Said David French in the new episode of the podcast "Advisory Opinions," "The TED Talk Heard ‘Round the World" (at 00:44:17)(transcript at that link).
And here's the Neal Katyal TED talk they're talking about.
१२ मे, २०२६
"There's something that's kind of weird out there... Can I call it the painfully unsophisticated, highly educated political hobbyist?"
"And this is the audience for an awful lot of political media... and it is people who have a pretty good degree of education. They're highly attuned to politics and they're highly partisan. And that last bit of it — the highly partisan — actually means they become much less sophisticated about politics and law because... the volume consumers of political media are the most wrong about their political opponents. So... your median TED Talk listener is probably... a very partisan audience.... And if... you're left-leaning, and you're highly partisan, and you're highly attuned to political media, what is the one thing that you have in your mind about the Supreme Court? Totally biased against this [challenge to Trump's power]. You can't win. It's always gonna rule for Trump, blah, blah, blah.... They are just deluged with... it's rigged, it's rigged, it's illegitimate, it's rigged..... So then you have this attorney come in who's a fellow liberal who won in front of the six three Supreme Court. And he is going to, if that's your mindset, look like Zeus walking down from Mount Olympus.... You know, I walked in to the Lion's den of the 6-3 Republican court and got a 6-3 Republican court to strike down the signature policy of a Republican administration. Look at me. I am the God king!.... And it is a message that lands with a particular audience incredibly well because... it's premised on all of their false assumptions about the Supreme Court. If you actually walked in with a realistic view, he was the favorite. He was the favorite!"
Said David French in the new episode of the podcast "Advisory Opinions," "The TED Talk Heard ‘Round the World" (at 00:44:17)(transcript at that link).
Said David French in the new episode of the podcast "Advisory Opinions," "The TED Talk Heard ‘Round the World" (at 00:44:17)(transcript at that link).
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
The court is 5 Pharisees, 2 judges and 2 retards.
These people obviously don’t know what they are talking about.
You know, I walked in to the Lion's den of the 6-3 Republican court and got a 6-3 Republican court to strike down the signature policy of a Republican administration.
You would never get a 6-3 Democrat court to strike down the signature policy of a Democrat administration, you know.
From what I have read, Katyal was not that well prepared. But not very many arguments win cases.
Being a paid hack for the Democratic or Republican parties would be humiliating enough, but there’s apparently a decent number of Americans who find it some kind of hobby to be an unpaid hack.
Which they want to erase, thats the whole point of the exercise
I"m glad French in his vague, wordy, way said the obvious. Although he didn't provide the details. We have 3 Democrats on the SCOTUS, who hate Trump vote against everything he does, as a bloc. And we have a Mitt Romney Republican Chief Justice who hates Trump too. And then there's ACB who's the incarnation of Anthony Kennedy.
All these major cases come down to who on the R side can the D's get to join them. And of the 6 R's - 4 are flippable.
Question from the podcast: "Would You Rather have the Constitution fail without the three fists compromise or that the Constitution ratified with the three-fifths compromise?"
Man, talk about a stupid question about a nothing burger. But its way for David French and the Questioner to Grandstand about slavery.
I can think of a lot things wrong with the original constitution and the biggest one was the failure to answer the following question: "Does a state have a right to leave the union?". Had the founding fathers put the answer down in black and white, the civil war would've been avoided.
The other interesting point is: The FF's allowed the country to have future constitional conventions and change the constitution. And they expected that in 30-40 years there would be one. It'd be crazy - they thought - for new generations not to make adjustments.
Instead, we got this Constitution worship as if its etched in stone, and a power grab by the SCOTUS. The court decides whats constitutional and rewrites it at will.
Its very hard to reopen the comstitution. This is why they went with the Courts writing new law
The problem with David French is that -- after the demeaning anal sex and tears -- he wants emotional compensation.
Dude: you cashed the check.
Yeah hes jazx hands legal edition
I won a Webby award. Went to the Webbys in NYC last night. Complete ideological capture in the room. A web caught inside a leftist propaganda bubble.
Is queer a weird progression? Maybe, baby, a fetus... feature in transition.
What was it about?
JFC. Not this asshole again.
I think I have been paying attention to what’s going on lately, but on this topic: I have no idea what you guys are talking about... says a highly educated political hobbyist who doesn’t listen to TED talks
Having a codified constitution and the difficulty of modifying it is probably the best way to divide governments. In communist or fascist ones the rules are written on a rubber sheet and the boss can stretch them by command, freedom can’t survive. In parliamentary systems the government has rules of tradition that can be swept aside at the cost of breaking faith with the people, but it can be done. Kings rule until they violate enough tradition. In US constitutional democracy the court is the defender of a strong written constitution so the boss has no verbal power and has to make a long end run to change basic principles but sometimes conditions align and fiat changes can be made. The “living” constitution is an attempt to make this possible. And religious type governments like New England puritans or Islam has the strictest of ancient rules that can’t be broken by anyone upon pain of death. So things never change.
So the strength of your legal lore determines how much freedom individuals retain and how much power bosses have over the masses. This is an important axis of government science. How much to you respect written law over complete do as I say law.
So the question is, can current government easily change the rules with no respect for tradition, are you bound by tradition to the people, do you have a strong written document that can be changed with difficulty, or do priests defend government scripture to the death.
The power of the federal judiciary derives from life tenure. I hope that the branch that Alexander Bickel described as least dangerous can prolong its lives by re- finding the humility that it has lost.
I found the Ted talk to be somewhat obnoxious extremely self-centered and following the same Ted talk Boilerplate of every TED talk I've ever heard over the last 20 plus years. However, you have to tip your hat to the dude who hired the right team of coaches to help him prepare for the case. I especially like his use of an improv teacher. According to the lawyer, that's what helped him get past the question that Amy Coney Island Barrett Baxter Bernie asked that was not predicted by the AI.
Question from the podcast: "Would You Rather have the Constitution fail without the three fists compromise or that the Constitution ratified with the three-fifths compromise?"
A better question would be: "Would you rather have the Constitution fail without the Connecticut Compromise, or that the Constitution be ratified with the Connecticut Compromise?"
The people who get bent out of shape about the composition of the Senate and the Electoral College, and are pushing for national popular vote, don't realize that without the Connecticut Compromise the USA does not exist. It was true then, and it is true now.
If we go to a national popular vote, then every Presidential election will be decided by AFSCME union thugs stuffing the ballot boxes in fifteen or twenty large cities in Democrat states.
And if this is the case, the smaller states are going to leave the Union even if they have to shoot their way out. Guaranteed civil war.
Did SCOTUS rule that congress didn’t delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, or that congress can’t delegate tariff authority to the president?
Amy Coney Island Barrett Baxter Bernie
heh.
I don’t get the appeal of David French. I guess it’s because stories like this that aim to delegitimize the court acts like scotus justices instead of rubber stamping the left’s agenda…
I decided a long time ago that life is too short to waste on David French.
Sorry. I left out "tweening prat David French."
David French has a voice made for magazines.
This is a version of Jacques Elull's idea that highly educated, "well-informed" people are the most propagandized.
Political discussion sites are getting really boring. Everything is party line one side or the other. There is no middle ground. When the party line suddenly shifts, as it does now with the turn towards outright imperialism, it can become noticeable just how lemminglike political believers have become.
"The three-fists compromise" sounds like belongs on the Barney Frank thread.
Apparently, Katyal's TedTalk was a dud:
The fallout from Neal Katyal's TED Talk continues. I have received messages from judges, Supreme Court practitioners, members of the Supreme Court press corps, law professors, law students, and more. The universal consensus is that Katyal's performance was a complete and total embarrassment. Usually my takedowns infuriate half the crowd and enrapture the other half. But for Katyal, the verdict is unanimous.
One of the more bizarre aspects of the talk is that Katyal took a shot at Judge Michael McConnell. Katyal also suggested that McConnell lobbied Jason Willick of the Washington Post to write the column urging the former judge to argue the case before the Supreme Court.
The rest is paywalled.
https://www.inkl.com/news/wapo-neal-katyal-s-ted-talk-spins-a-remarkable-tale
He's describing a phenomenon where the TDS wacko birds roost together and cluck to comfort each other.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.