Tweet
It's a direct refutation of Drake's premise from Sunstein's actual words.
-
Umm, if I made any assertion at all in that post, it was that Sunstein believes that the Supreme Court can recognize economic rights if it wants to, not that he necessarily thinks they should. As Kuci pointed out, there's a passage that states exactly that. -
The author of your book review says that these "economic rights" might not even be enforceable (in fact, the review does a pretty bad job of trying to represent what Sunstein is saying). But more importantly, Sunstein explicitly says that he thinks this should be a legislative, not judicial, business. Once more, your "radicalism" is nothing but standard issue welfare state capitalism."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I don't even know what point you're trying to make now, if there is one.Comment
-
1. That the rights that Courts may recognize in terms of economic justice may not be enforceable, except in the narrowest matters (i.e. more equal funding for public schools). Read that whole thing you posted. It explains.
2. That Sunstein explicitly said that courts shouldn't be in the business of recognizing economic rights. I have a direct quote of that. There's also a direct quote of Obama explicitly saying that courts shouldn't be doing that. They believe in larger welfare states, but once again, that's a pretty dumb definition of radicalism."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Had dinner with some more of my Republican friends on Saturday, and was pleased with their reaction. Both are rip**** pissed off about Palin (moreso what Palin represents than Palin herself). They're not going to vote Obama, but McCain (and the national Republican party as currently constructed) is dead to them.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Good enough.They're not going to vote Obama
Comment
-
My "radicalism"? I haven't labeled anyone in this thread a "radical", not even Ayers. I've only used the word "radical" once, in fact, and that was in reference to Obama's own comments about the Warren Court's lack of radical action. Once again, you're countering an imagined argument that no one actually made. It's things like this that make you such a bore to talk to.Once more, your "radicalism" is nothing but standard issue welfare state capitalism. ...
They believe in larger welfare states, but once again, that's a pretty dumb definition of radicalism.Comment
-
You really want to get into this semantics nonsense? You described him as "far out of the mainstream in American society." No, he's not."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I described some of his views on wealth redistribution as "far out of the mainstream in American society." Given that 84% of American are opposed to wealth redistribution (according to Gallup), I stand by that assessment.Comment
-
"Wealth redistribution" = progressive taxation + social welfare programs. 84% are certainly not opposed to that."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
If Obama really agreed with your assessment of how mainstream support for wealth redistribution is amongst the American populace, he wouldn't have backpedaled away from his answer to Joe the Plumber or his answer in this 2001 interview.
Comment
-
What do you believe "wealth redistribution" means, exactly? Do you think that Obama's a commie?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Reagan began the modern-day redistribution of wealth, when he instituted supply-side economics, giving huge tax breaks to this nations most wealthy people. Of course, Reagan didn't want to "spread the wealth;" he wanted to concentrate the wealth.Originally posted by Ramo
What do you believe "wealth redistribution" means, exactly? Do you think that Obama's a commie?Comment
-
That just tells me that at least 70% of Americans have no clue what wealth redistribution means.Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
I described some of his views on wealth redistribution as "far out of the mainstream in American society." Given that 84% of American are opposed to wealth redistribution (according to Gallup), I stand by that assessment.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
I doubt he's a communist. Probably just a Continental-style social democrat.Originally posted by Ramo
What do you believe "wealth redistribution" means, exactly? Do you think that Obama's a commie?
It's no surprise that a large swathe of the American populace is ignorant. They did vote for Bush and Obama, after all.That just tells me that at least 70% of Americans have no clue what wealth redistribution means.Comment
Comment