[FRIAM] oversight

[Steve Smith]

There is some merit to the aphorism "let them wallow in  their own 
shit.."   The problem of course is that all that wallowing tends to 
splash on the spectators and the wallowing always goes on longer than 
you want it to.  The fullness of time, being what it is (a limit) can 
sometimes feel forever over the (next false) horizon.


On 5/20/22 3:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3122 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220521/fdb34a62/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220521/fdb34a62/attachment.sig>