Should conservatives boycott advertisers of liberal shows like Rachel Maddow since liberals are boycotting advertisers of conservative shows?
If they wish, that is their right. Boycotts such as these often accomplish more through the media attention they generate than any long-term effect on the revenue of the businesses involved.Though true believers on both sides will not admit it, shows like Hannity and Maddow serve mostly as rah-rah, cheerleading groups for each side and promote confirmation bias and encourage outrage. Zeal, however fomented, is the fuel of ideological loyalty and extremism. Naturally, such shows will receive the most vocal criticism from the opposition.That said, in my opinion Fox News commentators are guilty of more factual errors along with their bias, and MSNBC commentators have less factual errors and rely more on spin. Still, if you desire to know the facts on an issue, listening to such commentators is not helpful. I couldn't care less who advertises during their shows, as I rarely watch them, and when I do it is for entertainment and not information, and John Oliver and Bill Maher are much better entertainers.
Why is the liberal media okay with corporate censorship?
The liberal media, in the sense of somewhat to the left side of liberalism, is okay with corporate censorship because they are liberal in the sense of liberalism the ideology, just like the conservative media.As liberals, they support capitalism, with some relatively minor quibblingExactly how unlimited should the ability of capital to act in its interest?Right-leaning liberals like Republicans generally advocate for few if any legal limits and left-leaning liberals like Democrats advocate for some legal limits.What sorts of corporate actions do we cheer about?The Blue Team cheers when Youtube bans gun demos and Infowars. The Red Team cheers* when Youtube demonetizes videos about LGBTQ issues or Facebook takes down nude images.And when media companies do things liberals don’t like, liberals act through the market. They use a different Facebook or YouTube or Google or contact advertisers. They write angry letters about positive coverage of the gays and global warming and cancel their newspaper subscriptions.Either way, the fundamental right of media corporations to seek profit, including by suppressing the speech of their users, is not just “okay” but actively defended.*I don’t actually know if the Red Team cheers about these specific things; I don’t really keep up with their team news and I don’t get the team newsletters. I tried searching “The Blaze” for social media news that Team Red is happy about and got the impression that they’re just generally not happy about anything.
Do US Supreme Court justices judge cases fairly?
That is a difficult question to answer without knowing what is meant by "fairly." A judgment by the Supreme Court reaches far beyond the litigants that stand before the court. The outcome as it affects the litigants may be subordinated to the impact a given decision will have on larger issues such as Federalism or law enforcement investigative practices. In terms of fairness, justice Scalia, with his at times slavish allegiance to originalism, may be amongst the fairest of the justices. He is not looking to his personal view of the litigation in front of him but, rather, he is looking to what he believes to be a consistent, objective standard by which to decide the case.Those Justices who look to a "living Constitution", I am sure would consider themselves fair in their adjudication of cases that come before the court. Somewhat paradoxically, this may be the least fair approach. Because, rather than refer to an external, somewhat objective measure as the originalists do, each justice applies its vision of how the Constitution should function today.Of course, the Constitution was drafted over 200 years ago. Yet it must function in the 21st century. The tension originates from the fact that Supreme Court justices are not elected. Short of impeachment, they are subject to no one. If there is no objective standard from which they operate, they become legislators who cannot be voted out by an unsatisfied electorate. On the other hand, to apply the Constitution in the 21st century, by limiting its meaning to that which was understood in the 18th century, would yield some very difficult, unfortunate and uncomfortable results. But would they be fair?
When does the democratic subculture control the outcome of cases in trial courts?
If anything other than “Never” is each answer of your question, then it would be a very sad day for America. Unfortunately, we've seen examples of this just recently with the results of the Liberal Judge shopping challenging Trump's recent temporary halt from several countries. Trump's actions, especially the latter one are fully within his Executive power as granted to him as President. However, activists on the bench have interfered and inserted their opinion when it wasn't their place to do so.
What, besides Roe versus Wade, is likely to be reversed by the very conservative Supreme Court?
I don’t think Roe v Wade will necessarily be overturned, although conservatives are creating a narrative of ‘bad decision’ so they may well. However, they certainly will defang it to the point it is virtually overturned.Equal protection will be widely excepted for ‘religious beliefs.’ Particularly against heterosexual binary genders, but in other areas as well. For example, the case where a state had to provide funding for a christian school playground construction. The fact that local boards use tax funds only for Christian churches and other churches are dismissed will be considered immaterial.Collective bargaining will continue to be reduced by cuts. Affirmation of forced arbitration in many more situations. (you know the terms and conditions you click ‘agree’ to to do anything. They will now be able to be enforced much more broadly.)States will be able to reintroduce laws that have not already been allowed to limit the voting of minorities/democratic populations. As long as the law does not SPECIFICALLY rule on race, it will be OK. I would very much not be surprised to see a ruling that democratic gerrymandering by party is illegal because it has the effect of discriminating against Christians (majority Republican voters) while saying republican gerrymandering is party based so is fine, even though it incidentally affects some groups.The court will go from conservative leaning which we have had since the 1930’s (with the exception of a very liberal anti-segregation court in the 1960’s) to a very conservative activist court.Net neutrality gone, and business can hide how they charge, as long as they don’t explicitly lie.The examples I gave are simply some of the things that the court has already begun to turn, it seems only reasonable to expect acceleration.
Why aren't U.S Presidents required to enforce laws and Supreme Court decisions?
They are, it's part of the oath of office. Some presidents just ignore the laws that they do not want to enforce. Obama ignored the immigration laws, but the Republicans were afraid to go after Americas first black president. Obama was able to get away with a lot of things that Trump will not simply because Trump is white. It is a sad fact that when things do not go a liberals way, he/she will shout RACIST from the hill tops. It tends to shut down the conversation. I have heard that the modern definition of a racist is when a conservative is winning an argument with a liberal. Sad, but largely true. Another law that Obama and now Trump are ignoring are the marijuana laws. Federal law trumps state law. All of the states that are now allowing their citizens to smoke MJ are in violation of federal law. Obama was a pot smoker so he did not care (read that as ignored the law) Now lets see what Trump does. He will either have to enforce federal law, change federal law, or ignore federal law.