Brock Beauchamp
-
Posts
32,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
328
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp
-
Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion
Brock Beauchamp replied to Willihammer's topic in The Sports Bar
With that said, I plan to ask my wife about it tonight. I'm sure she knows why this was done, as she clerked several murder trials in the past. -
Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion
Brock Beauchamp replied to Willihammer's topic in The Sports Bar
One thing to keep in mind is that we don't understand law. What we colloquially consider "manslaughter" may not be the definition of the crime in any particular state. All states draft unique laws for not only what constitutes manslaughter but the classification of 1, 2, 3, etc. Some charges can slide downward, others than not. Law is a complicated thing and even an attorney can't really tell you Minnesota law if they only practice in, say, Missouri. The terminology and classifications are likely different. -
It's my opinion the more organization money we can remove from politics, the better off we'll be going forward. Corporations, organizations like the NRA, unions, all of 'em.
-
And, let's be honest, she has a vagina. We can argue the effects of that on the presidential vote but it's damned near impossible to deny there is an effect.
-
And I debate whether that's an actual step backward. The end result has been mildly negative because we haven't put contemporary measures back in place but that's on the legislative branch, not the judicial. Because, when viewed inversely, the court's ruling was in protection of the states. It wasn't fair to punish them for past transgressions without an option to appeal. Simply put, it isn't fair to punish Alabama for things their government did in the 50s and not apply those same rules to Minnesota... And then, to top it off, to apply those punishments in perpetuity.
-
Dunno, that was a bit of a special case. They didn't entirely overturn the act, they had issues with how it was written and how it targeted specific states in perpetuity (going from hazy memory here so I may be missing some details). Congress could have simply re-written the law and put it back in place. The court had issues with how the legislation was administered, not that it existed. And, really, it was a fair ruling. We can't specifically target Texas for mis-steps they made in the 1950s and 60s and call it a day... Forever.
-
Maybe, but what's the average duration between the two decisions (the ruling and the overrule)? I'd wager its median point is in multiple decades, not single years. And most rulings of that kind skew toward progressive movement, not conservatism. The court rarely goes "backward" once a ruling is in place, though Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern (and, again, probably because it's a four-decade old ruling).
-
I don't know whether we'll see a legit recession but I know someone who works in purchasing at a major retailer and their sales slumped almost to the minute with election results. The company is worried that it could extend through the holiday season and a soft holiday could really damage retailers, many of which are already on shaky ground.
-
Sure, but that has little to nothing to do with the Supreme Court, which was the topic being discussed.
-
And for all the fretting over a conservative justice being added to the court, I'm not convinced it's an earth-shattering thing to happen. I don't like it happening, but it may not be a crushing blow should RBG hang on for four more years and Trump only gets to appoint one justice. Over time, justices turn liberal.* Even Scalia softened a bit over time. Roberts is damned near a liberal already and he's "only" 61 years old. Alito isn't far behind him. As justices age, most seem to focus more intensely on legacy. They don't want to make rulings that will render them a historical embarrassment to future courts, forcing justices to overturn their decisions. As a conservative justice rolls in, some of the older conservative justices will continue to soften and, hopefully, something resembling a balance will be maintained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices *excepting Clarence Thomas, whom most of us can agree is an embarrassment to the court and a terrible human being
-
Protections can absolutely be overturned. As for a conservative SCOTUS overruling the previous court decision: 1. The court rarely overrules itself and almost never overrules itself within a few years of the original decision. 2. The court rarely overrules itself and removes protection from a class of people in the process. In fact, I don't know if it has ever happened.
-
It would require a Constitutional amendment to overturn. That requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of states to ratify. I'm not worried about it. Justices, conservative or liberal, take their jobs very seriously. They're not wild west gun-slingers, meting out random justice as they go along. Precedence counts and it counts for a lot in the eyes of a judge. They're not rule-makers, they're rule-interpreters. And they give each other the respect that if you don't overturn all my rulings willy-nilly, I won't do the same to you. Look at Iowa. The state justices ruled that gay marriage was legal. The public was so outraged that they voted out the entire court in the next election and replaced them with conservative justices. And what did those justices do with the gay marriage ruling? Not a damned thing.
-
Same sex marriage is pointless. It CANNOT be overturned. I don't give a rat's ass what a president says about it.
-
It's simultaneously breathtaking and depressing. Sure, liberal progressives have caused their own issues over the years but the stagnation of much of the middle class is pretty squarely on the shoulders of the GOP and their post-Carter policies.
-
I was thinking of jumping deeper into Amazon yesterday - the stock was down 25%, I think - but decided I don't have enough financial flexibility to really do that right now. Damned kitchen remodel. Meh.
-
I haven't seen any problems (and I've been hitting the site off and on all morning) but if it continues, let me know.
-
Come on, you two, cool it down a bit. You've been posting together for years. I let it go for awhile because tempers are running hot and while I trust you'll both tone it down in time, now is probably that time.
-
I think winner take all is contributing to our current polarization. It allows Clinton to ignore the real problems of Kansas and Trump to ignore the real problems of Baltimore. Neither state is or will be on the table for the opposition so screw 'em. Go pander to your base. The other, and more damaging, side effect is that we allow a 51% majority vote in a place like Ohio to decide our next president. That's madness and needs to change. Not only shouldn't Ohio have that kind of outsized influence, it forces candidates to focus on places like Ohio while completely ignoring Minnesota and Montana, which have equally as important problems to sort out.
-
Which is why I'm not necessarily against the EC but I *am* against winner-take-all. It means that if a state isn't in play, a candidate can completely ignore it. There's no reason for a liberal like Clinton to push into a place like Utah - which was ripe for a shift to the left this election - because she has a near-zero chance of winning the majority vote and therefore will only waste her time by visiting. But if two of Utah's six votes are in play for her, that gives her reason to not only visit the state but perhaps alter her platform because if she does, she won't only pick up an extra vote from Utah, she might get a smattering more from Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas, etc. The inverse applies to conservatives and urban areas.
-
The bolded is my biggest problem with the EC. Candidates largely ignore places like CA (especially rural CA) because they're a given. The same goes for Texas and much of the Midwest. Instead, candidates hammer away at Florida, Ohio, and other traditional swing states. Why are we assuming the problems of Floridians are synonymous with those of Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc.? Swing states and how drastically they impact the election topics and candidates' time is not a good system for a nation as large and diverse as the United States.
-
This "rural" thing doesn't really fly with me. Nearly 10% of the nation's rural population lives in... wait for it... California. Another 6-7% live in Texas. Sure, we need to pay more attention to rural America. I'm all in on that idea. But, again, does the EC really do that? The current breakdown of the EC means the big red middle of America goes bright red every election, allowing both candidates to almost entirely ignore the region. How does that serve the rural population, either in red states or blue?
-
Nope. I'm getting skewered in the market.
-
Scottrade here. It's fine. I've used E-Trade in the past and it was also fine.
-
Imagine being a Republican in Minnesota. If you're under the age of 60, your vote for president has never counted. Not once. You may as well leave the box unchecked every four years because you're irrelevant. That's disheartening. And I don't get how the EC prevents states from being ignored. I'd say the opposite is true. When did Clinton last visit Minnesota? Trump didn't bother to come until the election was almost here, either... and he never left the airport. How do you think Idaho voters feel about their issues being addressed during presidential elections? Montana? Candidates ignore states all the time because they're "in the bag". If that's not a sign that our representation is skewed - particularly when those same candidates basically live in Ohio for three months - I don't know what is. Put those states in play with Minnesota's EC votes up for grabs in 10% increments and then observe how often candidates swing by to visit us.
-
Sure, 270 to win would have to be discarded in this system. And it's not quite the same as moving to a straight popular vote, as rural states would maintain their slight vote edge.
