4 ms·

>Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. I'd disagree. The complete and absolute infatuation with surveillance by both the Bush's and

>Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. I'd disagree. The complete and absolute infatuation with surveillance by both the Bush's and the Clinton's is the same.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Pessimizer, I think you are wrong, I agree with Stanislav. Republicans don't believe in the right to privacy, they use that as the reason why Texas should be able to restrict dildo sales (among many other things :-)), for instance, and conservatives use their disbelief in privacy to argue they should be able to legislate against consensual sex practices they don't like. Dems generally do support a right to privacy in your home.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Instead of depending on generalizations, I'd say that without Clarence Thomas and Scalia (and also Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter), it would be legal today to record what goes on inside your home without a warrant. So to generalize about conservatives or liberals in this case would probably not be helpful because both the liberal-leaning and the conservative-leaning justices split. What is absolutely true is that the two most right-wing justices were on the side of the Fourth. All I'm saying is 1) that the next person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and the last person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, are both New Democrats who seem hostile to Fourth Amendment defences against surveillance, and 2) that the author of the opinion that protects us from total audio surveillance, and the fiercest defender of the Fourth in the Court is the one currently being replaced. Take it as you will; I'm not hopeful at all, but there's nothing I can do about it anyway. I honestly believe that any justice that Emperor Trump would put on the court would be more likely to preserve that view than not, and the opposite would be true for any Clinton appointment.
  - hola_hola 10y ago
    Trump has no principles and flip-flops every other second so how can you know what he will do?
    - woodman 10y ago
      That is a fair point, but a simple rephrasing sidesteps that and still maintains the thrust of the argument: a justice that readily defers to 4A is more likely to be appointed by an unprincipled flip-flopper than a consistent strong state advocate. It is the same logic that makes the selection of a half empty cylinder rational in a game of Russian roulette, when the alternative option is a full cylinder. A mechanism for a vote of no confidence sure would be nice right now.
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    Obama may be anti-4th, as nearly every President is (being an Executive whose rights are limited by the 4th), but his SCOTUS appointee isn't, at least as seen below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/27/justice-sotomayor-on-her-privacy-opinion-remember-i-was-only-one-of-nine/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- woodman 10y ago
  Conservatives have a pretty obvious hole in their logic, where they both want to legislate morality and reduce the state's ability to enforce such legislation. The modern liberal on the other hand is much more single minded in the expansion of federal responsibility, and logically granting the powers necessary to accomplish said responsibilities (firearm registration, clipper chip, etc). Pretending that it isn't a false choice for a moment, I'd prefer the confused conservative position.
  - askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
    On one hand, it's isn't a false choice -- the reality is that if you want to support a political candidate in the US in 2016, you're making that exact choice. On the other, I totally agree -- they both want to legislate morality. On the gripping hand, I'm forced to wonder if there was a situation where conservatives started burning their garbage in their home, would liberals be OK with it? Or is the "gay sex in the home" thing only relevant because it happens to be the Republicans big fear? assuming it were known but not spread, e.g. people proudly announced burn pits, but captured and buried their exhaust. That's the only way to torture this analogy into shape.
    - woodman 10y ago
      > ...if you want to support a political candidate... That is the false choice, also commonly found in the form "the lesser of two evils" or "the most electable". > That's the only way to torture this analogy into shape. I can think of a better one, better because it actually happened. An anarchist starts making a bunch of noise about how 3d printers enable individuals to produce extremely low quality guns in the privacy of their own homes. Liberals are outraged, propose legislation to ban such activity - then float the lead balloon of 3d printer technology regulation. Like the burning garbage analogy, externalities are used as justification for liberty curtailment, but unlike burning garbage - such externalities are not a certainty (in fact home firearm production has been legal for a very long time). The liberal's real beef is with the threat to the state's authority, the more often the state's regulations are sidestepped - the weaker it appears. So the short answer is this: liberals, like conservatives, are fine with private activities that don't threaten their world views. Unfortunately liberals have a very detailed idea of the way the world should work, whereas the conservative imagination doesn't go much further than approved penis destinations.

>Clinton (DLC) Democrats love surveillance even more than Bushes. I'd disagree. The complete and absolute infatuation with surveillance by both the Bush's and the Clinton's is the same.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

Pessimizer, I think you are wrong, I agree with Stanislav. Republicans don't believe in the right to privacy, they use that as the reason why Texas should be able to restrict dildo sales (among many other things :-)), for instance, and conservatives use their disbelief in privacy to argue they should be able to legislate against consensual sex practices they don't like. Dems generally do support a right to privacy in your home.

pessimizer 10y ago
Instead of depending on generalizations, I'd say that without Clarence Thomas and Scalia (and also Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter), it would be legal today to record what goes on inside your home without a warrant. So to generalize about conservatives or liberals in this case would probably not be helpful because both the liberal-leaning and the conservative-leaning justices split. What is absolutely true is that the two most right-wing justices were on the side of the Fourth. All I'm saying is 1) that the next person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and the last person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, are both New Democrats who seem hostile to Fourth Amendment defences against surveillance, and 2) that the author of the opinion that protects us from total audio surveillance, and the fiercest defender of the Fourth in the Court is the one currently being replaced. Take it as you will; I'm not hopeful at all, but there's nothing I can do about it anyway. I honestly believe that any justice that Emperor Trump would put on the court would be more likely to preserve that view than not, and the opposite would be true for any Clinton appointment.
- hola_hola 10y ago
  Trump has no principles and flip-flops every other second so how can you know what he will do?
  - woodman 10y ago
    That is a fair point, but a simple rephrasing sidesteps that and still maintains the thrust of the argument: a justice that readily defers to 4A is more likely to be appointed by an unprincipled flip-flopper than a consistent strong state advocate. It is the same logic that makes the selection of a half empty cylinder rational in a game of Russian roulette, when the alternative option is a full cylinder. A mechanism for a vote of no confidence sure would be nice right now.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  Obama may be anti-4th, as nearly every President is (being an Executive whose rights are limited by the 4th), but his SCOTUS appointee isn't, at least as seen below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/27/justice-sotomayor-on-her-privacy-opinion-remember-i-was-only-one-of-nine/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
woodman 10y ago
Conservatives have a pretty obvious hole in their logic, where they both want to legislate morality and reduce the state's ability to enforce such legislation. The modern liberal on the other hand is much more single minded in the expansion of federal responsibility, and logically granting the powers necessary to accomplish said responsibilities (firearm registration, clipper chip, etc). Pretending that it isn't a false choice for a moment, I'd prefer the confused conservative position.
- askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
  On one hand, it's isn't a false choice -- the reality is that if you want to support a political candidate in the US in 2016, you're making that exact choice. On the other, I totally agree -- they both want to legislate morality. On the gripping hand, I'm forced to wonder if there was a situation where conservatives started burning their garbage in their home, would liberals be OK with it? Or is the "gay sex in the home" thing only relevant because it happens to be the Republicans big fear? assuming it were known but not spread, e.g. people proudly announced burn pits, but captured and buried their exhaust. That's the only way to torture this analogy into shape.
  - woodman 10y ago
    > ...if you want to support a political candidate... That is the false choice, also commonly found in the form "the lesser of two evils" or "the most electable". > That's the only way to torture this analogy into shape. I can think of a better one, better because it actually happened. An anarchist starts making a bunch of noise about how 3d printers enable individuals to produce extremely low quality guns in the privacy of their own homes. Liberals are outraged, propose legislation to ban such activity - then float the lead balloon of 3d printer technology regulation. Like the burning garbage analogy, externalities are used as justification for liberty curtailment, but unlike burning garbage - such externalities are not a certainty (in fact home firearm production has been legal for a very long time). The liberal's real beef is with the threat to the state's authority, the more often the state's regulations are sidestepped - the weaker it appears. So the short answer is this: liberals, like conservatives, are fine with private activities that don't threaten their world views. Unfortunately liberals have a very detailed idea of the way the world should work, whereas the conservative imagination doesn't go much further than approved penis destinations.