milley said at a news conference alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in Germany, providing a slight update on a figure the top US general offered in November.
Milley said that the "tremendous amount of casualties" suffered by Russia included "regular military, and also their mercenaries in the Wagner Group and other type forces that are fighting with the Russians."
"Putin could end this war today," Milley said, "It's turning into an absolute catastrophe for Russia."

Top US general says Ukraine war has become an 'absolute catastrophe' for Russia, estimating it's suffered 'significantly well over' 100,000 casualties

"This is a very, very bloody war, and there's significant casualties on both sides," Milley said, while urging Putin to end the fighting.

news.yahoo.com

I sincerely appreciate JCS Milley's words here. But I think there's more he could do. For example, if I could, I'd tell President Biden & or Secretary Austin to try a carrot & stick approach with Putin. Tell Putin, if you drag out this carnage with no realistic prospect of victory, even after the war the Western world will marginalize Russia. You've already strangled your Gazprom $cash $cow. How much worse do you insist on making things for Russia?

 

[Borg Refinery]

BR #108
- amen -
BUT !!
Problem is, how can we solve the activist judges problem? Where do you draw the line?

An independent unbiased panel would pick the judges and choose only judges who VOW to be non-partisan and to rule in the interests of justice and the law ONLY. They should be thoroughly vetted.

Didn't several of them assert or imply they accepted Roe, and would not overturn it? If so, did they not perjure their testimony before congress? And if so is that not grounds for action against them? - OR ! - Is the updated rule: "Nobody is above the law, except Supreme Court nominees."

No, they didn't say that, they were really careful about their language so as to be able to deny they ever implied anything of the sort. If you look at what they said closely, they acted as rules lawyers with their words - it's all hinged on the technicalities of the things they said. I explained that above wrt Gorsuch's words just for example - the ones that Shiftless posted.

It's the law of the land - but that doesn't mean the law of the land can't be changed. If it's unconstitutional then the law of the land changes de facto. Do you see my point? None of their replies perjure them, they were careful about how they worded it. A lot of people fell for it, sadly.

They said so under oath. Lying under oath on a matter germane to the inquiry is perjury. They're perjurers, criminals. And yet now they populate the highest law court in the United States of America.

It's a very high bar to prove ANYONE is lying about ANYTHING. How can you prove it was an intentional untruth? You can't, it's almost impossible, they rules lawyered their replies if you look at them closely, they did this deliberately. They were misleading and highly unscrupulous, but it's too high a bar to actually say they lied about anything in specific.

- PIFFLE ! -
They are wrong-wing reactionaries, pseudo-cons. And they are traitors to their People and perjurers of their oaths.

Agreed.

That's what I've been saying - they aren't textualists or originalists, they are activist hacks; biased and partisan and not fit for judging. That's been my point all along - but to prove they deliberately lied about something is really hard, they didn't outright lie in their replies if you look at what they said there, thus they did not perjure themselves.

IMHO, if you tried to impeach them based on that you'd fail, because they were careful about how they worded their replies. These guys are professional con artists.

T #111
Meaning, if it's so, wouldn't Baldwin himself have suspected it? And therefore if he didn't, is it less likely to be true?

Anyway, how about some good news?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley on Friday said that Russia has "really suffered a lot" in Ukraine and urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war.
"The Russian casualties — last time I reported out on it publicly, I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it's significantly well over 100,000 now," Milley said at a news conference alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in Germany, providing a slight update on a figure the top US general offered in November.
Milley said that the "tremendous amount of casualties" suffered by Russia included "regular military, and also their mercenaries in the Wagner Group and other type forces that are fighting with the Russians."
"Putin could end this war today," Milley said, "It's turning into an absolute catastrophe for Russia."

Top US general says Ukraine war has become an 'absolute catastrophe' for Russia, estimating it's suffered 'significantly well over' 100,000 casualties

"This is a very, very bloody war, and there's significant casualties on both sides," Milley said, while urging Putin to end the fighting.

news.yahoo.com

I sincerely appreciate JCS Milley's words here. But I think there's more he could do. For example, if I could, I'd tell President Biden & or Secretary Austin to try a carrot & stick approach with Putin. Tell Putin, if you drag out this carnage with no realistic prospect of victory, even after the war the Western world will marginalize Russia. You've already strangled your Gazprom $cash $cow. How much worse do you insist on making things for Russia?

Putin might be dead according to Zelenskyy.

 

[sear]

"They are textualists and originalists" BR #110

"they aren't textualists or originalists" BR #113

No worried BR. I think I've got it now. At your pace it's sometimes a struggle for me to keep up.
My pet peeve is, generations ago Republicans / the GOP earned a reputation for being genuine conservatives. The horrendous problem is the GOP has been hijacked by charlatans. And the Republicans now are traitorous, treacherous pseudo-cons. Somehow miraculously they retain the benefit of the conservative label. But by keeping the label they disparage and degrade fiscal and political conservatism. If they want to bash up their own car that's up to them. But it's MY car they've driven over the precipice.

"An independent unbiased panel would pick the judges and choose only judges who VOW to be non-partisan and to rule in the interests of justice and the law ONLY. They should be thoroughly vetted." BR #113

I surely do appreciate a thoughtful, orderly, logical thought process. And I'm not sure there's a different formula that would have a substantially greater prospect of success.
The problem is that's ostensibly what we have now. Our entire judiciary is "supposed" to be unbiased. And the bipartisan vetting panel, the congressional hearing is supposed to be unbiased as well.

Judicial nominations, not the only issue where this problem manifests. Gerrymandering voting districts is a persistent problem. It has occurred to me, perhaps we should leave it up to simple geometry, an orthogonal grid. "What fools these mortals be!"

"IMHO, if you tried to impeach them based on that you'd fail, because they were careful about how they worded their replies. These guys are professional con artists." BR #113

Powerful incentive for future vetters to structure their inquiries so that if the candidate lies, the perjury can be prosecuted successfully.

"Putin might be dead according to Zelenskyy." BR

"God is dead" -Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" - God

There are some rumors that Putin is ailing. I deduce Putin is still in command, even if weakened by illness & War. There's a glimmer of hope from Gen. Mark Milley post #112. But I think Putin's going for broke here, and if he can't have Ukraine outright, he'll leave to Ukrainians a smoldering crater full of corpses.

 

[Borg Refinery]

Sear, this is the entirety of what I said in #110:

But none of them believe in precedents, they are either 'textualists' or 'originalists' so de facto they don't accept precedents.

For the record, I think textualism is the only way a Supreme Court judge should ever rule. I've always maintained that, it just happens that none of them are proper textualists in the first place, but I don't believe in activist judges of any stripe, whether liberals who believe in precedent / case law or originalists who believe in all kinds of insane stuff.

C'mon, you can't say I didn't make it clear from the off EXACTLY what I thought of their principles. I never said they were true originalists or textualists, just that they say they are.

There is a difference, y'know.

 

[sear]

My bad. No mischief intended on my part. I was merely trying to sort out the intended meaning. Mission Accomplished (this time for real, GWB).

The term I'm more familiar with is "strict constructionist", along with "original intent". After centuries of time, and an absolute revolution in society-evolving technology, that in my opinion must be tempered with evolutionary pragmatism.

As an example I'm trying to test them to the standard of the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade. I really can't find any legitimate basis, other than their own personal preference. That means 5 liars on SCOTUS can inflict life-changing adversity on a nation of over 300 million.

- That's difficult for me to comprehend.
- Turns out "justice" is merely a title, NOT what precedent says we have rational justification for expecting from these traitors.

 

[Shiftless2]

No, they didn't say that, they were really careful about their language ...

They're called "weasel words". Not my comment but a quote from our counsel (senior partner of one of the largest law firms in the country).

 

[sear]

Alright you two.
I know it doesn't happen often, but you guys have me thinking.

It's not like the reversal of Roe caught the Dems. by surprise. It's precisely why at the congressional hearing all those questions specifically about Roe were asked in the first place.

Is there a reason a written questionnaire, worded by legal experts to eliminate weasel words, cannot be integrated into the vetting process?

Short of that, same format of questioning the nominee as always, but read the carefully crafted, strategically worded questions slowly, verbatim?

Bottom line, these treacherous liars are nibbling away at Liberty, my nation, the Constitution. Nope. Not sure why. Evidently, just for fun, sick and tired of all that greatness we've endured.

It's unimaginable that they're deliberately doing it. It's inexcusable that they're doing it with impunity. Santos' Sickos are a greater danger to the United States of America than Vlady Putin.

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts ... the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

 

[Borg Refinery]

IMHO, and it's just my opinion as an ignorant foreigner on a foreign message board ( ), the whole United States constitution, justice system, both chambers of the legislature and the executive needs total and utter root and branch reform.

That's just my opinion of course - and the US needs to replace the electoral college system as well, that's where it would start, for me at least, but of course everyone's mileage varies.

 

[Shiftless2]

... the US needs to replace the electoral college system as well, that's where it would start,...

I know I always thought that the Electoral College was instituted to equalize power among the states - i.e., give at least some power to what are now commonly known as flyover states. However, that's not the case. It was instituted to give more power to the slave states.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

time.com