The media spin cycle
America's leftist regime media uses a varirty of tactics ranging from subtle spin to outright lying. Today I thought we might focus on the former via the great spin master: The New York Times. This morning, in the morning report, there was an article dealing with the Judicial changes taking place in Israel.
Protesters blocked a highway in Tel Aviv yesterday. Corinna Kern/Reuters
The first sentence of the article makes a very subtle false equivalency:
In their details, the judicial changes that Israel’s Parliament passed yesterday sound like something that liberals in the U.S. and democracy advocates around the world might support.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwMZzhczFgxfQgJdJRzvxWMXv
While it is true that liberals in the US would like to pack/dilute the current US Supreme Court, the US high Court is nothing like a Court that subjectively decides what is reasonable. The SCOTUS is dedicated to interpreting & supporting the US Constitution.
Next line:
Israel reduced the power of its Supreme Court judges, who until now could use the vague standard of “reasonableness” to overturn policies enacted by government ministers. Going forward, democratically elected leaders will have more power, and unelected judges will have less. Conceptually, the policy is not so different from changes that many Democrats would like to implement in this country.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwMZzhczFgxfQgJdJRzvxWMXv
Actually, it is different. The policy US liberals favor is meant to keep the left in power to overrule other presidents & other Courts. Israel is simply ending a bad idea/policy.
Next line:
But the reaction from political progressives, moderates and even some conservatives — in Israel and elsewhere — has instead been one of extreme alarm. And that alarm stems from worries among many observers that Israel is using the mechanics of democracy to transform itself into an undemocratic country.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwMZzhczFgxfQgJdJRzvxWMXv
Why is taking away power from judges to limit an elected leader's policies, based on nothing more than ideology, undemocratic? I would think it to be very democratic.
Next paragraph:
|
The government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who’s known as Bibi) is the most right-wing in the country’s 75-year history, many observers say. Freed from judicial oversight, it will have the ability to push Israel further toward becoming a religiously conservative country. In the process, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians could worsen. |
|
Among the fears of Netanyahu’s critics: |
|
That is called: POLICY!
The two New York Times writers here seem to be under the impression that a government bureaucracy should be able to stop policies that they don't like.
The time to debate policy is during elections.
Only the feeble minded would go along with the thesis of the Times here.
Tags
Who is online
656 visitors
This week the New York Times takes the crown.
meh, I like to watch the ultimate conclusions play out when the ultra religious overstep their boundaries in gov't...
?
watch and take note of what happens next to the religious extremists in israel...
Oh, ok...I waited a long time for that reply, so I'll pay close attention.
it took awhile to find the article again ...
When the left talks about democracy, they mean the opposite. Sort of like communists discussing “rights” in their constitutions.
Sort of like Lawrence Tribe's version of American Law.
Did the left encourage an armed overthrow of an elected government in America?
Please do post links to this democratic attempted coup.
Who was armed and if so, why didn't we see some shots fired? There was only one gun that was fired that day and we know who did that.
The Black Panther Party:
The Weathermen:
The Symbionese Liberation Army:
Well done Sir
And, the woman who was shot and killed by that police officer was unarmed and a US veteran. Her name is Ashli Babbitt.
You do understand the difference between terror attacks and attempted coups... Don't you?
Based on your listed examples, I assume you consider Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing to be a right wing attempt to overthrow the government? Not simply domestic terrorism.
How about all the far right mass shootings that are constantly occurring. Are they also attempts to overthrow the government?
So in your opinion, unless they actually fire the gun, they are not considered armed?
What was the intent of the terror attacks?
McVeigh in Waco, said that the government had declared war against the American people and he planned to fire the first shot in a new American revolution.
Most mass shooting aren't political and are the product of mentally sick people who want notoriety and suicide by cop.
It's in the name...terror attacks. DUH!
A large number are, with the shooters quoting Trump policies online prior to the attack.
I know you like your points to be kept simplistic so I hope that I don't confuse you.
The term is actually terrorist attack or terrorism, not terror attacks.
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people to achieve political or ideological aims through spreading fear or forcing the hand of government.
Most mass murderers attack their victims randomly without regard to race, ethnicity or gender. There of course, are exceptions were racism targets specific groups like the Buffalo grocery store or the Pittsburgh synagogue. Of this subset, politics may play a role in a few.
Of the 142 mass shootings since 1982, 68 were committed by non-whites.
I'll assume that those weren't trumpets. Out of the remaining 74 maybe a dozen or so target people by race or ethnicity. Maybe half of those also had a political basis. So no, it's not a relatively large number.
Wow! Well I guess you told me off. Terrorist attacks and not terror attacks. I guess semantics just nullifies every single point I make....
Otherwise, you can go on and continue to argue that I claimed that all mass shootings were terrorIST attacks by the right wing, and not just that "a large number" are.
Im sorry that you took it that way, Ozzy.
Nope. That would be yours. I said nothing of the sort.
Then perhaps you should reread my original comment that you replied to.
I asked if the left had ever encouraged an armed overthrow of the government. You replied with,
Implying that it wasn't an armed attempt because no one fired shots. You only wrote 2 sentences and both indicated there were no shots fire by the crowd on 1/6.
So yes, you did say that.
Why reread poorly written BS twice?
That is a salient point.
“Democracy” is what liberals tell us it is.
Damn the Republic, full partisan ahead!
Apparently the line of argument of this kind of article is that one form of dubious power, a Supreme Court that can overrule politicians, should be replaced by another form of dubious power, politicians not constrained by a system of checks and balances.
In the US, without the Court having the authority to overrule the president in some decisions, we would have a dictatorship. At least until the next election, provided the dictatorial president allowed a next election.
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets in a very prolonged protest against the proposed changes to their judicial system. In itself that indicates that something is rotten in the state of Israel.
It can only be based on Constitutional law. A president would have to be in violation of the Constitution.
In Israel it is about a subjected view of what is reasonable. That is the great flaw in that government.
Are the hundreds of thousands , if not millions , of Israelis that have been protesting against the changes for seven months completely wrong?
We can get millions of protestors here in the US on either side of any issue.
for seven months? that hasnt happened yet, but if Trump gets back in office it probably will.
It takes an extreme minority to do that. For the US that was when the college kids lost their deferment from Vietnam. Many of the working class boomers carried their water and it went on for years, until the country got fed up an elected Richard Nixon.
That depends on who is counting, the previous Counter in Chief had more toes than anyone.
A lot of them went to live in Canada. I thought that was a great idea btw.
That is a great flaw in that government. We have a few great flaws too. One is lifetime appointments for SCOTIS justices. Another is the electoral college.
So you are going to be consistent? If Republicans were to start winning the popular vote but losing via the electoral college, you would still say the same thing?
What should the limit for SCOTUS Justices be?
WRONG!!
It is based on a Justice, or Justices, personal interpretation of Constitution law.
RIGHT!!
It is based on Justices supporting the Constitution. Even when it requires interpretation.
Prime Example: president Biden's vaccine mandate was clearly unconstitutional. He chose to do it anyway.
another example: president Biden's student loan forgiveness plan was obviously unConstitutional. Even Pelosi said it. He chose to do it anyway.
Biden the wannabe dictator
There is a certain inevitable delusion in the conclusion that the SC decisions I agree with were objectively decided and the ones I dont agree with were "political".
So did I, coming here humanized them as long as they left their jingoism at home which many tried their best to do.
If we are all honest & consistent there should be no controversy. Use the two examples above.
Do you think Biden had any right to do either of those things?
Is "humanized" your little euphemism for drug addiction?
As I stated, divesting oneself of jingoism. Try it [sometime deleted]
In YOUR opinion which is not supported in America's history.
As opposed to Trump the attempted and failed dictator?
Different times, different attitudes. Just because everyone bought in didn't mean it was Constitutional.
And just because a few mouth breathing right wingers don't like it, doesn't mean it is un-Constitutional.
Am I going to be consistent? Absolutely. The benefits of abolishing the EC go beyond that. It forces the Presidential candidates to campaign in all states and to form an agenda more palatable to all Americans rather than concentrating on a few 'swing states'. I think maybe 10 years for a SC term possibly renewable at the behest of the President could be reasonable but, I'm open to suggestions.
Edit: Terms for the SC could also serve to get more people participating in the voting process because everybody will know when SC seats are going to be coming up.
So not one federally mandated vaccination program for the entire population was found constitutional?
No, it gives candidates reason to not even bother campaigning in the lesser populated areas and only concentrate on California, New York, Florida, and other heavily populated states or just the cities in those states to get the popular vote. The misconception on the EC is everyone is fixated on it being the people of each state decide the EC, but the president isn't just the president of the people but also of the states and the EC gives the states a chance to also vote on the president and the state doesn't necessarily have to side with the people.
Supreme Court justices once selected by the president and confirmed by the senate are no longer beholden to either and they are not beholden to the people they are then free to form their opinions without outside interference or term pressures. Term pressures may sway their opinions and that is not what was intended.
The vaccine mandate has a lot of precedents especially for the military. Were it not for vaccines we would still be fighting the polio epidemic and small pox. It would be nice if people would participate enough to not need them though. The student loans? I'm not so sure about that. It could be unconstitutional but you have to be careful. It may also make it illegal to bail out banks and other super rich people and you and I both know that can't happen.
lol. The discussion is about the constitutionality of Biden’s plan You know he’s the president right? And the president’s plan is a national one, right?
or do you not understand the difference between state policy and the national government? If you do, you should be able to figure out why state programs are not relevant to the discussion.
LOL!!!
So for your reply to make any sense whatsoever, you would have to believe that state laws and mandates are not subject to Constitutionality. States are able to violate our Constitution whenever they want?
I’m glad to see you’re keeping your sense of humor in these trying times.
You didn't learn that state governments and the Federal government have different powers?
I shouldn't have to tell anyone who passed high school civics this, but just because a state has the power to do something, it doesn't mean the federal government has the power to order the entire country to do the same thing.
So, Israel’s population is like 9 million. Assuming “millions” of protestors is a minimum of 2 mill, that’s over 20% of the total population that’s protesting ….
Impressive!
Answer this question then.
Do you believe that state laws and mandates are not subject to Constitutionality?
The Supreme Court doesn't overrule politicians. It determines if a law is Constitutional or not. That is it. It doesn't get to create laws. It doesn't get to change laws if it doesn't like the politicians that made them. It doesn't get to enforce laws. Democrats can't stand when the Supreme Court rules against them. Which is the reason they want to pack the court; and are openly encouraging Brandon to defy the Supreme Court with his second attempt at college loan debt forgiveness.
Please tell that to Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine- who is openly defying a Supreme Court ruling. Not the first time he has done it- but this one is the most egregious.
Only hundreds of thousands out of millions of Israelis? No rioting, assaulting LEO's or federal officers, looting, or arson? Sounds like what would be a slow day in leftist America.
Israel isn't America. They don't have a Constitution to trash. Maybe those that are protesting should elect representatives that will enact a Constitution? That will take numbers far greater than hundreds of thousands.
The idea that the US Supreme Court objectively decides cases solely based on objectively interpreting the Constitution is ridiculous. It is an entirely political process.
Typically, when the Court does not correctly decide a case based on the Constitution, it eventually gets corrected.
Two cases in point:
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Roe V. Wade
When the Court was 5-4 in terms of ideology, many cases would be decided on a 5-4 ideological vote. Now that the Court is 6-3, watch how many cases will be decided 6-3 on an ideological vote.
It is so obvious the Court is political I dont know why we even have to debate it.
Yet we have had many unanimous and near unanimous decisions.
(I know this is from 2021)
The opening term of the most conservative Supreme Court in a generation was supposed to bring an eruption of pent-up ideological rage. Instead, it's closing with astonishing bonhomie.
The rushed confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October, which solidified the court's 6-3 majority of Republican-appointees, raised hopes on the right and fears on left of an imminent blow to Obamacare, rollback of abortion rights and downgrade of LGBTQ equality in the name of religious freedom.
"Many people expected that it would be a bunch of six to three decisions with Justice Barrett replacing the late Justice (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg," said Jeffrey Rosen, constitutional law professor and president of the National Constitution Center. "But that's not what happened."
The nine justices have charted a surprising course down the middle in 2021, handing down more unanimous opinions than any time in at least the last seven years.
An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court's opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.
There are things that transcend ideology. The Constitution deserves to be one.
The Constitution is inherently open to interpretation. There is very little objectivity to be had .
Not so. There are a few places that are vague, others are clear.
It is up to congress to refine what is vague.
The public never hears about most Supreme Court decisions unless they go looking for them. Those non controversial cases are the ones that are unanimous. The controversial decisions are almost always decided on an ideological basis.
As long as you accept words have meanings And the courts job is too apply those meanings, and not do what the justice believes In their heart is “right” or “good”, than the scope of disagreement is rather limited.
given your view of the court, why do you even want lawyers on it?
I don't think they are decided that way. What makes them controversial is that they involve decisions that our divided society are interested in.
Take abortion as an example.
When Roe was decided it was controversial and the pro-Life movement was born.
When Dobbs was decided it was controversial because the pro-abortion side demands that a woman have a federal right to an abortion.
Either way it was controversial.
Sadly understanding of US Civics is sorely lacking with many of our friends on the left. Refresher for the obtuse:
Three branches of our government
Happy to elevate the “highly educated” education level today.
Same tactic as blaming the right wing for “culture wars”. Democrats spend decades appointing justices based on idealogical litmus tests, and end up with with three politicians on the bench who alway vote as a block in the same same way any democratic activist committeeman would on any case remotely touching upon political issues and then complain the court is political.
Maybe If democrats actually, for the first time since whizzer white, appointed justices who weren’t rigid ideologues, the court wouldn’t seem so political. Just look at the diverse justices republicans have nominated whose votes are “up fro grabs” depending on the actual specific of the case. The best way to depoliticize the court is if democrats never picked another justice.
Well shut my mouth 'for I catch flies
Great now I want a Burger King Whopper