Morning News: Obama Selects a Judge to Replace Dead Scalia, and Something to Remember on Saint Patrick's Day

Comments

1
There was no "third world" until the Cold War, when the term was coined to refer to countries that did not ally themselves with either the Communists or the Capitalists.

It has nothing to do with colonization, although several third world countries were formerly colonized. However, other "third world" countries include Austria, Sweden, Finland, etc., countries which were not colonized in the sense you mean, and are quite prosperous.
2
Michael Hechter called it internal colonialism, and it enveloped Wales and Scotland as well. The Irish, Scots, and Welsh would likely argue with the "internal" part.
3
Raindrop avatar test.
5
Good Morning Charles,
Why the phrase 'dead Scalia' in your posting title again? It isn't creative. You used it once before. I am to understand that you loathed (past tense as yes, he's dead) Scalia. I get that. I do wonder whether or not you've actually read any of his actual SC opinions. He was a prodigious writer. Whatever the case, I suggest trying something a tad more clever regarding the story du jour that is, the Supreme Court selection and perhaps reading some of Scalia's writing.

As to whether Obama, the son of a Kenyan & an American outmaneuvered the GOP well, here's an interesting take:

https://newrepublic.com/article/131689/o…

For the record, I am in favor of having Garland reviewed by the Senate.
7
I love Charles' morning news. However, this line:
Alaska Dispatch News says that the GOP-dominated Senate Finance Committee does not want no new taxes no matter what the what be
wut?
8
"Moments before, a car was seen at this very scene attempting to do something that often works in movies like The Fast and the Furious. The car's driver had it in mind to make a fast getaway. He put the pedal to the metal and so himself as really going somewhere. But he almost immediately wound up in a crash. Realty sucks."

Somebody, quick... Give this man a Pullitzer!
9
Most of these things have nothing to do with supply and demand

I agree with the larger point you are making, but I'm going to quibble with this statement.

You are correct that the problem can not be addressed by increasing supply. However, this is not because the laws of supply and demand don't apply. It's because there is an ENORMOUS amount of wealth creating an ENORMOUS surplus of demand, and given limits of space and the amount of time it takes to build buildings, there is no realistic way the supply can overcome this surplus in order to start driving prices down again.

Theoretically, if you magically and instantaneously increased the supply of real estate by a multiple of 10, you would see prices drop significantly.
10
Charles, is proof reading below your exalted status at The Stranger? We all know that the powers that be there because you think seem to think deep thoughts or something. And we understand that it's a pretty cushy gig to write mostly unreadable drivel with no concern that someone may call you on its pointlessness. But when you do the morning news, can you at least correct the typos in it before posting please?
11
@7) the illogical line was inspired by this statement, which is in the story:

Sen. Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks, added: ā€œIā€™m not getting into the tax business while I know government is still too big. How do I know? Because we cut a whole bunch of fat off of it and nothing happened.ā€
12
@11, Charles, We are not mind readers. We can make certain inferences and even play along with your over the top flourishes, but for fuck's sake if you're going to write something like that then include the reference so we can figure out what you're blathering about. Or are you just covering for the woeful lack of copy editing this morning? It seems more likely that your article is just rife with grammatical errors and typos than it is any sort of creative writing exercise.
13
feels to me like the Senate's outmaneuvered the son of a Kenyan. they told him if Hillz wins, they'll affirm Garland. so they made Obama's pick for him. it should have been someone far younger than 63. Srinivasan is 47.

Clarence Thomas has been on the court 25 years, he was 42 when he was nominated! he'll be warming that seat for another decade at least.

in 25 years Garland will be 88. think he'll still be there?
14
Thank you for your post about Ireland, Charles. Does the average celebrant of St. Paddy's know the history of colonized Ireland and the miseries that forced Irish immigration? Or do people just think it's green beer day? Honest, not rhetorical question.
15
@13: My god man, do you ever stop obsessing about everyone's age?
16
I don't have a problem with older Supreme Court nominees. They may turn out to be unexpectedly awful, and dying off sooner rather than later isn't a bad thing. (Scalia was expectedly awful.) Hillary will most likely be able to name a young liberal replacement for RBG.
17
I've tried, but I do not get the extra arms thing. Help?
18
@17 My guess: the implication is that if each person had more arms they'd take more, leaving the country more poor. As opposed to building more, leaving the country less poor. But it's such a strange point that I'm probably misunderstanding.
19
Which is a great lens to see density in Seattle! If everyone here had more arms, would we be richer or poorer? In my mind: richer, by far.
20
@13, Garland isn't a bad choice, and Obama is probably (correctly) calculating this move will further splinter the Republicans along moderate and extremist lines, and create a headache for GOP senators up for re-election this fall. Liberals will have plenty of chances to shift the court leftward in the coming years -- the GOP-controlled Senate's refusal to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities will further marginalize them nationally, and demographics are already working against them. It's better in the long-term to assist the GOP with their self-destruction now and wait for better opportunities to liberalize the court in the future.

Besides, it's such a crass, cynical move by the Senate to say they will approve Garland during Obama's term if Hillary wins, rather than their stated motives to allow the voters to have their say. If they were true to their word they would wait for Hillary (and, possibly, a much more liberal Senate) to replace Scalia. There are still another 8 months (!!!) before the election to make this cynicism abundantly clear to voters.
21
@15: when the GOP stops, sure. but they're playing a long game, and Dems don't appear to know they're in one most of the time.

Roberts was nominated when he was 50.
22
Could Obama withdraw Garland as a nominee, if Hillary wins? In other words, force the GOP choose between Garland nor, or a potentially more liberal nominee, should the Dems win in November?
23
(I meant Garland now, not nor)
24
@22

I thought about how that could totally fuck the Republicans over.
25
Except Alaska's not broke, because we have $55b in the Permanent Fund and another $10b in the Constitutional Budget Reserve. This state is going to hell in a handbasket and I can't wait to GTFO.
26
@22, He could totally do that (Poor Judge Garland).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu…