TRCP and sportsman and women for biden.

[Sytes]

Judges shouldn't be representing positions, they should be interpreting the law based on facts.

Agree via Judicial Discretion... that is weighed and often defined via appellate courts.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agree...

From balls and strikes arbiter to: "on July 14, 2016, Ginsburg apologized for her (Trump POTUS campaign) remarks, saying they were "ill-advised."

While picking at the splinter in one eye, don't forget the timber in the other, my brother.

The Supreme Court Has An Ethics Problem

Justices on the high court don’t have to follow the same code of conduct as they do in lower courts. That needs to change.

www.politico.com

A Brief History of Clarence Thomas' Ethical Entanglements

Yet another conflict of interest has been called into question

www.theatlantic.com

Scalia Took Dozens of Trips Funded by Private Sponsors (Published 2016)

Some argue that the trips could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the sponsors are known for their political views.

www.nytimes.com

 

[noharleyyet]

Well shiver me timbers Ben....attaboy, and right on cue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well shiver me timbers Ben....attaboy, and right on cue.

Even the big trout takes a well presented fly.

Back to choking on this smoke. Thank goodness climate change isn't real!

 

[406dn]

Even the big trout takes a well presented fly.

Back to choking on this smoke. Thank goodness climate change isn't real!

Getting the big trout to take the fly is only the start,,,landing it is the other half.

As to climate change,,,, I have it on good authority that it will cool down.

 

[Randi]

Agree via Judicial Discretion... that is weighed and often defined via appellate courts.

Your highlighting the words "shouldn't" and 'should be" in BuzzH's post was the main basis or topic of our discussion in one of our local meetings. I believe this was also what April was pointing out. The Supreme Court and appointments to it, have been discussed in the presidential campaigns and by other politicians, as well as in the media. The Justices, SHOULD only rule based on the law that is on the books at the time of the ruling, not make laws from the bench .

But since rulings are often five to four, it is obvious that not every justice interrupts the law that is on the books in the same way. Conservative and liberal judges are openly discussed by politicians and the media. Look at how hard they tried to keep the last two Supreme Court judges off of the Supreme Court. Does anyone think that was simply because they thought they didn't understand or know the law ?

It is possible the Ginsburg will not serve on the bench another four years. Without taking sides here, I believe what April was saying is that is another reason one might vote for one candidate or the other, as whoever is president during the next four years will have the opportunity to replace her. :IF: that is important to you, that is another ( not "the" ) reason to vote for one candidate or the other.

This subject is timely as I am currently discussing this with other's and may use it for a report.

 

[Mike Tomano]

Really?

Really

 

[BuzzH]

Really

Laffin'....

 

[Woodrow F Call]

Just in from a week in the Idaho backcountry and thankfully without any wi-fi or cell service.

Since you quoted my post, I'll assume this was in response to that post. To your question raised by my comment, I don't think support of a group such as this is any different than openly supporting the candidate. That is why you don't hear my say, "Vote for (insert here)." Once you do that, you are tying yourself to a candidate, which takes you down the whirlpool of implicitly supporting a party.

You may read or hear me say that "so and so" is terrible on public lands, etc. But, it will be a factual statement, based on their voting record, in the context of the policy position. Just bad outcome for the candidate who is bad on the priority policy in question.



I think there is benefit in sharing one's positions and not confusing positions with politics. That can be done.

When one makes it political, I feel I am making the decision that it is somehow binary; that I have to choose one or the other. And, that it only matters at election time.

I can vote for a person I don't have agreement on for every issue, if they have a better net sum on my priorities than their opponent. I can also light them up if they are on the wrong side of an important issue, as I don't feel beholden to someone just because I assessed them to be a better candidate than an opponent.

And sometimes I vote for someone who loses and I am force to try work with the winner who I did not vote for. If I make it about the politics/person and not about the policy/position, I have no chance to work with that person who I did not vote for.

I think too many Americans think that engaging in government is a "one day, every four years" type of endeavor. As such they put all their eggs in the basket of their vote, rather than engagement. I see it by how few people actually engage in issues, compared to how many rant on FB or other places about who won/lost the election. Governance happens year-round, not just the first Tuesday of November on every fourth year.

I think people of influence would be better served using that influence to ask their audience to be more engaged between elections. People of influence should quit worrying about being on the "winning team" and worry about engaging in government such that whoever is in office, the important issues get heard. To me, using my platforms to advocate for a deeper approach to governance and citizen engagement is far more important than using the platforms to stump for a candidate who, at best, might agree with me 2/3 of the time, at worst, disagree with me on one of my top two priorities.



I don't view that as a slogan in the abstract. When it comes down to brass tacks, I compliment and criticize based on the positions/actions said elected official demonstrates on hunting, fishing, and conservation. It is not even slightly abstract, rather real life. I have complimented publicly and personally many people I didn't vote for, as they did the right thing for those issues. And, I have taken to task some I have voted for when they have not done the right thing for those issues. In doing so, it might cause hard feelings and cause me to not be a "trusted team member." Fine.

It is never clear. In this thread it has been pointed out that depending upon your highest priority issues, the best candidate will vary. My issues are usually 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b), with hardly any gap between my priority in those four issues. I'll never find a candidate that is perfect on those four. So, I vote the best option and engage on the four issues, no matter if the person receiving my vote wins or loses.



A political stand, i.e. a policy stand, doesn't require require a candidate endorsement or joining "Sportsmen for (insert here)." Doing so confuses the difference between a policy stand and a candidate/party stand. At least in my mind, two very different "stands."

Unfortunately, too many people are about my team/your team and all the issues along with nuance are left in the dust. Great post BTW.

 

[Woodrow F Call]

My late father in law was on a hospital board in his town. He said that the cost of some very expensive tests, procedures, etc were covered in part by raising the costs of less costly items,,,,,,,like an aspirin.

I don't doubt it. My comment wasn't really about the aspirin. It is about how everything is run. That price increase I'm sure gets spread, but I'm willing to bet a big chunk doesn't go to expensive testing. It's also hard to argue about paying for the aspirin when you are in pain, sick, healing, doped up etc. Healthcare isn't like buying napkins at walmart, but we treat it like it is.

I broke my leg several years ago. I saw the bill that my insurance paid for the ER visit. They actually paid for 90 splints. I called them to tell them I didn't have 90 splints, just the one.

 

[mtmiller]

Luckily it had the support of all the Ds.

The Great American Outdoors Act may be the most consequential environmental legislation signed into law during the Trump presidency, but it's also serving as a drag for Senate Republicans on a free-market energy group's latest ranking of energy votes.

Of the 28 Republican senators who voted for the bill, H.R. 1957, signed into law in August by President Trump, 25 received 67% scores on the voting scorecard released yesterday by the nonprofit American Energy Alliance (AEA).

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who replaced Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) in January and supported the bill, is not included on AEA's tally. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who backed the outdoors act but missed another key vote, received a 50%, while Sen. Susan Collins of Maine received a 33% score.

By contrast, the 25 Republicans who opposed the bill received perfect 100% scores from the group, which has financial ties to the Koch network and has long espoused free-market principles in energy and environmental policies.

This year's scorecard, which covers the 116th Congress, may be a reflection of the lack of Senate floor debate on major energy proposals.

AEA scored just three votes in the last two years: a vote on the Green New Deal, a Congressional Review Act challenge to the Trump administration's replacement for the Clean Power Plan and the Great American Outdoors Act.

But the lower scores awarded for nearly half of the GOP caucus represent a marked departure from the rankings for 2017-2018, when all Republican senators received perfect scores, save Collins, who got a 40%.

In the last Congress, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) received a zero percent score, but he resigned his seat early in 2017 to become Trump's first attorney general.

In this year's rankings, three moderate Democrats also received 67% scores: Alabama's Doug Jones, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The majority of Senate Democrats received scores of zero.

The effect of the Great American Outdoors Act was less pronounced in the House's scorecard for the last two years, which weighed 19 votes in total.

In a statement, AEA said the scorecard "is intended to highlight activity around the most important energy legislation in Congress" to lawmakers and voters.

"While the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, voters sure should be," AEA Director of Policy and Federal Affairs Kenny Stein said.

"If you represent a district or state that produces traditional forms energy like coal, natural gas or oil, your constituents deserve to know your record when it comes to those important local industries," Stein said. "We thank our champions and encourage voters to take their member's record on energy into account when it's time to cast their ballots."

 

[Mike Tomano]

Laffin'....

Research. It's good.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Research. It's good.
[/QUOT
However, completely dependent on source.

 

[BuzzH]

Research. It's good.

Yes it is...who was it again that brought us the mulford act? Oh yeah uncle Ronnie...same guy touting the Brady bill. Who was it that just banned bump stocks? Huh....strange. Remember when Bush Junior said "get the assault weapons ban to my desk and I'll resign it"...I do.


Speaking of which...who signed into law the ability to carry firearms in national parks and allow firearms on amtrak trains again...guy that runs by the name Obama.

That research...it's something...try it sometime.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The Great American Outdoors Act may be the most consequential environmental legislation signed into law during the Trump presidency, but it's also serving as a drag for Senate Republicans on a free-market energy group's latest ranking of energy votes.

Of the 28 Republican senators who voted for the bill, H.R. 1957, signed into law in August by President Trump, 25 received 67% scores on the voting scorecard released yesterday by the nonprofit American Energy Alliance (AEA).

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who replaced Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) in January and supported the bill, is not included on AEA's tally. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who backed the outdoors act but missed another key vote, received a 50%, while Sen. Susan Collins of Maine received a 33% score.

By contrast, the 25 Republicans who opposed the bill received perfect 100% scores from the group, which has financial ties to the Koch network and has long espoused free-market principles in energy and environmental policies.

This year's scorecard, which covers the 116th Congress, may be a reflection of the lack of Senate floor debate on major energy proposals.

AEA scored just three votes in the last two years: a vote on the Green New Deal, a Congressional Review Act challenge to the Trump administration's replacement for the Clean Power Plan and the Great American Outdoors Act.

But the lower scores awarded for nearly half of the GOP caucus represent a marked departure from the rankings for 2017-2018, when all Republican senators received perfect scores, save Collins, who got a 40%.

In the last Congress, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) received a zero percent score, but he resigned his seat early in 2017 to become Trump's first attorney general.

In this year's rankings, three moderate Democrats also received 67% scores: Alabama's Doug Jones, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The majority of Senate Democrats received scores of zero.

The effect of the Great American Outdoors Act was less pronounced in the House's scorecard for the last two years, which weighed 19 votes in total.

In a statement, AEA said the scorecard "is intended to highlight activity around the most important energy legislation in Congress" to lawmakers and voters.

"While the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, voters sure should be," AEA Director of Policy and Federal Affairs Kenny Stein said.

"If you represent a district or state that produces traditional forms energy like coal, natural gas or oil, your constituents deserve to know your record when it comes to those important local industries," Stein said. "We thank our champions and encourage voters to take their member's record on energy into account when it's time to cast their ballots."

Interesting...thanks for posting this.

 

[mevertsen]

Also seems obvious which party is responsible for the current ideas about “public land transfer, sell off, and elimination”

What good are your guns without land to use them on?

This one gets me.

Guns are protected in the constitution for defense, not hunting.

My guns are good for defending my family from tyranny. hunting is a by product of that right.

The flip side of that coin is the right wants a significant portion of the country to be under private control, and I dont have the money to buy a large enough chunk of land to hunt on.

For me the there is balance in the middle.

Leave my guns alone.
Use our resources is as sustainable manner as possible.
Allow for public access and multiple use of all lands.

Problem is there is no party platform that puts out all three.

The left wants all the land "protected" and would rather you and i didn't touch it at all and stayed in our socialistic designed flats.

And the right wants to buy it all for material and monetary gain and put a fence around it all, environment be damned.

Although, the gold mine near me is putting up a significant amount of money for habitat remediation, which is underway right now. PJ thinning, cheat grass killing, and desirable plant planting on several thousand acres of BLM land.

A good compromise IMO.

 

[Dabyrd75]

Probably one of my most frustrating hunts. Grouse everywhere, but due to the "no open fire" restrictions of my film permit (which I agree with given how dry it is), I had no way to cook them. So all the grouse were granted a pass, as none of them appeared the last day when I could have skinned and brought them home.

How bad was the smoke?

 

[noharleyyet]

Research..how it works

 

[Sytes]

Research..how it works for Hunt Talk members

 

[BrentD]

Research..how it works
View attachment 154317

NOW I understand why your handle is "noharleyyet"... How many Stratocasters, Fenders, Martins, or Ovations does it take to buy a bike?