Comments on: The Wall of Hacks http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6154 peter Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:55:48 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6154 Jim: went to the site -- looks like we won't do much sparring, I couldn't find anything there to disagree with -- thanks -- Jim: went to the site — looks like we won’t do much sparring, I couldn’t find anything there to disagree with — thanks –

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6140 peter Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:12:14 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6140 Thanks Jim, I would be happy to -- Thanks Jim, I would be happy to –

]]> By: Jim Voigt http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6139 Jim Voigt Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:33:52 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6139 Pete, If you think Bush v Gore was a bad decision, you should be BANISHED from ever posting here again!!!! Just kidding. Good dialogue. I may post on the eminent domain subject on my blog one of these days. Perhaps we could spar there for a while. Pete,

If you think Bush v Gore was a bad decision, you should be BANISHED from ever posting here again!!!!

Just kidding. Good dialogue. I may post on the eminent domain subject on my blog one of these days. Perhaps we could spar there for a while.

]]> By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Why 78 Votes Isn’t Good Enough http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6136 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Why 78 Votes Isn’t Good Enough Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:08:10 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6136 [...] Some regulars from both the right and the left have gently chided me for putting up a Wall of Hacks and calling the no votes of 22 Democrats against John Roberts an act of craven pandering. Perhaps we simply disagree, or maybe I didn’t make my point well enough, but the fact is, regardless of how he performs on the court, as a nominee John Roberts is a once-in-a-lifetime home run. To vote against him, I maintain, is to say I will vote against anyone who is nominated by a Republican, and that shows a real ignorance of the consequences of presidential elections. [...] [...] Some regulars from both the right and the left have gently chided me for putting up a Wall of Hacks and calling the no votes of 22 Democrats against John Roberts an act of craven pandering. Perhaps we simply disagree, or maybe I didn’t make my point well enough, but the fact is, regardless of how he performs on the court, as a nominee John Roberts is a once-in-a-lifetime home run. To vote against him, I maintain, is to say I will vote against anyone who is nominated by a Republican, and that shows a real ignorance of the consequences of presidential elections. [...]

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6132 peter Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:24:23 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6132 Thanks Mark -- always glad to be here -- It's interesting that you mention Bainbridge -- that's the other conservative site I go to, where I post under the name one eyed man (as in "In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King") -- Thanks Mark — always glad to be here –

It’s interesting that you mention Bainbridge — that’s the other conservative site I go to, where I post under the name one eyed man (as in “In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King”) –

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6130 Mark Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:13:45 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6130 I'm not sure why people feel the need to attempt to dampen dissent on their web pages, peter; it's never made sense to me. I have had a few posters here, but only a very few, who have felt the need to engage in ad hominem attacks on me and others, but I never banned them, I just ignored, or, yes, in some cases ridiculed them, though I don't think unfairly, until they went away or back to silent trolling. However, my intelligent comments from the Left from folks like you or our good friend Fargus seem to make this site much more lively, and I'm sure my regulars would agree. After all, how enlightening is it to just have me put up a post and then everyone say, Hell, yeah! Damn straight! (and I think we all visit sites that, even when quite good, are full of this sort of sycophantic cocooning). God knows many, many times the discussion in the comments is far better than the content on the front page (when you post as often as I do, you're going to put up your fair share of clinkers, and I'm okay with that). I will ban people for two reasons only - obscenity (hey, I've got family members who read this blog!) that goes overboard, and personal attacks on others (not on me - if I can't stand attacks, I shouldn't be blogging about politics, for heaven's sake) that get too nasty (I had one person a while back who insisted on taking personal shots at Professor Bainbridge, not for his opinions, but for being Catholic). All of which is to go the long way round to saying you're always welcome here... I’m not sure why people feel the need to attempt to dampen dissent on their web pages, peter; it’s never made sense to me. I have had a few posters here, but only a very few, who have felt the need to engage in ad hominem attacks on me and others, but I never banned them, I just ignored, or, yes, in some cases ridiculed them, though I don’t think unfairly, until they went away or back to silent trolling. However, my intelligent comments from the Left from folks like you or our good friend Fargus seem to make this site much more lively, and I’m sure my regulars would agree.

After all, how enlightening is it to just have me put up a post and then everyone say, Hell, yeah! Damn straight! (and I think we all visit sites that, even when quite good, are full of this sort of sycophantic cocooning). God knows many, many times the discussion in the comments is far better than the content on the front page (when you post as often as I do, you’re going to put up your fair share of clinkers, and I’m okay with that).

I will ban people for two reasons only – obscenity (hey, I’ve got family members who read this blog!) that goes overboard, and personal attacks on others (not on me – if I can’t stand attacks, I shouldn’t be blogging about politics, for heaven’s sake) that get too nasty (I had one person a while back who insisted on taking personal shots at Professor Bainbridge, not for his opinions, but for being Catholic).

All of which is to go the long way round to saying you’re always welcome here…

]]> By: Knemon http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6122 Knemon Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:24:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6122 78 votes is actually pretty damn good. Yes yes I know, outrage, hacks, and all that, but Roberts is probably positioned about halfway between lukewarm dead-center (sorta like Thomas Friedman in foreign policy, though I have no idea who his legal equivalent would be) and wignuttery - so by an equal and opposite reaction, the nay votes would begin about halway through (or down, depending on how you look at it) the Dem. caucus. Which is what happened. I'd draw a little diagram with X's and -'s but those never come out right in comment boxes. 78 votes is actually pretty damn good. Yes yes I know, outrage, hacks, and all that, but Roberts is probably positioned about halfway between lukewarm dead-center (sorta like Thomas Friedman in foreign policy, though I have no idea who his legal equivalent would be) and wignuttery – so by an equal and opposite reaction, the nay votes would begin about halway through (or down, depending on how you look at it) the Dem. caucus. Which is what happened.

I’d draw a little diagram with X’s and -’s but those never come out right in comment boxes.

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6121 peter Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:17:51 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6121 Jim: you are indeed correct – here we will have to agree to disagree. I think it’s valid to ask how a candidate feels about, for example, the eminent domain case (which, in my opinion, is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, along with Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore, and Roe v. Wade. I support abortion rights, but I think Roe v. Wade is horrible case law.) However, there is a lot to be said for not confining a Supreme Court judge to specific agenda or boxing him in. Mark: totally agreed. I believe that the level of statesmanship in this Congress, on both sides, is as low as I have ever seen it. As an aside, I would note that one of the great things about this website is that it allows me to post. A few days ago I went to another site (redstate.org) and started debating the moderator of one of the posts. I was civil and obeyed all of the posting rules. I thought I was close to proving him wrong – he was on the mat – and then I was banned from the site and could post no more. I thought: whenever you have someone who can make a reasoned argument from the left, they turn off the microphone. It was as though they wanted to pick weak opponents so they could feel vindicated in their arguments. There were a lot of chest-thumpers on that site, but also some intelligent posters. It was like Hannity-Colmes: match a bullying conservative with a wimpy liberal, and you get predictable results. If you are going to fight, at least fight fair. Jim: you are indeed correct – here we will have to agree to disagree. I think it’s valid to ask how a candidate feels about, for example, the eminent domain case (which, in my opinion, is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, along with Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore, and Roe v. Wade. I support abortion rights, but I think Roe v. Wade is horrible case law.) However, there is a lot to be said for not confining a Supreme Court judge to specific agenda or boxing him in.

Mark: totally agreed. I believe that the level of statesmanship in this Congress, on both sides, is as low as I have ever seen it.

As an aside, I would note that one of the great things about this website is that it allows me to post. A few days ago I went to another site (redstate.org) and started debating the moderator of one of the posts. I was civil and obeyed all of the posting rules. I thought I was close to proving him wrong – he was on the mat – and then I was banned from the site and could post no more. I thought: whenever you have someone who can make a reasoned argument from the left, they turn off the microphone. It was as though they wanted to pick weak opponents so they could feel vindicated in their arguments. There were a lot of chest-thumpers on that site, but also some intelligent posters. It was like Hannity-Colmes: match a bullying conservative with a wimpy liberal, and you get predictable results. If you are going to fight, at least fight fair.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6115 Mark Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:27:18 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6115 Clint, good point on Feingold...and peter, I'll say this much, you lay your case out well...though I'm afraid the commenters around here, both left and right, have a bucketload more integrity than the members of that exclusive club of 100... Clint, good point on Feingold…and peter, I’ll say this much, you lay your case out well…though I’m afraid the commenters around here, both left and right, have a bucketload more integrity than the members of that exclusive club of 100…

]]> By: Jim Voigt http://informedspeculation.com/2005/09/29/the-wall-of-hacks/comment-page-1/#comment-6114 Jim Voigt Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:21:34 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=2107#comment-6114 Pete, eminent domain is a perfect example, as you noted. Emminent domain, local rule quick-take in particular, is a matter that will almost certainly be heard in the Supreme Court within Robert's term. There are several district and appellate level cases that have the makings of being granted cert. As such, it would be entirely inappropriate for Roberts to comment on such an issue, as he would be laying down the functional equivalent of stare decisis without ever having heard the cases. I believe where you and I differ is in the belief that Senators are entitled to a "preview" of how a judicial candidate will vote on any particular issue, no matter how vaguely framed that issue is in an attempt to avoid implicating a particular case. I say they are not. Perhaps we will simply agree to disagree on that point. Pete, eminent domain is a perfect example, as you noted. Emminent domain, local rule quick-take in particular, is a matter that will almost certainly be heard in the Supreme Court within Robert’s term. There are several district and appellate level cases that have the makings of being granted cert. As such, it would be entirely inappropriate for Roberts to comment on such an issue, as he would be laying down the functional equivalent of stare decisis without ever having heard the cases.

I believe where you and I differ is in the belief that Senators are entitled to a “preview” of how a judicial candidate will vote on any particular issue, no matter how vaguely framed that issue is in an attempt to avoid implicating a particular case. I say they are not. Perhaps we will simply agree to disagree on that point.

]]>