Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 2

[KRYPTON INC.]

Houston we have a problem!
http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/

Welcome to this morning.

 

[Hypestyle]

Welcome to this morning.

Ah well. Let the chips fall, if any. Do better, be better, "left-leaning" or whatever your ideology is.

Franken's second official statement:

The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.


I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.


But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.


For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.


Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all. It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.


While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.


I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.


And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Highlights from Leeann Tweeden's press conference:

• She accepts Franken's written apology
• Not calling for Franken to step down

Looks like it's up to the senate now.

It's so refreshing to see adults behaving like adults. It will be interesting to see how the Ethics Committee goes. Personally, I don't think this should carry major repercussions. He made an inappropriate "joke" that hurt a woman. She spoke out about it. He manned up and apologized. She accepts it. In my opinion, that's all that needs to happen, here.

Meanwhile, Trump refuses to say that the Moore allegations are bad enough to make him "unworthy of office".

 

[squeekness]

It's so refreshing to see adults behaving like adults. It will be interesting to see how the Ethics Committee goes. Personally, I don't think this should carry major repercussions. He made an inappropriate "joke" that hurt a woman. She spoke out about it. He manned up and apologized. She accepts it. In my opinion, that's all that needs to happen, here.

Meanwhile, Trump refuses to say that the Moore allegations are bad enough to make him "unworthy of office".

I can agree with this.

 

[samsnee]

While I don’t think what he did is as severe as Weinstein, Spacey, or, Moore, it just reaffirms what women have to do deal with on a regular basis.

I don’t think in this scenario, he should step down. It will be up to his constituents to make that call.

 

[Powerman34]

So groping a woman while she is sleeping (with actual photo evidence of said event) and also sticking his tongue down her throat (her own words) doesn’t at least mean he should resign?

 

[Marvolo]

So groping a woman while she is sleeping (with actual photo evidence of said event) and also sticking his tongue down her throat (her own words) doesn’t at least mean he should resign?

I think the kissing thing is gross.

But him barely touching her Kevlar vest, something you can't even feel a tit through, a vest that is over clothes, and smiling at a camera acting like youre grabbing her ****...personally I dont see that as a big deal or assault and her going public about that seems like an overreaction. He acted like he grabbed her **** for a dumb pic.

If there are other worse instances or he's been doing stuff like the kissing thing repeatedly then yeah he should probably resign.

 

[samsnee]

He meant it as a joke but clearly it’s still not cool because she was asleep and didn’t appreciate it when she found the picture. Do I think he should resign over it? It’s tough because I don’t think it’s reaches the level of other accusations that have come out recently. And he did own up to it, apologize, and is willing to cooperate with whatever investigation comes his way. And it sounds like the accuser accepted his apology.

 

[squeekness]

He meant it as a joke but clearly it’s still not cool because she was asleep and didn’t appreciate it when she found the picture. Do I think he should resign over it? It’s tough because I don’t think it’s reaches the level of other accusations that have come out recently. And he did own up to it, apologize, and is willing to cooperate with whatever investigation comes his way. And it sounds like the accuser accepted his apology.

This is me. He didn't rape her, he admitted he crossed the line. It sounds a lot better than Moore's flimsy excuses.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I don't think he should resign but he shouldn't run again.

 

[Ouch]

He needs to resign. And the Democrats should also have a zero tolerance policy for anyone who has committed sexual misconduct-harassment, assault, you name it. Al Franken wasted the party's time, millions of dollars, the time and investment of his constituents, and you know he is just one of many.

Ultimately, however, the biggest problem is America is completely and totally broken as a society. This country will never be fixed. Blue States like NY and the West Coast need to start angling for a way out. This nation is a failure and needs to be split up. The American people are greedy and immoral filth for the most part, and pretty much all of them in Red States are. I do not want to be a citizen of a country that elects Donald Trump. I do not be part of union that includes a state that elects Roy Moore. This country needs to end.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This end of the world thing is nice to fantasize about but your position is just that... Fantasy. Anyone expecting a Utopia is always going to be disappointed. And in that disappointment lays the seeds for rationalizing anything since the ideal world can only be realized through a scorching from existence of the old one.

So please... Stop with the childish Apocalyptic nonsense. Because this is a step removed from loonyville.

 

[DKDetective]

There is one big problem with this: THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

There is a misconception surrounding Citizens United. First of all, its not nearly as expansive as its opponents act. To the contrary, it is actually a relatively narrow holding. It doesn't preclude statutory regulations on campaign spending. It simply precludes blanket bans on political spending by organizations such as labor unions, non-profits, and PACs. And if one reads the opinion and actually has an understanding of the First Amendment and the jurisprudence behind it, its not hard to see that it is actually a reasonable opinion that makes a good bit of legal sense. Political speech is provided the highest degree of Constitutional protection. A blanket ban of any type of speech has never flown in this country, much less a blanket ban on political speech.

You don't get to pick and choose when the Constitution applies. Its not legislation that is intentionally vague and left to the interpretation of a regulatory agency. The Constitution is absolute. There is no Constitutional guarantee to having your speech amplified at the same level as someone who can afford advertisements and the likes. The First Amendment does not read as: "Congress shall pass no laws that abridging the freedom of speech...unless they are trying to make everything super fair for everyone."

Citizens United makes Constitutional sense. And short of an Amendment (and Americans should think long and hard about the overarching implication of an Amendment to the Constitution that limits ANY right much less speech) there is no changing that.

Actually, you Americans are the only developed liberal democratic country with an entrenched bill of rights in the world that take such a black and white approach to constitutional rights and free speech in particular. Most other developed nations have moved towards a three-part proportionality test originally developed by the German courts, which allows for the infringement of constitutional rights by state action where the government satisfies that the object of the law is greater than the rights infringement. The German courts developed this approach because they saw how dangerous, anti-democratic could abuse constitutional liberties. The sentiments raised by your opponents may not accord with American jurisprudence, but frankly most developed nations think your jurisprudence is frankly stupid and dangerous.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually, you Americans are the only developed liberal democratic country with an entrenched bill of rights in the world that take such a black and white approach to constitutional rights and free speech in particular. Most other developed nations have moved towards a three-part proportionality test originally developed by the German courts, which allows for the infringement of constitutional rights by state action where the government satisfies that the object of the law is greater than the rights infringement. The German courts developed this approach because they saw how dangerous, anti-democratic could abuse constitutional liberties. The sentiments raised by your opponents may not accord with American jurisprudence, but frankly most developed nations think your jurisprudence is frankly stupid and dangerous.

To be fair, given Germany's history, I'll stick to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sithborg]

Actually, you Americans are the only developed liberal democratic country with an entrenched bill of rights in the world that take such a black and white approach to constitutional rights and free speech in particular. Most other developed nations have moved towards a three-part proportionality test originally developed by the German courts, which allows for the infringement of constitutional rights by state action where the government satisfies that the object of the law is greater than the rights infringement. The German courts developed this approach because they saw how dangerous, anti-democratic could abuse constitutional liberties. The sentiments raised by your opponents may not accord with American jurisprudence, but frankly most developed nations think your jurisprudence is frankly stupid and dangerous.

The 1st Amendment gets us porn, okay? You want to take away our porn?

As nice as it would be to ban certain clearly evil idealogies, the American culture is not at the point where they can be trustworthy enough to wield such power responsibly. I mean, look at Alabama. Frankly, the 1st has also slowed the descent into theocracy.

 

[SV Fan]

Blue States like NY and the West Coast need to start angling for a way out.

We can always use the Jesusland map from 2004

 

[DKDetective]

To be fair, given Germany's history, I'll stick to the Bill of Rights.

No, that history is why the Germans took a different approach. Hitler was democratically elected remember. The proportionality test is post-WW2 and has been adopted by pretty much every advanced nation except America (which begs the question). It's also what is used here in Canada, other Commonwealth nations, Israel, and most of Western Europe use (the UK doesn't have an entrenched bill of rights and is doing just fine). Do you see us having free speech problems? No, you guys are the ones with an authoritarian in office who twisted your system to exploit uneducated and uninformed voters...

 

[DKDetective]

The 1st Amendment gets us porn, okay? You want to take away our porn?

As nice as it would be to ban certain clearly evil idealogies, the American culture is not at the point where they can be trustworthy enough to wield such power responsibly. I mean, look at Alabama. Frankly, the 1st has also slowed the descent into theocracy.

Yeah, that's very true. I was moreso just responding to Matt's blind defence of American constitutional jurisprudence as though people were ignorant for questioning it. Yes, Citizens United is good law that is entirely consistent with precedent, but that does not necessarily mean it is the optimal outcome. Many advanced liberal democracies take a different approach to the interpretation and application of their bills of rights.

 

[Dyson]

I don't think he should resign but he shouldn't run again.

I agree with this. She accepted his apology so unless more shocking stories come out about Al Franken, he can finish out his term but in 2020, he shouldn't try to run for re-election.

As far as I see it, Franken has only a few years left in his political life. It's a shame because I think Franken had the potential to be a possible Vice President candidate in 2020 or a future white house cabinet member.

Bummer.

 

[Matt]

Yeah, that's very true. I was moreso just responding to Matt's blind defence of American constitutional jurisprudence as though people were ignorant for questioning it. Yes, Citizens United is good law that is entirely consistent with precedent, but that does not necessarily mean it is the optimal outcome. Many advanced liberal democracies take a different approach to the interpretation and application of their bills of rights.

Yes, and that is all fine and good. But it doesn't change our approach, which is deeply seated in our nation's history and sense of identity (good luck to any candidate in the US who runs on the platform "its time to get rid of our pesky Constitution and adopt one akin to European countries").

There is no question to be begged by the US not adopting a German jurisprudence that is inconsistent with our Constitution because frankly, and at the risk of sounding a bit nationalistic, our Constitution works. As you point out, Hitler was democratically elected. Even with a would-be authoritarian like Trump, we have little risk of him actually becoming a dictator because of our unique Constitution, which places the individual liberty of the citizen above all else.

Our country does not take the approach of "if the purpose of the government outweighs the need for individual liberty, the right can be infringed upon" because that is how dictators are made. It doesn't happen over night. There are little baby steps and justifications and eventually, liberty is eroded to the point where it is easy for a despot to take control.

So, with all due respect to foreign jurisprudence, I am quite happy to keep our system in place. Our Constitution is unyielding. Exceptions to it exist, but they are far and few between and seldom implicate our most fundamental rights. The system may not be perfect, but a strict adherence to our Constitution and placing the power the people and their individual rights above all else is the best defense to tyranny.

Also, before you point out that I am being all "Go US! Our way is best! Eff foreign countries!" I would like to suggest that there is something inherently patronizing about your comment. Why is it when the US criticizes a foreign country's practices, we are being imperialistic and overbearing? But it is perfectly acceptable for a non-US citizen...I dunno, a Canadian for example, to patronizingly look down upon the US and say "psh, you silly Americans need to catch up with the rest of the world."

 

[Matt]

I don't think he should resign but he shouldn't run again.

I dunno. I like Franken. I like his policies. He has been a good Senator. But how can we be calling for Roy Moore to step aside over unproven allegations of sexual misconduct, and not call for Franken to resign when there is a photo of him groping a sleeping woman who had previously shot down very thinly veiled advances? Is it because he apologized? In that case, then all Roy Moore needs to do is apologize and he is fit to serve as a Senator, no?

I don't think we get to have this both ways. Either sexual harassment/assault is conduct that is disqualifying for a Senator or its not.

 

[DKDetective]

Yes, and that is all fine and good. But it doesn't change our approach, which is deeply seated in our nation's history and sense of identity (good luck to any candidate in the US who runs on the platform "its time to get rid of our pesky Constitution and adopt one akin to European countries").

There is no question to be begged by the US not adopting a German jurisprudence that is inconsistent with our Constitution because frankly, and at the risk of sounding a bit nationalistic, our Constitution works. As you point out, Hitler was democratically elected. Even with a would-be authoritarian like Trump, we have little risk of him actually becoming a dictator because of our unique Constitution, which places the individual liberty of the citizen above all else.

Our country does not take the approach of "if the purpose of the government outweighs the need for individual liberty, the right can be infringed upon" because that is how dictators are made. It doesn't happen over night. There are little baby steps and justifications and eventually, liberty is eroded to the point where it is easy for a despot to take control.

So, with all due respect to foreign jurisprudence, I am quite happy to keep our system in place. Our Constitution is unyielding. Exceptions to it exist, but they are far and few between and seldom implicate our most fundamental rights. The system may not be perfect, but a strict adherence to our Constitution and placing the power the people and their individual rights above all else is the best defense to tyranny.

Also, before you point out that I am being all "Go US! Our way is best! Eff foreign countries!" I would like to suggest that there is something inherently patronizing about your comment. Why is it when the US criticizes a foreign country's practices, we are being imperialistic and overbearing? But it is perfectly acceptable for a non-US citizen...I dunno, a Canadian for example, to patronizingly look down upon the US and say "psh, you silly Americans need to catch up with the rest of the world."

Actually, to clarify, proportionality is a purely interpretative doctrine, like living tree interpretation vs. originalism. Like living tree interpretation, proportionality is based on the idea that an absolutist, literal interpretation of a constitutional document is unworkable, especially over the long term. Our Charter has no proportionality provisions in it. Our Supreme Court just adopted it when faced with how and when limit rights in those certain exceptional circumstances. It's worked pretty well for us.

Now you are right that it may not work with America's particular history and culture, but you can already see "balancing" creeping in some of your commercial speech case law. In your current circumstances, I agree that absolute rights is probably your best protection against tyranny. No one in Washington seems to follow traditionally constitutional conventions and customs anymore. Some would say say that the American constitution doesn't work and is broken, but that is a topic in and of itself. However, there is the question of whether your current circumstances would have been avoided if you had been more open to balancing in the past. For example, reasonable gun laws are very hard to strike down using a proportionality-based analysis.

 

[Matt]

Actually, to clarify, proportionality is a purely interpretative doctrine, like living tree interpretation vs. originalism. Like living tree interpretation, proportionality is based on the idea that an absolutist, literal interpretation of a constitutional document is unworkable, especially over the long term. Our Charter has no proportionality provisions in it. Our Supreme Court just adopted it when faced with how and when limit rights in those certain exceptional circumstances. It's worked pretty well for us.

Now you are right that it may not work with America's particular history and culture, but you can already see "balancing" creeping in some of your commercial speech case law. In your current circumstances, I agree that absolute rights is probably your best protection against tyranny. No one in Washington seems to follow traditionally constitutional conventions and customs anymore. Some would say say that the American constitution doesn't work and is broken, but that is a topic in and of itself. However, there is the question of whether your current circumstances would have been avoided if you had been more open to balancing in the past. For example, reasonable gun laws are very hard to strike down using a proportionality-based analysis.

At the end of the day though, we already do what you suggest to some extent. For example, you can't scream fire in a movie theater. That would be illegal and punishing it does not implicate free speech. We've reached through balancing the public safety interest vs the speech interest. There is very little in the latter (as its really not an exercise in speech).

The difference is, the nature of our rights never change. That is a dangerous road to go down. YOu talk about a Constitution evolving...if it can evolve, then how effective is it? How fundamental can those rights really be? Our jurisprudence evolves. Our society evolves. But our most basic and core rights and tenants are always there.

 

[Schlosser85]

I dunno. I like Franken. I like his policies. He has been a good Senator. But how can we be calling for Roy Moore to step aside over unproven allegations of sexual misconduct, and not call for Franken to resign when there is a photo of him groping a sleeping woman who had previously shot down very thinly veiled advances? Is it because he apologized? In that case, then all Roy Moore needs to do is apologize and he is fit to serve as a Senator, no?

I don't think we get to have this both ways. Either sexual harassment/assault is conduct that is disqualifying for a Senator or its not.

For what it’s worth, the photographer behind the picture claims it was staged and the woman is lying.

 

[Matt]

For what it’s worth, the photographer behind the picture claims it was staged and the woman is lying.

Didn't Franken admit it though? That is such a weird little nuance in the story. We have Franken admitting it and the photographer denying?