[FRIAM] oversight

[Marcus Daniels]

As you admit there are no first principles to consider, so there is nothing to put back together.    The other side is fully saturated by prevaricators who can't be trusted to debate in a reasonable way.  Polling indicates the preference is on the side of the left.    This consensus needs to be converted, in the fullness of time, into a usable democratic majority.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:03 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] oversight

Yeah, I get that. But there's an inertia to consider. If we manage to put the Right back into place tenuously, without convincing enough of the other side to relax or compromise, then they'll dig in even more. The tenuous installation feeds into their rhetoric. We need at least a semblance of cooperative consensus.

The Federalist Society (and orgs like The Fellowship <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29>) are not going to simply give up and go home. They've worked for decades to overturn Roe and other tenuously established values could soon topple, as well.

There seems to be 2 options: 1) engage with their good arguments and shelve their bad arguments, cafeteria style, or 2) come up with our own Illuminati style insidious strategy. (2) requires discipline lefties just don't have, in part because we criticize ourselves. (1) is the practical path.

On 5/19/22 12:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> This why I won’t be “pretending” to consider the other side of this issue.  It could cause harm for the sake of stupid people.
> 
>> On May 19, 2022, at 11:47 AM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree. But I don't think that's obvious to many people. I also think the foundations of math are political (... or perhaps ideological). And the understandable tendency to reduce sociology to psychology to biology to chemistry to physics is also political (or ideological). But there are plenty of people smarter and more well-intentioned than me who disagree.
>>
>> So for those people, whether originalists or evolutionists, who believe in the Rule of Law, it's up to them (or us if we play along with the pretense) to derive the right from the Constitution ... and perhaps peri-Constitution precedent. And if the right *can't* be so derived, then it has to be grafted on as an additional axiom, either a federal amendment or a diversity of state laws/amendments.
>>
>>> On 5/19/22 11:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> What first principles?   The court is a political organization.


-- 
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/