Anonymous Op-Ed from the NYT

[Cow Poke]

So one media outlet said "big news" and another one said "not big news" and I'm supposed to suddenly ditch the NYT?

No, you hang on for dear life believing what you want to believe. And we can do with a little less tone, mister.

Media outlets are subject to hyperbole - it gets eyeballs. Especially when it is an opinion about the impact of a new "bombshell."

So far, it's just a lot of gossip, and you're lapping it up.

[Cow Poke]

Pence is an ideologue, but he does not suffer from Trump's personality flaws. He would do less damage, but my real concern is that he has a real chance to win in 2020. With more aging liberal justices than conservative ones, we cannot afford to have the court skew by yet another vote to the right. We need someone in 2020 that will help restore balance to the court. Trump and Pence are simply going to keep sending it further and further to the right.

One can only hope.

[Cow Poke]

The view that Pence wrote it is based primarily on the use of the fairly rare word "lodestar" in the piece, a Pence favorite.

Well, then, somebody git a rope!

[carpedm9587]

No, you hang on for dear life believing what you want to believe. And we can do with a little less tone, mister.

Hey - you're the one making the suggestion...

So far, it's just a lot of gossip, and you're lapping it up.

I have no idea what "it" in that sentence refers to...

[carpedm9587]

One can only hope.

No...it would be bad. I don't like a left-leaning court, and I don't like a right-leaning court. I like a balanced court. Trump just unbalanced it badly. Replacing an RGB with another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch would be a disaster to maintaining a balanced court, IMO, and it would last for decades.

I know the right would cheer if this happened. The left would likewise cheer if "their way" dominated. Everyone wants "their way." I prefer a meeting of balanced views to arrive at a well-discussed, reasoned, and constitutional view - not one that is based on partisan preconceptions.

[carpedm9587]

Well, then, somebody git a rope!

It could just as easily be someone who intentionally used the word to divert suspicion.

Bottom line is - we don't know. Apparently the White House accepts it as coming from an actual person in the administration. But none of us know who...

[Terraceth]

No...it would be bad. I don't like a left-leaning court, and I don't like a right-leaning court. I like a balanced court. Trump just unbalanced it badly. Replacing an RGB with another Kavanaugh or Gorsuch would be a disaster to maintaining a balanced court, IMO, and it would last for decades.

I know the right would cheer if this happened. The left would likewise cheer if "their way" dominated. Everyone wants "their way." I prefer a meeting of balanced views to arrive at a well-discussed, reasoned, and constitutional view - not one that is based on partisan preconceptions.

Overturn Roe v Wade and I would be quite satisfied with a balanced court. Until then, I want it as "right-leaning" as possible.

[Cow Poke]

It could just as easily be someone who intentionally used the word to divert suspicion.

EGGzackly!!!! Or somebody at the Times who wanted to frame Trump and made the whole thing up. Maybe Jason is back inventing stories for them!

Bottom line is - we don't know. Apparently the White House accepts it as coming from an actual person in the administration. But none of us know who...

And that may be all that was intended - to spook Trump into.... what do you call it when you think everybody's out to get you?

[Cow Poke]

I have no idea what "it" in that sentence refers to...

At least I didn't say "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"!

[Cow Poke]

No...it would be bad.

For you and your ilk, yes.


(CP always wanted to use that word "ilk", but does not really believe that Carp is ilky)

A court of strict constructionists would be WAY better than a court of judicial activists.

[Terraceth]

For you and your ilk, yes.


(CP always wanted to use that word "ilk", but does not really believe that Carp is ilky)

A court of strict constructionists would be WAY better than a court of judicial activists.

A court of strict constructionists would rule that the government can censor all non-spoken communications on the Internet because it is neither speech nor press.

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." -Antonin Scalia

[Cow Poke]

A court of strict constructionists would rule that the government can censor all non-spoken communications on the Internet because it is neither speech nor press.

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." -Antonin Scalia

Yeah, that!

[carpedm9587]

Overturn Roe v Wade and I would be quite satisfied with a balanced court. Until then, I want it as "right-leaning" as possible.

We disagree.

[carpedm9587]

EGGzackly!!!! Or somebody at the Times who wanted to frame Trump and made the whole thing up. Maybe Jason is back inventing stories for them!

I see no reason to entertain this as a serious possibility.

And that may be all that was intended - to spook Trump into.... what do you call it when you think everybody's out to get you?

Trump was already paranoid. This will certainly fuel that.

[carpedm9587]

At least I didn't say "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"!

So - no explanation...?